Grace through faith

Eschatology: A great summary

2012-01-31T11:19:00.002+02:00

I found a really well-written article on the differing views on the end times here.
Please be aware - I am repeating things found at the original post. This is not my work.
In a nutshell, the author looks at the different approaches one may take to events:

Preterist: Belief that the event(s) (such as the tribulation) happened in the past.
Historicist: Belief that the event(s) happen throughout history.
Idealist: Belief that the event(s) are symbolic or parabolic and are always present.
Futurist: Belief that the event(s) are yet future.

Then he separates the three main events in the book of Revelation:

Tribulation - Matthew 24 & Revelation 4 - 19
Millennium - Revelation 20
The Second Coming and The New Creation - Revelation 21

And then he simply defines the differing positions by how they treat these three events:

Historic Premillennialist
Event #1: Tribulation: historicist, preterist, [futurist], or idealist
Event #2: Millennium: futurist
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist
Dispensational Premillennialist
Event #1: Tribulation: futurist
Event #2: Millennium: futurist
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist

Amillennialist
Event #1: Tribulation: historicist, preterist, or idealist
Event #2: Millennium: idealist (normally)
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist

Postmillennialist
Event #1: Tribulation: historicist, preterist, futurist, or idealist
Event #2: Millennium: historicist (normally)
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futurist

Partial-Preterism (considered orthodox Christianity)
Event #1: Tribulation: preterist
Event #2: Millennium: preterist
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: futuristic (believes Christ came in Judgement, but that this was not the 'Second coming')

Full-Preterism (considered heterodox by orthodox Christianity)
Event #1: Tribulation: preterist
Event #2: Millennium: preterist
Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: preterist [this is the heresy]

Well, I thought it was helpful! I then put this data into a table:

POSITION / EVENT	Tribulation	Millenium	Second Coming
Historic Premillenialist	H, P, [F], I	F	F
Dispensational Premillenailist	F	F	F
Amillenialist	H, P, I	I	F
Postmillenialist	H, P, F, I	H	F
Partial Preterist	P	P	F
Hyper Preterist	P	P	P*

Key:

KEY	TERM
H	Historicist
P	Preterist
F	Futurist
I	Idealist
*	Outside of the orthodox teaching of scripture

Hollywood is not dying, they are just greedy

2012-01-30T10:09:00.001+02:00

The following infographic is very eye-opneing, espcially with my whole 'voting with your wallet' scenario. Click the image to got to the orignal site.

I never knew studios got back from rentals. That makes me glum. That means whenever you rent, buy, legally watch a movie you are voting with your wallet. I was hoping that there was a legal way to watch a movie without voting with my wallet. But God is more important than entertainment by far!

Self-destruction is probably not a good thing

2012-01-18T15:39:00.000+02:00

The ultimate problem causing the whole SOPA thing is that people are possessed by entertainment. Christians ought to be able to rise above this. (NOTE: I know that SOPA is not just about downloading movies, it's all about content, but if you can't think that this is originating from hollywood, then please go back to your own planet)

I have found it rather strange watching anti-piracy clips they add onto DVD's. With no moral rule on which to place people, they have to go with "Piracy is crime, so don't do it." The people have responded: "You don't really do anything about it, so we don't care."

And this is valid - the very system that shoots down any kind of moral absolute is now trying to get people to behave themselves. @Hollywood - You glorify in that people can believe whatever they want, yet NOW you have an issue with people stealing your stuff? Shame on you!

Stealing is wrong, plain and simple. God's law says that if you obtain anything unlawfully you are sinning and must repent. This includes the downloading of entertainment. If you are a Christian and you do it you must repent now. There is no exception here. There is nothing to argue about. Here are some of the classics (with the response for free):

1. Hollywood actors earn to much
A three part response here:

Supply and demand - people do pay for it, and so the price goes up with demand (I am sure I have the pirates smiling now - please read the next response).
Too bad! You don't steal it! God said no, so you will listen. THERE IS NO justifiable excuse - it took me 30 minutes with a non-Christian (going through all his excuses), and the only thing he could admit to was that it was stealing. He didn't care either.
There are other people being hurt. Believe it or not not all the money goes to the big-wigs and hollywood directors. What about the guy who designed the poster? played the guitar for a musical piece? There are actually a lot of expenses in the industry that must be paid for!

2. I got so bored with this I am giving you the response to any other argument right here
God said no stealing. It is not right to get something you didn't pay for. That's it. You can come up with a thousand excuses but you cannot break me on this one. At the moment, it is illegal. If you are a Christian, you should have a Spirit within you that abhors sin. You can live with less of their filth anyway.

But anyway, back to my main line - evil is self-destructive. I read this post on why this guy is a pirate and I have to admit, he makes a good point. There are many factors here, but the end of it all is that I am smiling. Why am I smiling? The industry that blasphemes the name of my Lord is being destroyed by the very morals it has spent years eroding, and the dam is about to burst. I am glad to have a seat, I think I'll even make some popcorn.

Oh, and then there is this article - http://torrentfreak.com/while-drafting-sopa-us-house-harbors-bittorrent-pirates-111226/. Watching the world burn.

An award winning documentary

2011-12-05T17:10:00.001+02:00

This is really worth the watch. It says 'award winning' so I guess you HAVE to watch it now :) They never say what awards...

Movies

2011-07-05T21:35:00.003+02:00

To all who care - I have updated the movies link on the sidebar of the blog.

You can and do control Hollywood. Each time you participate with your money you are casting a vote for a movie and ALL that it contains. Can you imagine if all professing Christians actually took a realistic stand to say "We will not watch movies that blaspheme our Lord"

Do you really think they'll continue if even the PROFESSING Christians stopped. I'm not asking you to evangelise - I'm not asking you to become a calvinist. I'm asking you to stand up and be counted.

WHY OH WHY DO I STAND HERE AND CRY OUT TO THE DARK!!! WHO HEARS MY WORDS? WHAT GOOD IS ANY OF THIS IF YOU DO NOT STOP LISTENING AND START hearing??

Does anyone care for the name of their Lord? It's amazing how we boycott abortion and attack gay rights, but when we invite the enemy into our homes, lives and minds and then we wonder where all these things came from! I am taking my stand against the entertainment of the age.

He's back and he's complaining again!

2011-07-05T21:23:00.004+02:00

[This is a blog post of what is going through my mind and is actually me talking to myself. I think it may be beneficial to Christians.]

Where is your backbone? Are you trying to be AS HOLY AS POSSIBLE TO PLEASE YOUR LORD? Or are you attempting to walk the line of ungodliness so finely that people would not even recognize you as a Christian?

Again? You had to speak to someone AGAIN about getting television? You really want one don't you? You know that TV has SO MANY bad aspects Porn, Violence, Blasphemy and ADVERTISEMENTS (worst of all because they are subliminal in a sense PLUS they get straight to the point).

You are prepared not to sleep around or with your girlfriend / finacee. You try your best to avoid places of ill-repute. You block all of these things outside your home and then you invite them in to come entertain you? "I can switch it off" you say - but you don't. You don't even control yourself NOW - how much better will you be with a television pumping 'entertainment' on the screen 24/7?

You are a sinner - nothing will change that until glory - and yet I feel that by getting a TV I will give flesh more opportuntity. TV affects so many lives... just look at the expressions people use - can anyone really say that TV has not affected them. If you have ever said 'Legendary' as an explative you are GUILTY! Guilty of allowing television to affect your behaviour - and you think it will not lead you into temptation - do you not pray to be not be lead into temptaion?

Oh horrid flesh! May I seek the Lord all my days - I hate the evil of this world.

The evidence of a fool

2011-05-21T15:38:00.002+02:00

Here's a prophecy for you: The only thing disappearing on the 21st of May 2011 at 18:00 is this website and it's affiliates.

What Qualifies Mr. Camping to make the pronouncement of May 21, 2011?

Mr. Camping has been a tireless student of the Bible for over five decades. The tens of thousands of hours he has spent analyzing the Bible has given him a unique perspective of the entirety of Scripture. He has dedicated his life to prepare himself to answer questions raised concerning God's Word to man.[REF]

Please click on the reference - and please show me one bible verse or reference or actual accurate calculation. I wouldn't be surprised if this man is actually an atheist (or some other wrong religion - which is all other religions) trying to discredit the bible by making himself look like an idiot.

I have to come to terms with the fact that the media is in fact out to mock the name of Christ. Lord, give me strength. At least Ray McCauly also agrees with me.

Oh that the Lord would come and end the suffering of His people - how long oh Lord? Please come quickly!

Struggling with forgiveness?

2011-05-06T10:00:00.000+02:00

Is the mention of someone's name enough to get you gossiping or thinking bad about them? I know many people who have this problem with another person. If this is you - you are a sinner and are required by God to repent! But how do we repent? I would like to give you a practical example that comes from our Lord.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. [Matthew 6:19-21]

I was listening through an exegesis of this text recently - and I was wonderfully awestuck by the significance of this text. A man preached once that there are levels of bible teaching, and the deeper you dig into the verse the closer you get to true worship. I agree.

The verse above is about your ultimate treasure - that is abundantly clear - but does it mean we have no treasure here on earth? I would say no - we have things that are dear to us - and it is right to "treasure" these things as long as it is not our ultimate goal in existance, and we put God first.

So how does this verse help us with forgiveness? Well, like I said, we all have earthly treasure, and it is not supposed to be our ultimate treasure. The best way to PROVE your Christ-likeness is to give up that which is earthly for that which is heavenly, i.e. forgiveness.

If you have an issue with someone - that you seemingly cannot get over - give them something of value to you. Go into your house, find something that you value bring it out and give it to them as a gift. Or give them a portion of your money. Do this ESPECIALLY if they have wronged you. Tell them why you are doing it.

Let me tell you from personal experience - this really works. By investing your treasure into someone you do not like will immediately change your perspective of them. You will get over it by the grace of God in this act. At first I did not think this would work, but I thought I would try it for righteousness sake, and boy, what a blessing!

RANTS in my pants

2011-04-20T12:58:00.004+02:00

NOTE – SENSITIVE PEOPLE AND CHILDREN SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THE LINKS BECAUSE THERE ARE IMAGES OF A SEXUAL NATURE

I just read about how ‘Christians’ and ‘South Africans in general’ are reacting to some trashy song and quite frankly – these people don’t have a clue. [BE CAREFUL: REFERENCE – Read the comments]

For years the movie industry has been blaspheming the most beautiful name of Jesus Christ, whom is the Lord and Saviour for sinners, and people turn nothing but a blind eye. However, now that a song comes out and just happens to revolve around it, they have a problem.

HOW DARE CHRISTIANS REACT NOW? How many movies do you go to where the actors are screaming your "Lord and Saviours'" name in vain? You PAY these people to do what they do and NOW you have something to say? This is the secular world people!

More than once a week - "Christians" are paying to see movies and watch TV shows (at least they should be paying - but I know a lot who do not) where their supposed "Lord's" name is dragged through the mud. Please, if you were really offended, this reaction should've happened a long time ago.

To be quite frank these ‘Christians’ make me sick – they behave no better than the world, and yet now they are given the opportunity to complain, so they do it. They steal (and anyone who does not pay for TV series and DVDs is a THIEF and needs to REPENT) and they watch all the same movies as the world (which is actually allowing yourself to be influenced by the world) and NOW they complain. Where was the complaint about Hancock? Where was the complaint about “How I met your mother”?

I had to stop listening to “bicycle race” by Queen because I find it too scary a thought to allow blasphemy to be enjoyed as even part of a song. Will the REAL Christians please stand up!

The Bible

2011-04-05T10:56:00.002+02:00

I am so grateful for the bible. A book inspired and protected by God as His word to us. I am thankful that there is a solid foundation on which to base my faith, and that I can face the world knowing that there IS a standard.

Lord, I would be lost without Your word.

I love to tell the story

2011-03-17T07:39:00.005+02:00

What is your story of grace? How does God look after you? I really had such a chance to ponder that this week. I had an amazing experience, and I know it's long winded, but..

I love to tell the story,
'twill be my theme in glory,
to tell the old, old story
of Jesus and his love.
[READ THE FULL HYMN]

That's the song that is currently stuck in my head. I have been blessed by the grace of my Lord.

Monday morning was a really rainy one. It was completely unseasonal and I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning. I thought of sleeping in, but if I get to work early I can get some work done on my PhD, something I really need to finish. To top it all off the lights were out.

I really just wanted to sleep in. "Where is the winning attitude?" I thought to myself "How are you going to get the PhD if you are never going to sit down and do it?" I got up, determined. I couldn't even see my toothbrush to put toothpaste but by this point nothing could deter me.

I got ready and left at around 6am. I was driving along the wet roads were I did not even see the pothole filled with water looking like the rest of the wet road. As most people I hoped everything was ok and carried on driving, until I started noticing I was losing traction.

Now my battery had been giving me problems since I left my lights on (it was an old battery and needed replacing anyway), but the long and short of it is that I can't start my car without a push / bump start, so I stopped at a stop street but did not turn the car off just in case.

I sat there for about 10 minutes and then decided that I would cause too much traffic if I sat there, so I tried to move the car. The car moved so slowly and sluggishly, I couldn't believe how bad it was. I managed to get to corners away and stop in the entrance to a bus stop.

And there I sat, around 6:30 in the morning with nothing but my cell phone, which failed to charge due to the power failure the night before. So with little charge I called my fiance and asked her to try and sort out a tow truck. I also tried to use the GPS device to find a towing company. I started to pray.

My fiance found a number, and they told me they would charge R1000 (+-$140) to tow me 5km down the road. This was distressing, but I accepted. They also told me they would only accept cash and so they would take me to an ATM first. So much for helping people.

So I was sitting there waiting watching traffic go by, thankful that at least I would be on my way. An hour later the towing company called and asked if I had sorted myself out yet. "What?!?" was my response. They then dispatched the driver. I had nothing else, so I waited once more.

I eventually got out of the car to check the damage - I had hit the pot hole so badly I had destroyed 2 tyres.

Then this guy walks off of the street and tells me he works for a place that sells tyres, and he could go check if they have stock of my tyre. I thought that this might be an off proposition, but then again, the towing company isn't doing me any favours, so I agreed. 10 Minutes later he said they had my tyres in stock, they would charge R600 ($84) per tyre and they would change it on the spot. I was thrilled. I agreed.

I cried in the car because I was so overwhelmed with the grace of God. I wished I had more faith. God is so good to me.

Turns out this guy works for a company that changes tyres on the fly - they will drive out to you with their van and change your tyres. Awesome! So he gets busy...

Only to find that 3/4 bolts have been stripped on the one tyre, the 4th broken completely. So I had to drive very carefully to the garage down the road to get that sorted out. But I switched my car off and have a battery problem...

The car just started, once again a sign of grace. We fixed the wheel with two nuts and I was very careful, and got to the garage. To cut a longer story shorter I got the car repaired. I am thankful that God was there with me and really helped me out. I am so grateful that I have a story like David:

"And David said, 'The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.' And Saul said to David, 'Go, and may the LORD be with you.'" [1 Samuel 17:37]

Perserverance of the blog

2011-03-15T07:27:00.001+02:00

Has it really been so long since I blogged? Why is there dust on this thing!

I am so sorry about this - not to anyone in particular, but just because I really enjoy blogging. I have noticed that very few blogs have kept themselves up and running as well, I need to update my blogroll.

My life has made some changes in the past few years:
1. I am engaged! Believe it or not... I think the relationship definitely took a lot of time (as it must do) - but I think I am ready for blogging again. The lady I am engaged to is my co-blogger on this blog (she blogged once or twice, she might start up again)
2. I changed jobs - FINALLY! I am not a lecturer anymore. I was getting so frustrated, not really the fault of the University, but then again,,,
3. I moved out of my parents house: A good spiritual move for me - learning a lot.
4. My theology has not changed. This blog has actually been a real help to me. I am so glad to have my thoughts written down.
5. I started other blogs. I will continue to blog here, but I will also blog about other aspects on the other blogs.

I am still here and the Lord is blessing me greatly - I wish for this blog to continue for a long time and I have several things I wish to write on. God has been so awesome to me in the past years and I can't wait to tell the story!

God bless and I hope you are all still out there :)

There are tears on my inbox...

2009-12-26T16:25:00.002+02:00

"...For God so loved the world, that He sent His only son, so that whomever [forwards religious emails] may not perish, but have eternal life..."

Jesus died over 2000 years ago.
Nobody has ever referred to him as the late Jesus,
not even the heathens.
Nowhere in history.
Nowhere has He EVER been referred to in past tense!
He is the Living God!
97% OF YOU WON'T FORWARD THIS MESSAGE,
When Jesus died on the cross He was thinking of you!
If you are one of the 3% who will stand up for Him, forward this.

"May God Smile at You Today"

Just one thing - Jesus is never late - He is always there when you need Him.

My Eschatelogical Woes: The Rapture

2009-05-18T10:26:00.005+02:00

I have finished with Matthew 24. So far I am in favor of a post-millennial view of revelation. There are several reasons why I like this view:

It places Christ on the throne now, giving Him the authority He claimed to have at the end of Matthew [Matthew 28:18]
It means that the church through Christ will ultimately prevail, making me an optimistic person in times of seeming hardship
If the church is to succeed, it will be with the gospel. This makes Pauls statement that the gospel is 'the power of God unto salvation' [Romans 1:16] is true, because people will be saved
It presents consistency between periods of time. A long period at revelation 20 rather than at the beginning of Revelation 4 ('thousand years'¹ versus 'after this' [Rev 4:1])

I still have some issues and I am afraid that English translations of the bible are not quite what they should be. Either that or I need to improve my Greek. Probably both. What was really peeling my onion this week was the issue of the rapture. The rapture is not found in Matthew 24, but it is mentioned by Luke and Paul:

⁹And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. ¹⁰And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,¹¹and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."[Acts 1:9-11]

"¹⁶For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." [1 Thessalonians 4:16-17]

This clearly speaks of a personal coming of the Lord. But wait... there is some devil in this detail. The very argument I use in Matthew 24 can be used against me: This passage is using personal pronouns. Now the dispensationalist will say: "You see that personal pronouns can be used with future intentions, since we know that Paul was beheaded, so he could not have been talking about himself." Well... not really. Personal pronouns are personal. But could this one be different from the usage in Matthew 24? Well, if it's the same we have a real hermeneutical problem, because in the one context we have Jesus speaking to His disciples on a hill, in the next we have Paul writing a letter to Thessonalica.

If I said "we humans landed on the moon" I would be correct in saying so, but to assume that I personally have landed on the moon would be a mistake in interpretation (as implied by the structure). Is that the case with the rapture? Do I convert to a premillenial view because a personal pronoun dictates that it must be a future 'we?' Well, no, that would be stupid because words start losing their literal meaning. The fact of the matter is that the 'we' is qualified as to whom it belongs: "who are alive [and] remain." This indicates that Paul himself didn't expect to see it, although it was probably his hope. His audience becomes the believers everywhere and everywhen. He even exorts us to 'comfort one another with these words (verse 18).' It is an instruction of hope, that we can tell other members of the Christian faith.

A premillenial view isn't the only one that has a future sight of the rapture. But the order of this rapture is very important. Some say that this connects to Matthew 24, but it doesn't. The context of the rature is the ressurection of the dead. There is no ressurection of the dead in the Olivet Discourse. Premillenialists seem to believe in a 'secret rapture' where no one will see Jesus. They must be deafened first to miss the trumpeting.

I'll leave it there for now. God bless and keep well!

¹ I would rather be accused of taking the 'thousand years' to mean a long period of time that 'after.' Please note that in the Greek, much like English, a prefix would usually indicate numeracy, meaning that this actually does not mean one thousand.

Matthew 24 follow up

2009-05-18T09:06:00.005+02:00

Matthew 24, as previously discussed, deals with events that are clearly prior to 70 C.E. Most people have a problem when it gets down to the events that are predicted in Matthew. The first thing we need to consider is the audience:

"See that no one leads you astray"[Matthew 24:4]

Clearly, in this first section (at least) Jesus refers to the disciples, he starts off with things that they are to not identify the coming of the end of the age by:

Many will come in His name claiming to be Christ
The disciples will hear of wars and rumors of wars
Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom
Famines and earthquakes in various places

All these things do not mark the beginning of anything. That is what Christ is saying. He says this will lead to the 'sign of His coming' and the 'end of the age:'

'They' will deliver the disciples up to tribulation and put them to death
The disciples will be hated by all nations for Christ's name's sake
Many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another.
And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
The love of many will grow cold.
And the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

At this point most people from the popular view will argue that their hermeneutic is scriptural because the gospel has not been preached in the whole world, and that will usher in the tribulation, rapture and millennial reign of Christ. Wrong! That hermeneutic will lead to read this verse first, lean on your own understanding, and then re-read the passage with 'futurist' eyes just because you think 'world' means something it actually does not.

The term 'world' here is the Greek word 'oikoumenē', which means 'land.' [SOURCE] It does not refer to every person on the planet literally hearing the gospel. Even if you believe it that way, try reconciling this:

"...the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing—as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth," [Colossians 1:5-6]

The bible points to the fulfillment of Jesus' words in Matthew 24.

Then some people will argue that Matthew 24 splits up the end of the age and the second coming of Christ. This is generally due to the fact that Jesus says "...so will be the coming of the Son of Man" in verse 37. Or does did Jesus come in Judgment in C.E. 70? I think He did. The reason is

"³⁶But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. ³⁷For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [Matthew 24:]

My argument is that Jesus came in judgment of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. I believe that the second coming is not taught in Matthew 24, but in other places of scripture, which I need to address.

The Secret

2009-05-18T08:54:00.005+02:00

Hi,

I am a fairly new member of the Christian society and I am still on my path of discovering what my absolute convictions in regards to theology are. Some people would label me as a liberal though I would describe myself as someone who is open to new ideas and opinions whether it be conservative or liberal. I am still very easily influenced and can easily be misled by wrong teachings.

The church that I am attending right now can be categorized as semi-charismatic/liberal. Last night in church our guest reverend hosted a discussion on the book "The Secret". This book has created a stir around the world and has been read by millions of people. For those who like me don't know what "The Secret" is here is just a quick explanation: The Secret revolves around the concept of "the law of attraction." Basically, you attract everything in your life to you whether it be good things or bad things. Successful people attract success. According to the the book this law is the sovereign power of the universe. You can not escape from it thus you must learn how to use it to your own advantage. By means of your mind you can learn how to control this law. You are your own destiny. That in short is The Secret.

Now, the reverend did not push for us to believe The Secret he just compared it to the bible and pointed out the good points and the bad points. At the end of the day it is up to you to decide if you want to believe in this or not. But what upsets me is why are we having an entire sermon about this?? If I had known what the sermon was going to be about I would have stayed at home.I went to church to receive a message. To learn something.To be humbled. To learn more about God. To prepare myself for this week.I did not go to church to have a book discussion. I feel that the church has far more important things to do than to waste an entire sermon on this. The first 50 minutes was devoted to the book with the last 10 minutes or so focusing on God and how we should give him control over our lives, how we can not be in control. I am sorry but the message was completely lost on me. Maybe I am overreacting but I truly feel my time was wasted.

Guest Author

2009-05-18T08:51:00.002+02:00

I have a friend at work who wishes to express herself theologically every now and then. Thus I have invited Nelmari to be a guest blogger on gthruf. She is liberal and hates to be tied down to labels (hehehe...). I do not necessarily agree with her on all matters of theology, in fact I know I don't, but it will be nice to be bouncing some other idea's around the table.

Calvinism Number 3 in top 10 World Changing Ideas

2009-05-09T16:52:00.003+02:00

I heard of this a while ago, but I never thought to actually link to it. But I have some time so it is worth mentioning. Time magazine is busy publishing the top ten of everything, one of them is "Ideas Changing the World Right Now." Who would have expected calvinism to even have entered their minds, let alone win the bronze?

"Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision." [Source]

'Amoritality' came in fifth:

"Amortality is a stranger, stronger alchemy, created by the intersection of that trend with a massive increase in life expectancy and a deep decline in the influence of organized religion — all viewed through the blue haze of Viagra....The defining characteristic of amortality is to live in the same way, at the same pitch, doing and consuming much the same things, from late teens right up until death."[Source]

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it now can you? It seems that while religion makes a difference, it does not necessarily make a difference to every single person.

Of course, not all religion is the same.

The Lord's Prayer (Part 1)

2009-05-08T12:45:00.003+02:00

The Lord's prayer is a topic of my study at the moment. I found that both prayer and bible study where waning, so I decided, in my usual lazy fashion, to combine the two. What a fantastic blessing it has been. Already my prayers are longer (not that it matters, but if we don't have much to say to our Lord and Father, we just can't say we love Him that much) and I feel genuine in prayer again.

I am reading the texts every day (Matthew 6 and Luke 11) as well as J.I. Packers "Praying the Lords Prayer". I am getting so much out of it that I think blogging can only make it better and further my depth.

Prayer is such an important aspect I'm not even going to delve into the text first, I want to get the context. The same prayer is given in two different contexts, so determining whether they were given at the sime time is not actually possible. I would say that although these texts are parallel, their contexts are not.

In Matthew 6 , Jesus is giving the famous sermon on the mount. He is giving instructions on Godly living before our common creator, right before prayer, he talks about giving to the needy, he connects the idea of giving and prayer in that both can be done far more humbly than what the religious leaders etc. of the day where doing. Twice in the text the phrase " And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

Now Jesus did not give us a personal prayer, He actually gave us a group prayer. "Our Father..." which will be expounded later, but this supposes that we are not always to lock ourselves away, but that, appropriately, prayer must be done in a group.

In Luke 11, the sequence is heavily disconnected. I would assume that the preceding chapter is not tied to this chapter. We have a story of Mary and Martha, chapter 11 beginning with the disciples asking Him to teach them to pray. They must have seen the difference to the way Jesus prayed from the pharisees, but also noticed a similarity from John (the baptist?). In this context the disciples innitiate Jesus speaking of prayer as a result of seeing Him pray.

Prayer is our communication mechanism with God, it is not to be taken lightly. To not pray is to decidedly turn our back on our God. And it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. I think one of the main reasons I fall so easy is that I do not hold on to God as fast as I should in terms of prayer.

Wallowing in our Abundance

2009-03-26T16:15:00.003+02:00

I wonder if we have lost our way as a Christian community over the years. Has not our focus shifted to such a degree that we do minor things as if they were larger things. Do we focus too much on the things that should come last, first?

My concern is over service. I wonder how many people could actually be considered as minsters of God. My concern is growing over the matter or proper service. Is what we do for God's sake actually pleasing to Him? My concern is not over salvation (though my concern here is great), but rather over the far more important issue of glorifying God in the correct manner.

"¹⁰ According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. ¹¹For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹²Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— ¹³ each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. ¹⁴If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. ¹⁵If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." 1 Corinthians 3:15

One has to wonder if the work one does actually glorifies God. Are the 'ministries' that we are involving ourselves in the most effective in proving our love for God, but also obeying the commands laid out for us by God?

I have grown weary lately of menial and nominal service. Things that occupy my time in the name of God but for which I see no purpose in the kingdom of God. I cannot see how some surfer playing the guitar for a crowd of misbehaving teenagers glorifies God by merely having lyrics which may or may not be directed towards the heavens.

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the orphan, cry with the weary, visit the sick. These are things for which no skill is required, the most basic of things and in the kingdom of God the most important. But how many of us have grown comfortable arranging camps, singing in choirs or playing an instrument? What would Jesus say? Do you really think that Jesus was speaking into the air when He said that He had not come for the righteous, but for the unrighteous?

I was called a hypocrite the other day, and I started thinking that it was a righteous complaint. It's so easy to serve when it costs us nothing and perhaps even gains us a bit of glory. But it is astonishing to think how empty the real ministries are. Do we have gain in heaven? For choirs and bands? Or are we serving Him when we get down, so that people will look up and see Him?

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this:(A) to visit(B) orphans and widows in their affliction, and(C) to keep oneself(D) unstained from the world." James 1:27

Calvinist's heads roll first

2009-03-11T17:30:00.006+02:00

The economic crisis is no joke, it is here to stay and lay-offs are definitely on the way. But by what rules do people lose their jobs? At South Western Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS), they are ahead of the rest of the world: Let's fire the Calvinists first! [ARTICLE]

"I will say ... that Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, 'Christ died for your sins.'"

Ding ding ding! Round 399! Calvinists and Arminians have been debating the nature of the atonement since the remonstrance in 1610. The battle boils down to: Did Christ provide the means of salvation for man by man's own volition on the cross, or did Christ actually save people by going to the cross (thereby requiring God to cause a sinner to repent)? The former being the Arminian perspective, the latter being the Calvinist perspective. (Thanks Mike for the correction)

Regardless of the debate, I have to admit that it is rather upsetting being of the persecuted camp here. Losing your job over theology. Very dodgy ground politically. I also wonder how the situation got to be like this in the first place. I also wonder what the reaction would be had the situation been reversed.

My mind is pretty skewed at the moment. I would ask readers top see past the theology and to the implications of Calvinist and Arminian pastors working together in one building. I work with Arminians all day (even some just plain nominal Christians), but of course my bread and butter does not hinge on theology. I guess the debates that go on must be quite edifying as long as both parties are willing to disagree agreeably.

Why I love John Piper

2009-03-04T12:08:00.002+02:00

⁷ Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.[Hebrews 13:7]

John Piper is a man truly concerned for the salvation of souls. Not one of his books have I read to find an agenda. Granted, there are other men like this, but John Piper is ahead of the crowd.

Why? Because at least some of his books are free. And they are not hard to find either. I downloaded on just to see the quality and content of one and I am more encouraged than ever. Also his sermons are free as well. It is so hard to grasp that in this day and age that as part of their ministry they will host the files and still offer them for free.

Not only are his sermon transcripts available, but the audio files as well. A web site so well deserving of it's name, can be found at [http://www.desiringgod.org]

The Olivet Discourse Part 2: Conclusion

2009-03-03T17:53:00.004+02:00

I have had this post in my head for some time. I hope it will be short... But maybe not.

We saw last time that Jesus was looking at the temple when He predicted it's downfall. We know for a fact that 70 years later this prediction came to pass. We saw that three questions were asked:

Matthew: "When will the destruction occur and what will be the sign of your coming and the sign of the end?"
Mark: "When will the destruction start and in what manner will it end?"
Luke: "When will the destrcution start and what will that look like?"

Now it becomes difficult (as we saw) to take one gospel and come to a conclusion. That is, until we look at the answer Jesus gives. We need to have the question in our minds: Does Jesus in Matthew's gospel have anything extra to say? This is of course if we assume that Jesus really is predicting the end of the world.

The answer is no. Jesus' answer is pretty much the same in all three synoptic gospels. That means he cannot be predicting the end of the world, based on the fact that He is not answering that question in the other two gospels. We have to say that the disciples were expecting a change of 'age' and not the end of the world.

The next question is: did the age change? Yes it did. We went from old testament to new testament. But the end is not given in the gospels. Only the fall of Jerusalem was predicted in Matthew, Mark and Luke. The judgement coming of Christ on that land happened in CE 70.

Before you run off thinking I am a preterist, please note this: I do not think that Matthew 24 (or Mark or Luke) have much to do with Revelation. I agree with preterists in their interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, but I am weary to agree that it is connected to Revelation. That should whet our appetites before we jump into the final book of the New Testament. God bless!

Woman's roles (in the CHURCH)

2009-03-03T09:45:00.004+02:00

A friend asked me what the bible said about woman's roles. Now someone else wanted to know. So I am putting part of the email I wrote in this blog.

The bible says woman are evil. They won't even be in heaven (Revelation 8:1)

HAHAHA Just kidding!!!! Phew!
Ok seriously.

The main text for the role of woman in church is given in 1 Tim 2:8-15:

"I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarrelling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." 1 Tim 2:8-15

Now speak to any female pastor on this text and ALL OF A SUDDEN they will teach you some solid hermeneutics (art/science of interpretation) - "Ah, but it was written in a different culture and time!" That is very true. So why do the conservatives insist that this verse is non-cultural but 1 Thess 5:26 IS a cultural verse? CONTEXT. The REASON that Paul gives is counter-cultural: because EVE was deceived and became a transgressor. That was 4000 years before Paul's culture. The context of the verse takes it out of the cultural bias argument.

Just a side note for a cool lesson in Genesis. The curse of the woman is "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Gen 3:16) Part of the curse is that her 'desire will be for the husband' - that doesn't mean she wants to be with him, rather that she wants his position. Part of the CURSE in Genesis is that woman will want to be in man's role, but he will rule over her.

But before we get fundamentalist and start saying that woman cannot have ANY authority, let's get it straight. It's authority over a man in church. The letter to Timothy is a PASTORAL epistle, written to a leader of a CHURCH. In the conservative opinion (which I follow because it is the biblical opinion), woman may teach woman and children (Titus 2:1-6). It is where there are grown men that woman are not given a position of scriptural authority.

"But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behaviour, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled."
Titus 2:1-6

Now why does he say "working at home?" CONTEXT in king yet again. While some might take it literally, no one in our church condemns a woman working outside. What Paul is saying is not a direct commandment from God, unlike 1 Tim 2. What is he saying then? Well, in Jewish culture (and most of Gentile culture in those days) the woman would stay at home. So Christian wives are to make themselves USEFUL. Don't just sit on your butt and watch the candles burn down! 'Don't be a lazy wife' is the instruction there.

If you were to ask me "Are men and women equal?" I would say no. But that does not raise the one above the other. This is not a mathematical operation. Men and Women have different roles on earth that compliment one another. I am a complimentarian.

UPDATE 5 MARCH 2009: Here are some additional links:
Got questions: Woman Pastors
CARM: Q&A on Woman Pastors

The Olivet Discourse Part 1

2009-01-21T19:13:00.004+02:00

I recommend you read Matthew 23 and 24 for yourself before reading this blog. I think you'll get the best out if you do.

Talk to a preterist about the eschaton and they will invariably take you to the olivet discourse. Talk to a pre-millenailist about preterism and they will go on and on about the words 'generation' and 'world.' The fact is that the olivet discourse is an important text, since Jesus himself is making a prophetic utterance. In addition, the disciples as a very important question.

We begin where Jesus has just left the temple proclaiming seven (or 8) "woes" upon the Pharasees. He has issued them with some harsh judgement and left them with these words: "See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

¹Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. ²But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
[Matthew 25]

This happened in CE 70. There is no question in history or in anyone's mind that Jesus is predicting something that happened within a generation (40 years) of here. Take note of a few things:

He is looking down on Jerusalem
He is talking directly to the disciples

No one scholar dares to try and make symbols out of these words. They happened in such a manner that it was fulfilled directly and precisely. It turns out that when Titus sacked Jerusalem in CE 70 the flames roared so fiercely that it melted the gold on the temple. The gold then ran through the cracks of the bricks and when the Roman soldiers came to plunder, had to render each brick separate from another [REF].

³As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the [world]?"
[Matthew 24:3]

Huh? What kind of a question is that? I can understand the first part, to ask when these things will be (Matthew 23-here), but to ask when the end of the world will be? Who mentioned the end of the world? The honest answer is no one did. This is where pre-millennialism starts, and it makes me sick. [Tyrell] makes a good point when we look at how an author uses a word, but what is shocking is that most translations do not even translate this word properly.

You notice the square brackets in my quote of the text - academically that is saying I altered the original. I use an English Standard Translation, which actually uses the word "age" for world. Why is that so? Well, the Greek word, 'ahee-ohn' literally means:

"properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end)"
[Strongs Hebrew and Greek Dictionary]

Well, the definition, in this text, seems to be weighted towards 'age,' but we have to look at how the author uses this word. It's amazing to see that "The devil showed him all the kingdoms of the WORLD" and "you are the light of the WORLD" BOTH use the Greek word kos'-mos, which mean world far more than the current word. However, we have to keep in mind that the other uses of this word in Matthew tend towards 'world' as well.

"And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." [Matthew 12:32]
"and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels." [Matthew 13:39]
"So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous" Matthew 13:49

Every single verse is chock-full of apocalyptic language. It seems that we cannot escape the fact that Matthew has a lot to do with the end. But praise the Lord for cross references. We must be convinced from all scripture.

"Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?" [Mark 13:4]
And they asked him, "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"[Luke 21:7]

This is where things get interesting. The gospels of Mark and Luke do not ask when the end of the world / age will be at all. Just when the destruction will take place and the sign of it's accomplishment for Mark, or the sign of the beginnings (Luke). Mark asks "when will it start and HOW will it [the destruction] end?" Luke asks "when will it start and what will that look like?" The disciples are asking here when is it going to start, and how will we know when it is finished. The questions have nothing to do with the age or the world.

So lets compare the prophecies found in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Please click on [THIS LINK] to view the table of comparison I constructed.

Notice that they are all very similar, but one things stands out that MUST shout to the believer: Jesus seals EVERY prophecy with the words: "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." So we need to find out what "THIS GENERATION" means and then we have solved the TIMING issue. Then it's a matter or research to discover what the rest means.

I would like to add to this long post that these three texts are equally valid as the next. Where two agree they trump a possible re-definition of the third, where the third is vague. For example, you cannot support a pre-tribulational rapture from comparing these texts. The tribulation clearly comes before any 'rapture' texts. (I'm not sure I agree with rapture theology, today I'm feeling opposed...)

A story I like

2009-01-21T19:09:00.001+02:00

The analogy falls apart a bit, but it is a good story:

A preacher and an atheistic barber were once walking through the city slums. Said the barber to the preacher: "This is why I cannot believe in a God of love. If God was as kind as you say, He would not permit all this poverty, disease, and squalor. He would not allow these poor bums to be addicted to dope and other character-destroying habits. No, I cannot believe in a God who permits these things."

The minister was silent until they met a man who was especially unkempt and filthy. His hair was hanging down his neck and he had a half-inch of stubble on his face. Said the minister: "You must not be a very good barber because you wouldn't permit a man like that to continue living in this neighborhood without a haircut and shave." Indignantly the barber answered: "Why blame me for that man's condition? I can't help it that he is like that. He has never come in my shop; I could fix him up and make him look like a gentleman!"

Giving the barber a penetrating look, the minister said: "Then don't blame God for allowing the people to continue in their evil ways, when He is constantly inviting them to come and be saved." [SOURCE]

Revelation: Defence vs. Definition

2009-01-14T14:27:00.003+02:00

I have begun to dig into my revelation study. I think some points need to be made here: I am not looking for an excuse to believe what I think. I am looking for valid textual evidence from the text of scripture. If scripture does not prove it, then I will remain unswayed on the issue.

There is a difference between my approach and other approaches. Mine seems far more scientific. Please remember I am undoubtedly biased in my interpretation. I have my church to thank for that, and my history. Even though I do not know what my interpretation is, I am by far sure that I know what I am not.

I have listened to arguments on both sides and have decided to look at this myself. In addition, my interpretation will require revision, since I am blogging first and determining the whole of my eschatology last. I do this in order to prevent bias.

I will approach the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ in this manner: scripture and my hermeneutic. I wish to study key words, genres, history and geography that surround the text, keeping in mind that SCRIPTURE tells me the truth and anything else is subject to scripture. I am using the same technique I use to read Genesis that I use to read Revelation, without trying to add to or make incorrect inferences from the text, which is what I fear is going on altogether too much.

My defence versus definition approach is thus: I am determining my values regarding the eschaton from the beginning. I am fortunate enough in that no one has had any major impact on my view. This makes me far more able to be clear on the text than people who go in with too many pre-suppositions.

The beginning of my Eschatology

2009-01-13T15:35:00.004+02:00

I realized the other day I am being slow in fulfilling a vow I made to God. Two years ago I was asked to write a paper for a conference. I was not impressed with the request and rushed the writing. However, I was careful since I determined that I would use the paper as a chapter. The day I finished the first paper, I was asked to complete a second, summarizing my work. This new request annoyed me greatly, since I only was required to complete one paper for my degree. The second paper had far less effort put into it.

A few months after submission I heard results on the first paper. Not only was the paper accepted, but for full publication (as opposed to having to write a short paper - half the length). This news humbled me greatly. I realised I was wasting opportunities given to me by God. What made matters worse is that the second paper had been submitted prior to the news. So there was nothing I could do.

Now the problem is that writing papers is an end in itself. There is prestige in being a published scientist, especially at my age. However, there is a bonus: you get to present at an international conference! My university pays for the plane ticket, conference fees and accommodation, so it is, in essence, a free trip. Now for the first paper I presented in Bangkok 2007 and I had a wonderful time. In August 2007 I had just joined my church, Brackenhurst baptist.

Now my new church had been in suffering a few years back. The pastor had changed his eschatology from a dipensational pre-millennialist (believing that all of the book of the Revelation has not been fulfilled, with the exception of chapters 1-3) to a partial or moderate preterist (believing that Revelation 1 - 20 has been fulfilled). Many left the church and the church had received a very bad name as a result.

So eschatology was on my mind, plus the fact that I was wasting my opportunities. Then I learned that the second conference was to be held in Turkey. But not just anywhere in Turkey, but Izmir, really close to Ephesus.

Ephesus! One of the seven churches! I literally threw away an opportunity to stand on the same paths as Paul the apostle. So I prayed and vowed that if I got accepted to the conference for the second paper, that I would ensure that the book of Revelation was a dominant topic of study for me.

I got the publication. I walked on the same paths as Paul. I stood where he stood. I saw the place of the church who had forgotten her first love. I did not deserve it and I know it, plus I have a vow that must be paid.

This comes at an opportune time. [Tyrell], a brother who knows his interpretation, has started looking into the eschaton. I am sure of what my interpretation will be, but I am not sure under what categories it will fall. There are so many terms describing different things, I'm not going to try. Rather than trying to defend a position, like Tyrell, I am rather going to try and define a position.

And I will do it soon.

Congratualtions!

2009-01-12T11:21:00.002+02:00

Tyrell Haag, a dear friend to this blog, engaged another friend, Ainsley Smith, on Friday. I wish them a happy and wonderful marriage, with the strength of God binding them together.

I owe much to Tyrell, friendship in times when friends were few and guidance when I could not see things clearly. Tyrell was the instrument of God's providence in my life, without which I would not have ever been exposed to the teachings which literally changed my life. He also nurtured both learning and evangelism in the area in which I live, both of which are missed since he had to move north.

God bless!

New Year

2009-01-12T10:23:00.003+02:00

My verses for the new year have come from my daily sequential reading:

"A fool gives full vent to his spirit,
but a wise man quietly holds it back." [Proverbs 29:11]

"Do not take to heart all the things that people say, lest you hear your servant cursing you." [Ecclesiastes 7:21]

"The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgement, with every secret thing, whether good or evil." [Ecclesiastes 12:13-14]

If I can follow these, I think I may accomplish something this year. God bless!

Pray for this guy

2008-09-30T10:46:00.004+02:00

This morning I had an accident. A guy ran out from behind a truck and ran into the side of my car, taking off the side mirror. I Immediately stopped and got out, and he seemed fine (obviously he was shaken), but he doesn't speak English so getting information out of him was difficult.

I offered to call an ambulance, and his family said that he was fine, he then disappeared and I couldn't even get his name. Someone I spoke to on the scene gave me their name and number and I couldn't do anything more so I left. He seemed fine, but the circumstances are strange to say the least.

My sister just happens to be a lawyer in this particular field. She has informed me that a charge will be laid against me and a case will be opened. They won't arrest me (apparently), but there is a possibility that they will.

I guess I could use some prayer as well, but I worry about this guy. Praise the Lord I did not hit him head on, nor was I going fast at all. I have the assurance that God is in control and He allowed this to happen. It's very difficult not being omniscient, but if He is for me, who can really be against me?

Evolutionary Computing

2008-09-25T15:24:00.004+02:00

There is a problem in the way we understand the theory of evolution. It has lead to much confusion and debate and therefore I must clarify something that has been on my mind for a while. In my post 'More Evolution', I challenged anyone to find me one example of evolution being useful in computer science.

Now, Mike kindly offered an example, and I think I shot him down a bit too quickly (Sorry man). My mistake was that of understanding - I think a lot of things filed under evolution are useful, however, the molecules to man kind of evolution is what I oppose.

While I can write a computer program to simulate many aspects of evolution, things like weasel actually prove what I was trying to say. The weasel program manipulates an already existing set of data into another set, until a desired point is reached. The problem is, how does one determine what is desired without an external force guiding this process?

Applying weasel to humans is no easy challenge - I imagine. In the DNA sequence are several letters, changing one of them would be catastrophic in a human, so that cannot be the level of change - what I still lack is knowing the level at which humans are 'evolving.' Is it on the single cell level? How can that be measured? It seems the smaller one goes the more impact the change has on the entire being. In addition there is no means by which to add information. Of course in the weasel sense, and more so in the case of DNA.

So going back to computer evolution - is it possible? Only when we think of evolution as small controlled changes within a system, with set rules and a distinctive goal driven process. If there is to be added information, it cannot be generated by the system, since it would entail an underlying system change (ad infinitum). The system would have to be externally modified.

I would say that the problem here is the term evolution, while it isn't bad in itself, there are definitely theological aspects being intermingled in there. That is undeniable. I apologize for not being clearer on that. Also part of the problem is that this term evolution covers a wide variety of topics, many of which are true. But just because something has been given a name which includes many truths, does not make it true. It makes it suspect.

Words to live by

2008-09-25T09:06:00.006+02:00

I was really down on Tuesday. There are times in my life when I get so focused on this world that I forget my purpose. I forgot what life was all about. It hit me so hard I was really in a pit of despair. On top of this I had to work on a public holiday, which is never something I look forward to. I was getting down about the whole wife issue and getting anxious about my studies. I really was quite upset.

So I went to bed, after hardly eating, and got up at 8:30. As I get in my car this hymn plays:

God sent His son, they called Him, Jesus;
He came to love, heal and forgive;
He lived and died to buy my pardon,
An empty grave is there to prove my Savior lives!

Chorus
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow,
Because He lives, all fear is gone;
Because I know He holds the future,
And life is worth the living,
Just because He lives!

How sweet to hold a newborn baby,
And feel the pride and joy he gives;
But greater still the calm assurance:
This child can face uncertain days because He Lives!

And then one day, I'll cross the river,
I'll fight life's final war with pain;
And then, as death gives way to vict'ry,
I'll see the lights of glory and I'll know He lives!

Talk about POWER! It was like the voice of God reminding me of my purpose. I don't live for those things: women, studies, work - it's all just a part of life (it's part of the curse actually), but that isn't purpose, that's fleeting.

I can live with a vision eternal - I can face anything because I know that God is more important and in control. There is nothing that can stand against me, considering with whom I stand! I pray that God would keep me in the remembrance of these things, and in doing so I can overcome anything!

When we keep our eyes on the whelming flood, it's no wonder we sink beneath the waves. When we see the glory of the Lord, of course everything else is depressing! To give God His due is to realize that there is nothing better!

Moses kills 3000

2008-09-22T10:32:00.004+02:00

Francis Macnab thinks he can win against the bible using slander and lies. He is an ex-Roman Catholic making a 'new faith' where he belittles the name of Jesus and attacks God's word. I'm not surprised, but it's amazing how blatant it is.

Dr Macnab said the Ten Commandments were full of what people could not do, and were given by a patriarchal figure, Moses, who was a mass murderer. The Bible records that Moses killed 3000 Israelites who worshipped the Golden Calf. [SOURCE]

Really? That's not the way the story actually went:

The next day Moses said to the people, "You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin." So Moses returned to the LORD and said, "Alas, this people has sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will forgive their sin—but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written." [Exodus 32:30-22]

Here we have quite the opposite story: Moses actually takes it upon himself to go and appeal to the Lord, and is willing to be blotted out of the bible for them.

But this isn't the worst of the lies. He actually calls Jesus a Jewish peasant. He is the Messiah! He is the prophesied King! Read Matthew!

I don't know why I let myself get worked up though - this man means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." [L. Ron Hubbard - Creator of scientology]

[UPDATE 03 AUGUST 2009]: As the comments below indicate, Moses did end up giving the order for the death of 3000 people. However it was not Moses, it was God. Those people CHOSE not to follow the Lord and the Lord had them killed. Is God unloving, no, those people would have died anyway in the wilderness. People need to start realising that since God is the author of life it is His grace that allows us to live, giving Him the right to take it away. A far worse death awaits those who are not found in Him in that last day. God is loving in that while we were still sinners, He died for us, that the second death may have no power. Repent, therefore, call on the Lord while He may be found!

Relationships

2008-09-19T11:25:00.003+02:00

At work I have grown some very awesome friendships with Christians. What's awesome is that we are not alone in the fight for the faith. My newest Christian comrade is a lovely young lady who has some of the strangest encounters with 'Christians.' She told me a story today which got me quite wound up:

"Some christians advocate 'fooling' around before getting married. Their argument states that firstly we are fallen creatures suffering from the fall, that it needs to be 'gotten out of their system' before maturity and that, at maturity, they will change to be more Christ-like." [Not a direct quote]

Wow! That got so many verses flying through my head I had to sit down. I couldn't even think of everything I wanted to say. That is why I blog.

Let's take a look at this biblically, I'll look at biblical principles, argue point by point and then give closing remarks. The first is the argument on the theological level: is it right to fool around before marriage? When consulting the scripture, it is not.

On the Old Testament front it is severely a non-issue. If a man slept with a girl to whom he was not married, he either had to pay the full bride price [Exodus 22:16] or was stoned because he was in adultery.

In the new testament there is very little change. Firstly, this rule is not omitted from practice, although I would not advocate forced marriage either. It is not explicitly enforced.

"For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God."Ephesians 5:5

You are not a Christian who would defile another sexually! Oh woe to us! I wish every day I could take my own sin away. But God, in His infinite mercy and grace - has forgiven me.

But does this only refer to a sexual impurity - no! We have to treat women as mothers and sisters - with ALL purity [1 Timothy 5:2]. That means not making emotional attachments in such a manner that we cannot maintain them. For example if you are not willing to marry them, why stay in the relationship. Men love the darkness more than the light, for their deeds are wicked! You don't tell her the truth because you know that telling her that you aren't seeking marriage will chase her away. It gets even worse when both parties are just in it for kicks, because that is not God glorifying! That is sin.

So it's not cool in a bible sense. Now I will look at the defence provided:
1) We are all fallen creatures:

"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" [Romans 6:1-2]

How can you bear sinning more? Every sin is an insult to God! If you do not lament over your sin, you are not saved. God requires a humble heart dedicated solely to Him - I've said it before - everything else is just dirty sprinkles.

2)It needs to be 'gotten out of our system'
Is this an excuse to sin? So I should get murder out of my system? Should I get abortion 'out of my system?' Is this showing love for our neighbour in a Christ-like manner?

3)"I'll change later"
You may never get married. Consider this: God punished David because of his sin by taking the life of His child and dividing his household forever. Now God REALLY REALLY loved David. David was FAR more worthy of God's love than us! Are you saying that we deserve something from God?

Secondly, will you change? Sin has an awfully horrid affect on the mind. To think anything else is to lie to oneself. Some things - especially sexual things - are infectiously addictive and therefore habit forming. There is a chemical explanation for this - we get addicted to pleasure. This is how meth works. You really like the extra endorphins and other pleasure centres being activated - thus an addiction forms. The more you do it the more you want it. You become addicted. Fooling around is not some exercise that will cure you of wanting - it is feeding a stomach. The more you feed it - it will expand to make way for more.

Thirdly, do you fear God or Hell? If Hell, you are not a Christian. Fear Him who can cast you into Hell [Matthew 10:38]. If you fear God you should fear Him now.

Fourthly - the way you act now is a reflection for a potential marriage partner to look at you. There is a saying that women expect men to change after marriage, and men expect woman not to. It brings to light the terrible fallacy in the innocence of marriage. How dare we say we will change without actually making a change? God doesn't do that for sinners! That means it doesn't apply to you!

I have said all I want to say - I would recommend reading the following passages of scripture in context:

"I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the does of the field, that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases." [Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4]
"Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." [Romans 1:32]
"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends." [1 Corinthians 13:4-8]
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." [Revelation 21:8]

There's no persecution from evolutionists...

2008-09-17T13:56:00.003+02:00

No... None at all! I mean, Michael Reiss, who is an evolutionist, merely stated that creationism should be accepted as a world view was attacked by these caring, loving individuals.

"Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories; but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis. I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a "worldview"; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility." -Michael Reiss [Emphasis added]

If they attack one another so vehemently, why on earth would I want to ever be considered on the same side as them? I'd rather be wrong¹ and on the Christian side than with the kind of people who will hate you for not agreeing with them².

If you wonder where I'm getting this, read the [Christianity today article]. Also check out [Wikipedia].

What's really funny is this guy will earn no heavenly reward for his persecution. The attack is brought on by his own beliefs and God has left him with those who he chooses. What makes it even more hilarious is that the Church of England (of which Michael Reiss is an ordained minister) just yesterday issued an apology to Charles Darwin! I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Reiss was behind it!

It seems no one is getting on their knees. No one looks to God. No one seeks His face. People have a form of Godliness but deny it's power. No wonder the end time fanatics are going crazy!

This is pure cannibalism, and I'm happy to see it. The more time they spend whacking each other over the head, the more time we have to evangelize!

¹ I'm not wrong. The creator of the universe told me so in His book.
² True Christian's do not hate one another. We are fortunate to have an authority concerning our behaviour towards one another - so that when we err, we may be corrected. The evolutionist does not.

Apologetics at it's worst

2008-09-16T09:39:00.004+02:00

"The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church"
...

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church [of England]'s director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century." [SOURCE]

I think that these guys got the idea of apologetics wrong - apologetics was never meant to be a compromise on Christian beliefs. It is suppose to be upholding Christian values, giving a reason for the hope that is in us. (1 Peter 3:15)

Anyway, evolution as it is is nowhere near what Darwin had in mind - plus it's not like Darwin would care, he's dead! If these people really thought that evolution was correct - they should be apologizing to God!

Now there is a thought - why should they apologize to God? Well, clearly the 6 day position was not formed out of a proper understanding of God's word. There are some significant differences between geocentricism and creationist understanding:

Joshua 10:12-13: Joshua is speaking from his perspective. This type of writing(commentary from a point of view) is not found in Genesis
1 Chronicles 16:30: This is David's song of thanks. Genesis is not poetry ¹, so this is not a historical narrative, which is what Genesis is.
Isaiah 38:8: Again, is the argument from perspective. We do not say 'Earth revolving,' we say 'Sunrise' simply out of convenience from perspective ²

What we have here is quite confusing. They apologize to Darwin, for misrepresenting him, but they have nothing to say to their God. If they truly believed they were in error, who deserves the first public apology? I would argue God. In the second place they said they were 'encouraging others to misunderstand [Darwin].' In this I can continue to emphasize that I do not have a share in this apology (in fact the point of this blog is to show I have no share whatsoever) - I do not encourage misunderstanding, even of error. In order to show someone they are wrong, we must first understand their position. NP, a gentleman I debated on this blog, who I continue to think about and pray for, was all about clearing up misunderstanding, which I appreciate - although we found ourselves in deadlock when it comes to scripture.

But there you have it - can we compare geocentricism with creationism? No. I love the way the world tries to do that - making us look like fools for others past mistakes. It is very important to keep literary themes in mind when studying the bible. As Christians we must define our hermeneutic - something I have done previously - and it helps SO much!

And just in addition, so that I may be completely at ease - I believe in natural selection, since it is observable. I do not believe that species can produce higher order species - hear me on that - species cannot produce higher-order species. I do not deny that species can vary within and of themselves - polar bears are a great example: they are normal bears - but they are white. But bears beget bears. Fish beget fish. Ape like creatures do not beget humans. Humans beget humans. That is the sum and total of my belief in this area.

¹ Is genesis poetry? I will blog on this.
² Note that this is a shared perspective, that is why it works. I usually do not advocate relativism in any shape or form, but this is permissible since it is not sinful nor is it attempting to justify anything. It is purely a state with which all men can agree. It's called the cooperation principle.

Post-Modernism again

2008-09-11T11:36:00.003+02:00

Two days ago I gave the ethics lecture. While I love preparing a lecture like that I did not enjoy having to give such a lecture. The problem is authority. At the end of the day, ethics is about covering yourself. We do not develop virtues out of a fear of God (which produces the only worthwhile virtues), but rather virtues are developed out of the fear of consequences.

However, over and above that, I did attack the idea of relative truth. I love asking people if they are absolutely sure that all truth is relative. As my friend put it expertly: "I don't see anyone taking a firm stand for relative truth." Well put.

But then a new friend was in a class where everyone was pro-relative, even the lecturer. She stood up for truth, and she is such a blessing. She was shaking afterwards, but at least she does not just sit back and let lies be sought as truth. While speaking to her I developed two lovely arguments:

The love argument: If truth is relative, just remember that the next time someone tells you they love you. If truth is relative, they don't mean it in the way you understand it. And even worse, there is no way you can ever know for sure
The insult argument: Just tell a relitiver^© that they are an idiot. Then ask them if that is a true or false statement. It's amazing how people will demand purity for themselves, yet insist that purity does not exist.

Another interesting discussion that came out of this was a property of truth: exclusiveness. While there are many truths that exist, there cannot be more than one truth about a particular subject. Truth excludes any kind of statement that does not conform to the originally posited statement.

So when someone says 'To each his own' when talking religion - you can now discuss something far more important - the nature of truth. They do not all lead to the same place.

SEND ME E-MAILS LIKE THIS!!!

2008-09-11T11:24:00.005+02:00

WOW!!! Take the time to read this!

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. ! Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer.

'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. '! Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'Yes.'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.

Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.

Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor! . My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God.

You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according! to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent.

The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

This is what I am all about. This is where I am coming from. An inspiring email indeed. I hope it blesses whoever reads it.

What a blessing it is to see that depravity has limits - you can only go so cold, so dark and so dead. It makes logical sense then that God is good: if He is infinite then He would have to be, since if He were evil there would be a limit on Him. What a glorious thing it is to consider that goodness is infinite! What good news!

Get ready for a big argument

2008-08-26T17:49:00.007+02:00

"Geneva - Tests have cleared the way for the start-up next month of an experiment to restage a mini-version underground of the "Big Bang" which created the universe 15 billion years ago, the project chief said on Monday."[SOURCE]

'Scientists' are trying to create a small version of the big bang, "which occurred 15 billion years ago" . Here's my question: 'If you are so sure it happened, why recreate it?' If it is such an infallible truth, why are you trying to protect it? To understand it is a good reason, but then why such odd wording? It is amazing that there is no question as to whether it happened or not, to spite the fact that 'scientists' keep on changing their minds about the age of the earth. Close minded sounds like the main ingredient here.

In addition to this wonderful observation in semantics, what have the 'scientists' done? Well clearly they are plotting to watch nothing expand¹ and collide with more expanding nothing and it is going to explode (using a nihility-based exothermic² reaction) and create something. Of course the 'scientists' are not going to control the experiment since that would infer that it takes intelligence to create something out of nothing. Of course they are going to do it in a null-space environment since that is where we came from.

What's that? Hold on here. Huh? The above mentioned experiment makes no sense? It's not science? Wow... Turns out that we need:

intelligence
particles
acceleration
energy

All of which are not nothing, to make something.

'Higgs, a 79-year-old Edinburgh University professor who as an atheist angrily rejects the idea of calling the boson the "God particle" - believes it will show up very quickly [this is the actual result of the experiment - proof of yet another existing particle] once the beams are colliding in the LHC [Large Hadron Collider].

"If it doesn't," he said during a visit to Cern earlier this year, "I shall be very, very puzzled." ' [SOURCE]

Guess what? The existence of the particle is a null-argument (pun intended). It proves nothing of existence, origins or first causes. The 'scientists' just can't word their arguments right. The particle is supposed to explain current expansion and current atomic bonding. But as soon as it is discovered, people will want to know what comprises it. And if it is disproved, they will try another way.

UPDATE: Stephen Hawkins has a different idea of what is going to happen. He and Peter Higgs are not getting on well in the upcoming events to this experiment.

¹ Of course nothing cannot expand. But surely something has to happen, otherwise nothing is happening.
² It would have to be exothermic since endothermic heat would go... guess it now... NOWHERE!!! And the poor Adam and Eve in the little bang would be cold, especially since they would be naked for at least 150 years (or would that decrease based on their size?)

A story you never learn in Sunday school

2008-08-20T06:15:00.013+02:00

Hey kids! In my bible read I came across a hum-dinger!

1 Kings 13: Rehoboam is king of Judah, Jeroboam the king of ten tribes. Rehoboam is the son of Solomon, and God tore the kingdom away from Rehoboam, leaving him with one territory, for the sake of His faithful servant David (Rehoboam's grandfather). Rehoboam lost the kingdom as a result of Solomon's heart being lead astray by his many wives. Jeroboam is given promises equivalent to David, on condition of equivalent obedience, but all is falling apart. Jeroboam is zealously pragmatic when it comes to theology, which caused him to lead Israel in sin. God is not happy with either king.

So we have judgement being passed by the means of a prophet in 1 Kings 13. This unnamed holy man, comes to the king and pronounces an end of the idolatrous worship of king Jeroboam. Now, if some 'holy roller' came into your church during a service and told you that the infant baptismal fount was going to be tipped over (spilling all the 'holy' water), I'm sure someone would have something to say. Well, so did Jeroboam: "GET HIM." But alas the finger outstretched against a child of God sent on a mission of God will soon wither, as we find. Jeroboam is slightly more accepting of this dear fellow when he finds that his violin playing days have been seriously cut short.

So this man of God (lets call him John - he has no name in the text) has three visible (with your eyes) signs that God is with him:

The prophecy he made came with a sign: the destruction and therefore defilement of the idolatrous altar
The withering of the hand of the king
At the request of John, the kings hand is restored.

After this we learn more details about John's mission: he is not to eat nor drink (at all? of this I am not sure) but he is certainly not to return the way he came.

So John has upset quite a number of people, who received the word gladly when they realized that God would punish those who stood in his way. John also stayed the temptation to receive a reward from the king, according to his divine instruction.

Easy story right? That's not the story: that's the BACKGROUND!

So John heads off, when he is met by Jacob (the prophet of the land - also unnamed in the bible, but I need to distinguish.) Now Jacob's kids went to the service where they saw these things. Now number 1: Jacob's kids are idolaters. On the other hand, Jacob wasn't there himself. So we can say that if Jacob is a pious man, he does not control his children. That is the best we can say so far.

Then the story starts it's twists: Jacob finds John, begs John to come home with him, and eat and drink. When John reveals his divine mission, Jacob says: "No ways bro! A total revised schedule has been appointed, yo!" (slight paraphrasing from original Hebrew) So John, unaware he has been lied to, goes with Jacob.

Now a dude claiming he was a prophet LIED to a man who actually WAS a prophet. Oh, I can smell thunder, I can taste the wrath.
"Whats for dinner dad?"
"False prophet, son. Deep fried."

But lo, hark, and riddle me this: Not only does the man of God eat and drink unawares, but God's judgement comes through Jacob! Jacob pronounces that John will not rest with his fathers. Notice that God does not say you will die, since all men die, but God says he will be ashamed in his death.

Now try to picture the situation. You lie to someone clearly holier than yourself, you get them to sin. God uses you to pronounce judgement on them. How are you going to feel? I'd feel pretty darn bad. Imagine it from the other perspective: You have a mandate from God. You trust the word of a fellow 'brother' without checking the scriptures. God uses this false brother to pronounce judgement on you. How do you feel? You can't think that he's lying to you about the judgement, since he reminds you of the mandate (which is what Jacob changed). So you are ashamed and embarrassed. I think both of them felt really quite poor.

So now what happens is: Jacob finishes his meal (that actually made me laugh... the bread over which men die probably tastes all the sweeter) and sends John off on his donkey. Then God sends a lion. Slash. Dead. John's body is cast on the side of the road. As a sign of God's hand in this, both the lion and the donkey sit and wait with the body. Image you are a passer by, what you would think.

So Jacob hears of this, fetches John's body and lays it in his own tomb. Jacob gives his sons instructions to bury him with John when he dies. This is probably to symbolize that they are in the same boat. Jacob mourns for John, probably not wanting to live much longer himself, but at least he trusts the word of God again.

I learned a lot from this story. It really confused me at first. But as you chew it, you realize what is being taught:

Liars (sinners) don't always get punished. God may allow them to 'get away with it.' But death comes soon enough for all men.
Do not stray from the word of God, not even for those who you trust. I realised my guilt in this regard. How many times have I just gone along with a friend because I thought: He's a good christian, he must have thought about that issue. Don't do it. God doesn't like it.
Deception is a treacherous thing. Even if you want to be nice to them, do not deceive them.
From him who has been given much (prophecy, visible signs), much will be taken away.

All of this lead to a failure in repentance. While the words of the prophet came true, the message was thrown out along with the messenger. A sad and dark tale indeed.

Relativism

2008-08-14T10:56:00.000+02:00

Any web designer who has ever worked with the <DIV> tag will tell you:

When it starts getting relative, things get screwed up.

Same with the truth.

I have given enough

2008-08-08T08:56:00.001+02:00

"But the king said to Araunah, "No, but I will buy it from you for a price. I will not offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God that cost me nothing." So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver." [2 Samuel 24:24]

The context: David has sinned, he got to choose a punishment, and now is called to make sacrifice. But look at what he says: "I will not offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God that cost me nothing."

Oh Christians, do you hear what this man is saying? This is the kind of man that we ought to be as Christians. He refuses to simply offer that which cost nothing. How many Christians would say that their service to the Lord is their time? I am like that. I am the guys who says: "I don't have much, so I give of my time."

Do you think David was not giving of his time? Was David not taking a few days out of his work schedule for God? Would we really make David out to be unrighteous and ourselves righteous over him? We think that our petty gifts are something to be proud of. We think that taking one out of seven days is 'good enough' for God. Who do we think we are?

We cannot give God enough. We simply cannot. But that does not excuse us from trying! How dare we think that we give enough, work hard enough or sacrifice enough for our God! Be tired in the LORD! Go to bed knowing that you couldn't have done more even if there were fifty hours in a day! It is a horrible struggle now, but just keep focused on the One who saved you!

A scientist I can respect

2008-07-31T12:53:00.003+02:00

Thank you, Karl Giberson, for being a true scientist:

"As a fellow scientist (I have a Ph.D. in physics), I share Myers' enthusiasm for fresh eyes, questioning minds and the power of science. And I worry about dogmatism and the kind of zealotry that motivates the faithful to blow themselves up, shoot abortion doctors and persecute homosexuals. But I also worry about narrow exclusiveness that champions the scientific way of knowing to the exclusion of all else. I don't like to see science turned into a club to bash religious believers." [Karl Giberson: "What's wrong with science as religion"]

Here is a man who is prepared to objectively step back and take a look. I don't know his position on creation / evolution, although I suspect he is an evolutionist.

_{(pssst: creationism requires faith, even if there is evidence).}

God bless y'all!

Sinners in their own god's hands

2008-07-25T08:14:00.003+02:00

I have friends who are not Christians. I feel I need to write down the two things that they say that disturb me the most, because I tend to remember better when things are written down.

1. "I believe in a merciful God."
This one is nice. I also believe in a merciful God. The only problem is, my friends claim to be 'good enough' for heaven. So my first problem is that: why does a person who is good enough require a god to be merciful to them? Your conscience gives you away!

Secondly: Does your God ever require you to change? Does their god agree with their moral standard? Does their god ever condemn any action that they do? Probably not, since they made this god up. That is idolatry and a breach of the second commandment. There has to be an absolute standard of right and wrong. Just because you don't commit murder doesn't make you a good person. That makes you acceptable to society. Is society God? Who art thou, oh man?!?

2. "All (or many) religions have the ten commandments."
I always got tripped up on that one (to spite it's horrible incorrectness-ness). It takes a really sober (my friends? I love them, but lets be serious) person to listen to the one argument against that: Christianity is the only religion that uses the ten commandments to condemn, rather than to save. It takes the righteousness of Christ, not the works of the law, to save someone from sin. The law only reveals sin.

But if someone says this to you, I recommend pumping the law even more. The bible says:

"The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving[literally 'converting' or 'turning back'] the soul" [Pslam 19:7(a)]

So what do we do when someone says that? We say, very well, then, may we see if you are a good person according to that standard then? If so many religions have it, they must be on to something. We have to speak with authority, firstly, because Jesus commanded us to do so with His authority. Secondly, because when they fear God's wrath enough because of the weight of their sin, a humble soul will seek God's grace and mercy, of which we are able to tell. The issue of many religions having the ten commandments (at this point of evangelism) only solidfies their validity. Christianity is the only one that solves the dire position of man in the hands of a holy God.

Let me say this: No matter who you are, where you are, give them law law law. If they are professed atheists, liberal 'Christians' (willing to speak to you) - anyone you don't know well enough. The law of the Lord will reveal the content of their heart. Basic gospel. I love it. God's yoke is LIGHT!

Movies: Again

2008-07-25T06:43:00.007+02:00

A few weeks ago, I told you about Ray Comfort's 'Hollywood and God' website. Well, I have taken to the challenge of telling people how I feel about their movies. Here are the two e-mails I have sent to Warner Brothers:
About "Get Smart:"

Dear Mr Ewing,

It is with sadness that I inform you that I keep an eye open for your movies, in order that I may avoid them. It is not the quality of the movie or the standard of comedy with which I have an issue but rather the blatant blasphemy of my God that I protest to. I cannot and would not ask you to stop, but I would urge you to consider whose name is taken in vain. If the God you insult is infinite and holy, which He is, then there will be serious ramifications for those who execute such unrighteous behaviour. I will pray for you, but I will not watch your movies while they contain such behaviour.

God bless you,
Quintin [Date: 26 June 2008]

About "Batman: The Dark Knight:"

To whom it may concern,

I really wanted to go see the new movie entitled "Batman: The Dark Knight." I really love comic book movies, but when they openly mock my God (Jesus), my love for Him takes precedence over watching a film. I am not telling you to stop making such films, I am asking you to consider your soul, and the souls that watch your movie. If you are going to blaspheme anyone, why can't it be someone worth blaspheming, like Hitler?

I will pray for your industry,
Quintin [Date: 25 July 2008]

I have yet to receive a response, but I hope that other Christians will stand up and use this as an opportunity to do something in the right way. I'm not picketing, finger pointing or screaming. I am simply telling them they will fail as long as I am informed about what is in these movies.

I actually made plans with a friend to see the new batman movie, and he is a non-Christian (my friend, not batman - but I doubt batman's salvation). But thankfully I caught him before he had booked the tickets and we will not be seeing it. God is good!

Eschatology, Evangelism and Heretics

2008-07-25T06:08:00.008+02:00

What do you believe about the end times? I think it's really important to know what and why you believe something. I am still struggling with my eschatology, I certainly cannot subscribe myself to a pre-millennial rapture deal at the moment. But I continue to study and think - and at least I will be responsible for my end-times view.

My church is partial preterist. They believe that most of revelation has occured, up to Chapter 20, and the rest is still to happen. One thing I have to say about their view, it has some nice side-effects. Evangelism is one of those side effects. They believe the gospel will conquer.

I was talking to someone the other day and I was asked "Wait, they believe that things are getting better, how is that so?" And well, that was a very near sighted question. Firstly, consider perhaps that modern Christianity's light is so dim, that God has purposely made it dark so that at least some light will shine. Secondly, it's quite a man-centered perspective. Just because it's not where man wants to be doesn't mean it's not where God wants us to be.

At least I'm not sitting on my butt waiting for a rapture I can't time anyway. At least there are some people (pre-mills and prets alike) who are willing to go out and shine some light. If there is one thing I can't stand lately, it's a Christian that does not tell of the hope that is in them. I'm not saying anything about the person who spoke to me, I don't know everything they do. This is an issue for the heart of a Christian, I am just trying to draw it out. If you really believe people are going to hell,

HOW DARE YOU JUST SIT THERE?

The love of God

2008-07-21T10:52:00.003+02:00

A personal favourite hymn of mine is "The love of God:"

"Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky." [Read the rest]

Ray Comfort said it right

2008-07-19T09:29:00.001+02:00

"All forms of the evolution are a non issue when compared to your eternal salvation. So set it aside for a moment and think about where you will spend eternity. Think about this precious gift of life. Think about your mortality. Think about your sins, and then think about what God did on the cross to save you from their eternal consequences." [Ray Comfort]

Go to hell? Over my dead body!

2008-07-14T06:16:00.003+02:00

Should I feel guilty for not evangelizing?

Absolutely! How dare we, as people, call ourselves Christians and not evangelists. How dare we, say that we believe people will go to hell, yet do nothing about it.

"Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you are not saved yourself. Be sure of that." [Charles Spurgeon]

James has this to say about faith and works:

"¹⁴What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? ¹⁵If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? ¹⁷ So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." [James 2:14-17]

If you believe something, you have to act on it. There is no other way. If sinners are to go to hell, I cannot imagine just sitting there not warning them. Why does God not magically suck us into heaven upon salvation? Because we are left as His ambassedors:

"...¹⁹that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. ²⁰ Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. ²¹ For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."[2 Corinthians 5:19-21]

We are not primarily here to have families and good jobs. We are here as representatives of Christ. We are not loving God by refusing to evangelise! If we love Him, we would obey! Those who do not evangelize are not Christian. Obedience is so vital to Christendom, it is how we worship God.

But how do we evangelize? You begin by throwing the world away. Stop reading rubbish books, wasting your time watching television, and put all your heart and soul into the gospel. What is the gospel: Sinners need a saviour. Now there is nothing wrong with reading some fiction, having a family, or watching some television. The issue is if it is getting in the way of ministry. We must entertain ourselves with things that are beneficial.

Now let me get to those who say "I evangelise through my actions." Firstly, you are a hypocrite! You are not perfect, and to say that all you need is action, is false. How dare you assume people will grab hold of Christ by watching you! If people saw me, they might say: "He's a nice guy," but without using WORDS I am denying them the very thing that God has gifted to me!

Your actions are in no way a substitute for the gospel. Your actions will never be good enough, to think so is wrongful pride. Plus the biggest argument against Christianity is the actions of Christians. The bible does not agree with St. Francis, and Francis himself will not intercede for you on the day of Judgement. We need to give people the law! Why?

"The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul" [Pslam 19:7(a)]

Not your actions! To think that your actions could convert someone is blasphemy of the highest order! How dare you!

"Some of my brethren do not care to preach eternal wrath and its terrors. This is a cruel mercy, for they ruin souls by hiding from them their ruin. If they must needs try to sew without a needle, I cannot help it; but I do not mean to be so foolish myself; my needle may be old-fashioned, but it is sharp, and when it carries with it the silken thread of the gospel, I am sure good work is done by it." [Charles Spurgeon]

If you wish to disagree with Spurgeon, go ahead. But to think that just by 'acting' Christian is a witness, think on this:

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." [Romans 3:20]

Not you, nor those who see. You acting right alone is not evangelical service. God commands people to repent, not to watch.

"...by the fear of the LORD one turns away from evil." [Proverbs 16:6(b)]

How are people to realize their sin apart from the law? How are they to know if they have not heard? How are they to hear if people are not sent? I am alluding to Romans, but read this:

" Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin." [Romans 7:7]

If you don't know sin, you do not know salvation! How can you know the saviour if you are not saved?

Now, I realise I have Arminian friends who read this blog, and please note that although I believe God is sovereign in salvation (that salvation is His work alone), but also that God uses means to save. He uses the words and actions of those who love and trust Him truly. He will use a very bent stick to strike a very straight blow. I sleep better knowing that even though I may say something incorrect, God is big enough to use my mistake, and I will be corrected, since I am a Christian, I like correction. I evangelise with the faith that God could use a sinner like me.

" ¹³For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." ¹⁴ How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? ¹⁵ And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" ¹⁶ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" ¹⁷ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."[Romans 10:13-17]

HEARING!!! Any man who claims that it is God's job to inform or warn others is seriously in error. There is nothing but banishment for those who won't work for their King:

"¹⁴ "For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. ¹⁵ To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. ¹⁶ He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. ¹⁷ So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. ¹⁸ But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. ¹⁹ Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. ²⁰ And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' ²¹ His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' ²² And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' ²³ His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' ²⁴ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, ²⁵ so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' ²⁶ But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? ²⁷ Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. ²⁸ So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. ²⁹ For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. ³⁰ And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'" [Matthew 25:14-30]

Calvinist, Arminian, put away your swords for a minute! While some internal battles must be fought, we have lost sight of the goal. We are cursed in our blessings because we have 'free time' to argue amongst ourselves. Turn your swords on the enemy! I have an Arminian friend whom I see every day and is nothing but a blessing to speak to. While we have our differences, he is a great example of patience to me because I understand that I can be quite tiresome sometimes. God uses our different interpretations to test each other and so we grow in to understanding with each other, rather than dividing. I would say that Duncan and I share the same view of the sovereignty of God. Does that make me Arminian or him Calvinist? No! Labels can be useful, but taken too far, we lose our purpose.

If you are a Christian and you think I am being harsh, you are absolutely right. Only Pharisees would not tell of how glorious God is! Only they for whom the deepest corners of hell are reserved would not reveal the light passed down! Jesus was hard on those that thought themselves religious, and I feel that He was quite right. You sit in Church for yourself, and because you refuse to tell others - you are self-righteous, and there is no mercy for you. How dare we not obey the command of the great 'I am.' How dare we not trust Him to use us for His glory!

The greatest shame, Christian, is to have an evangelist come to you and try give you the gospel. Make sure that you are never in a place or doing something where someone would actually mistake you for an unbeliever. Consider this in all your dealings and outings. In everything you say and do. Always be looking over your shoulder, because I will be coming around.

A strange passage

2008-07-09T14:08:00.003+02:00

This passage has always confused me:

³¹ "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. ³²Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. ³⁴Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶ I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' ³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ³⁸And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ³⁹And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' ⁴⁰And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

⁴¹"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' ⁴⁴Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' ⁴⁵Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' [Matthew 25:31-45]

The verse is discussing the final judgement, where each one will give an account of his actions. It is so amazing that God is so concerned with the works of an individual. For even though we are not saved by our works, our works are a mandatory fruit of our salvation by grace through faith.

People always use the chair example of faith: Faith is the belief that a chair will hold you. But if you read James, you will realize that faith that does not actually sit on the chair is not saving faith. It is an amazing correlation between faith and works.

And James ties into the above verses very well. Why would God tell us that true believers wouldn't even realize they are doing good? How confusing! True believers' are not even aware of their kind actions towards one another! They must be driven by some other drive than the work itself! They do not work for the reward, otherwise they would say 'I must do my good deed for the day!'

But what benefit are these verses? They are not instructive, since we can only know what side of the fence we fall after the judgement. Rather, these verses form a rather dark mirror: they can only make us shake at the presence of the Lord. They are to get us to fear Him who can cast your soul into hell (Jesus' words, not mine). The reason is that only the true convert does not count his good deeds. Only the real Christian does good things without seeking reward (in heaven or earth), but simply because it is his nature.

That is a scary thought. I fail all the time in this area. I pray for mercy, and I pray that my left hand does not know what the right is doing, and that it is good.

To my shame

2008-07-05T11:48:00.003+02:00

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. [James 1:5]

Do we really believe that? I thought I did. I really thought that when push came to shove I could rely on God for anything. But the problem was not that I did not recieve, but that my faith was so small it did not allow me to expect God to come through for me.

What happened was, I was struglling with a robotics problem. This problem prevented me from even starting my masters programming. Without a solution, I was becoming desperate. Eventually on Thursday night I dropped to my knees and cried out, telling God that I can't do it on my own, that I needed help.

This was a good thing. It was the right first half to application of James 1:5. But I had too soon forgotten the prayer by the time I went in to university the next day. You'll never guess what happened.

I got through the problem!! Not only did I solve it, I smashed it! I got it so right and so simply that I am sure it will help others. It is the kind of thing that needs to be explained before it can be understood.

My joy was made great by realizing how kind God is to answer prayer to those who lack in faith. I asked, but the question is: Did I believe? I feel I should have put my actions where my prayer was. I prayed for change, but did nothing about it. Sometimes we can get so lost in God's sovereignty that we forget that God has also made us responsible.

If you want you can read my solution [HERE]. While there were people that responded to the problem, they did not give me the neat solution that so seemingly just came to me. I cannot help but praise God and feel ashamed, but I suppose that His strength is made perfect in our weakness! Praise Him, for He is worthy!

Hancock

2008-07-04T06:15:00.003+02:00

"What could have been a perfectly enjoyable blend of comedy and action blows up in our faces trying to be a heavier, larger-than-life romance with historical, spiritual and sci-fi implications.

Basic logic is jettisoned as well. As a superhero, Hancock has bullets bounce off him. But at key points, they pierce him. Then they bounce off him again. Sure, it's a fantasy, but the internal logic should have some consistency if we're going to get caught up in what happens." [USA Today]

I am very dissappointed to hear about Will Smith's latest movie: Hancock. It is about a superhero lost in despair, a tragic story with a definite air to it that reminds us of Spider-Man. Now Will Smith is a professed Christian, which is amazing considering it never dawned on me to think so. The question that one really should ask: "If I can't tell you're a Christian, have you done your job as a servant to God?"

Now, how did I find out he was a Christian? A friend played me a song called "Miss Holy Roller." The song is disappointing considering that Christians ought to correct each other out of love and compassion rather than a Pharisee-type finger pointing.¹

But look at these lyrics in the light of his new movie:

"Come on, if I die right this second, I reckon that God would simply check
into my life & times, dissecting my rhymes, he'll see how I've been leading his troops
You can't do dirt your whole life then say "oops'!" [Will Smith]

Will is right - God is going to check your life and times. But included in that is Hancock, which, speaks for itself:

"Unfortunately, there is also a lot of negative content in this film, the strongest being the language, which mostly comes from Hancock. He calls everyone extremely crude names, insults and mocks people, makes a sexual advance on a married woman (he is strongly rebuffed), and often reacts violently when he is called a specific word (...), one that is thrown around by nearly everyone, including small children. He also uses the f-word once, and the s-word and God's name numerous times."

Now, swearing is something I stay away from, I believe there is enough biblical evidence to suggest that if you can't shout it in Church then you shouldn't say it. But blasphemy? Why Will, why? I can understand that acting a part requires a certain level of commitment, but at the cost of sin? Sin which caused Christ to die? Have you no shame? Not to mention that this movie now encourages others to follow suite? Is there a part in this movie where Hancock repents of his sin towards the Holy God from whom he claims salvation? Is is right or fair that Will can judge Michelle (Miss Holy Roller) so harshly and then blatantly commit sin on the silver screen. Is there an excuse for that?

"I always strive to be righteous, my version of God
The reason why I never write verses with curses inside
The reason I never purposely hurt persons,
I've applied many teaching of God,
Searching the reaches of God" [Will Smith]

What happened Will? Where did these principles go? People in the limelight need to be specifically careful of the behaviour that is idolised in the movies. I am no saint by far. I have committed sin for which I cannot expect salvation, but God is kind to forgive. Will, if you ever read this humble blog, please know that it is not a judgement I give, but rather a correction. We must strive for God's glory. But you make yourself a 'Holy Roller' by making such songs and movies. Sin is never a joke or something that should be downplayed.

In this regard I feel a comment needs to be made: Iron Man, I feel is a 'good' movie? It has blasphemy, although I missed it when I watched it, but let's look at this critically:

I can't expect non-Christians to act in a Christian like manner. (In the same vein non-Christians can't expect me to pay for a movie when they insult my God²)
Notice that Tony Stark is a fornicator in the beginning, taking advantage whenever he can. After his experience he is at least morally improved. This creates a suggestion that good men do not behave in this manner. GREAT! He even stops lying! He still has some pride issues, but to be frank no one is perfect.

¹ Is this post in line with Pharisee-style finger pointing? Leave a comment if you think so! I am interested in the reasons behind it. The first one I would point to is Matthew 18 - biblical correction. Well, I tried to find an e-mail address for Mr Smith and you can imagine that it is quite difficult. Also, I am not condemning Mr Smith, I am reviewing his actions in accordance with his words. I am using him as an example, much in the same manner I treated Ken Miller in previous posts. It is not my intent to do damage to these people, but to look at their actions, since they are performed publicly, in a public forum.

² I did pay to see Iron Man

Christians and movies

2008-06-26T06:42:00.004+02:00

Christian, are you sick and tired of paying to see (and then walking out of) movies that blaspheme the awesome and holy name of the God who so graciously saved you from the worst fate you could imagine? I mean, we wouldn't go watch a movie that specifically insulted our close friends and family, so why would we go watch a movie that blatantly insults the most powerful and fantastic being in the universe, right? RIGHT?

Now, I must admit lately I have drawn my own lines when it comes to movies. I didn't walk out at verbal abuse (although I used to), and made my line a little more fuzzy, so that I do not walk out of every movie. But God gave me grace in that I have probably only seen 3 or 4 movies since I made my line more fuzzy. I agree that we should flee from sin, and I admit to a personal failing in this area. But now my faith has been bolstered by good men who wish to eliminate the plague in a Christian-like manner!

Ray Comfort has on his new site, an explanation of the use of blasphemy, as well as an indicator bar of the blasphemies contained in the movies. Personally, this is great, because we can check out a movie before we watch it. Click here:

What is so great is Christians can now send the producers a friendly e-mail, saying exactly how they feel about the use of God and Christ's name being applied in a misappropriate manner. If we join together as Christians, we can have a positive influence.

Just a note to non-Christians, if you read this: We do not stop you from saying those things, but out of love we rather protect you from the wrath of God by not exposing you to sin. We (as Christians) believe it to be a sin to blaspheme God, and unrepentant sinners go to hell. You have to appreciate the fact that we are trying to help. But we are not using politics or force to do so.

I LOVE IT!!!!

Where do I start with the Bible?

2008-06-20T09:57:00.004+02:00

One of the most important books you can ever read is the bible, and we need to make sure that God is glorified in the reading of this great book. Now, if you are a new Christian, I would not recommend a cover to cover first reading. You can do that a little later, but there are some handy tips that I could have used when I started.

Firstly, the bible wasn't written to you. It was written for you. That means when God says "I have a plan for you to prosper" in Jeremiah, He isn't talking to you. You must be aware of the grammatical historical context of what you are reading, and most bibles do help out with that. They have a small paragraph at the beginning describing the context of the book. Remember you must learn that so you can read it right. You cannot take a verse to mean what the original receivers would not have seen in the text.

With that out of the way, I would suggest you start with the gospels. Why? They tell of the hero of the story: Jesus Christ. All creation was made that He may be glorified. The old testament is about a 3000 year wait for the hero. So we start at the centre and work our way out.

But which gospel? That depends on who you are. They are historical biographies of Christ. You must understand that each gospel has a point, a meaning, that it is trying to get across. So depending on your situation, I would recommend a different gospel. Also, since the gospels have a point, that explains why they are not in linear order. Biographies were written like that in the days gone by.

So which gospel is for you? Lets go through them:

Matthew:
Written to the Jews to say that Christ is the King. The genealogies point to King David, of whom it was predicted that Christ would be an heir. [LINK] Read this book thinking "Christ is royalty" and you'll be pleasantly surprised. I would recommend this book to Jews who are seeking the Messiah. It is a lovely book to read with the old testament in mind.
Mark:
Written to the Romans, showing that Christ was the perfect servant. [LINK] The submission of Christ to the needs of others is a good concept to have when reading this book. It must be contrasted with John's gospel, but is an excellent starting place to see Christ's love and compassion for others. I would recommend it to those who professed Christianity but have recently turned to do it properly. It is also good for those who struggle with humility. I know I'm really humble, more humble than anyone I know...
Luke:
Written to the Greeks to show that Christ is the perfect man. It emphasises Christ's perfection and sinlessness, revealing Him to be the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. [LINK] Since it is written to Gentiles, this is the most common starting point. If you are from western society, I recommend you start here, especially if you don't know where to start.
John:
John. Wow. This book was written to the world (everyone) to reveal that Jesus is God. [LINK] If you are agnostic or aware of some 'god,' then John's gospel is for you. It reveals Jesus as the only true God, and starts right at the beginning, before there was a beginning. I would recommend it to people who believe in a god, but are not sure about Christ, also to those who love Christ, and want a lot of good theology. It reveals God's sovereignty, power and majesty.

But the best advice I can give: ask God for understanding. I read this book for years and thought I had it down. I didn't. Ask God to change your heart, give you eyes to see and ears to hear. God will hear the prayer of a humbled person. Do not read this book because you can't fall asleep, read it and be interested.

I had to laugh

2008-06-20T06:34:00.004+02:00

I am currently going crazy learning about robotics in an attempt to finish off my masters degree. I have even started a [new blog] to store all the information I get.

But in my research I came across this pearler:

"Consciousness is part of the natural world. It depends, ... , only on mathematics and logic and on the imperfectly known laws of physics, chemistry, and biology; it does not arise from some magical or otherworldly quality. That's good news, because it means there's no reason why consciousness can't be reproduced in a machine..." [Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi]

And I wonder, on whose authority do they speak? In reality they actually have no authority, since they have not actually produced conciousness.

There is no 'good news' here. All they did was take their naturalistic world view and apply it to the field of cognitive robotics. Now I do not need to be an expert in conciousness to see that they are wrong until proven right.

As I noted the other day - conciousness (or self-awareness) in computers actually gets us nowhere in intelligence. Self awareness is the pinnacle of autonomy, but it doesn't make it clever or even able to learn.

But read through the quote, and this time I'll highlight what I left out:

"Consciousness is part of the natural world. It depends, we believe, only on mathematics and logic and on the imperfectly known laws of physics, chemistry, and biology; it does not arise from some magical or otherworldly quality. That's good news, because it means there's no reason why consciousness can't be reproduced in a machine—in theory, anyway." (Emphasis mine) [Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi]

Really? You don't say! Academically, this is their 'way out' of being wrong. They'll call it a theory and continue in business as usual. So often, people (Christians and non) will read the above statement and their brain 'leaves out' the emphasized text. One party will say it is a correct statement, the other will disagree. Then we start fighting and there really is no point. Sounds a lot like another debate...

Back to the gospel

2008-06-19T10:00:00.004+02:00

What is the gospel?

Christians really need to ask themselves that question. What is the gospel? I mean it in every form that the question may be understood:

How do I say the gospel in words?
What does the gospel mean?
What is special about the gospel?

etc.

Well, what is it? It is the good news right? The news that Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am the worst.

The purpose of this post is to address a common problem in Christianity: St. Fancis really didn't have our postmodern age in mind when he said

"Preach the Gospel at all times and, if necessary, use words." [Source]

Firstly, this is not scripture. Nor is it included in scripture. Now I'm not refuting good works, but they don't save, nor do they actually show salvation [CHECK ME OUT].

The gospel is the good news, which includes the bad news. People need it. Christians need it. Remember the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation". I would encourage everyone to take the command to make disciples seriously. It is not an optional extra to salvation, it is salvation.

Jesus came down and gave us an example and He spoke. So should we. God gave us creation and a spoken (and now written) word. If we use these tools then others have a right to them.

"Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you are not saved yourself. Be sure of that." - [C.H. Spurgeon]

Now that my head is firmly planted in the sand

2008-05-14T10:13:00.004+02:00

I recently have been debating NP on evolution. Or rather - Christian evolution. Which is weird because I doubt he's a Christian.

But at the end of the day, the question is: why trust God when He's so vague? Well, I believe that God is not vague, He is easily understood and He is trustworthy. Now NP is a very smart fellow, but one thing he said needs to be discussed:

"[Ken Miller's] God doesn't dwell in the gaps in our knowledge of how the world works" [HERE]

Is that what God is? The explanation of gaps of knowledge? I thought that for a long time. Now, just because I do not understand something has no bearing on it's truth or the fact that it is the truth. Whether I accept something as truth matters nothing in eternity and even less when it comes to what is actually true. What I'm trying to get at here - if I misunderstand gravity, gravity will still operate in the same manner it always has. My 'interpretation' of gravity makes no difference to gravity itself.

So if I make a mistake when I come up with an incorrect conclusion and I say "Well, God must have done it," I belittle God. The same as when the ancients looked at waves and said, "Zeus is angry today," they belittle God. My understanding of God is reduced to plug the holes in my misunderstanding of science.

But the fact is, I do misunderstand. I have to able to say that I am wrong in order to grow:

"If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise" [1 Corinthians 3:18]

So when I see things like (old) distant starlight and old earth theories I just turn around and say "heck no, the bible is against it?" No I don't. I look into the theories and I see what they say and I can see that they are wrong. I can also look at things that prove the bible right. But the logic is simple: refute first, then look at other options. That is logical, why look at other options when you are not sure something is wrong?

Is my head in the sand? No it's not. At the moment I trust God more than I trust man, so I believe that God has got the answers and those answers wait for me first in the bible and then in nature. I can look at nature and be amazed at God's creation, whether I interpret it correctly or not, as long as I'm not dictating to the God who made it. Lord willing I will learn humility in science.

The fact is - I look at God first and then to science. I don't tell science what it should be, God did that. I certainly cannot use science as a tool for disproving God, since God is truth. Any truth reveals His nature. I certainly do not use God as a shield for 'protecting' me against science. He made science! Science reveals His power and glory!

Ken Miller... again

2008-05-05T07:04:00.006+02:00

A link through a recent commenter revealed this little tidbit from Ken Miller(on intelligent design):

"...let’s suppose, you think the moon is made of granite and I think it’s made of green cheese. And we get soil samples back from the moon, and you know what? They’re not made of granite. So I say, great, that’s evidence for the green cheese theory. Well, it’s not. It’s an entirely negative argument." [SOURCE]

Now, realizing that he's using a stupid example, I would disagree with him. If there were only two options, green cheese(a designer) and granite(no designer) and we see that granite is not an option, then we have a proof for green cheese by the law of non-contradiction.

Ken has the wrong picture here. You see, we can't prove it either way. We (as in everybody) do not have the 'lunar samples.' There is a faith aspect involved, duh, it's the whole point.

Besides, I have plenty of evidence for a designer: the universe and the rules that are followed (gravity, acceleration etc). But others interpret that evidence differently and rightly so, they have a different worldview. Their worldview is either devoid of God or denying His power. But don't tell me I have no evidence, because all you do reveal your ignorance.

I hope that I'm done with Ken Miller, I do not want to bash him. He is a doctor, a position I hope to attain to someday (hopefully soon), although thankfully not in biology. I do not think he is stupid, just perhaps misguided in religion, which is fine, since theology is not his forté anyway. I don't have a problem with him being an evolutionist, my problem comes in where he tries to call himself a Christian, which so far, I have not seen. A love for Christ does not seem to emanate from his writing.

But lets end off on a good note: The sun rises, the birds sing and the world works. Praise the Lord!

Ken Miller's Bible

2008-04-18T07:27:00.006+02:00

In my debates, I have come across Dr Ken Miller's writings. It seriously disturbs me the depths to which he'll sink for evolution.

"Putting it bluntly, the creationists have sought God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best - indeed their only - evidence for the divine. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that, if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else - in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific." [Dr Miller in an article based on "Finding Darwin's God"]

Sought God in darkness? Does anyone hear what he's saying about the bible? Where do you find out about Christ? In darkness? He denies the bible flat out. You may want to defend Dr Miller at this point saying, "He's not calling the bible darkness, just the reasoning (or science) of the creationists." Fine, but where do the reasons for creationist scientific arguments come from? You cannot say that creationists are not being biblical, the question that is being asked is: "Is the bible reliable?" Did anyone hear the snake in the garden?

Fear the acquisition of knowledge? I'm not afraid of learning. I was told by Jesus to "fear Him who can cast into hell" [Jesus in Luke] You see, Dr Miller thinks that by diminishing belief he makes a better Christian, I say, with Jesus, no. "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."[Jesus in John] I am not promoting a blind faith, but faith and Christianity cannot be divorced in any manner. Faith is a requirement.

If we are to find God in "in the bright light of human knowledge" he clearly missed the bible completely. Does "do not lean your own understanding" ring a bell? How about "the way of a fool is right in his own eyes"? As for me, I will serve the Lord. I will not look for Him "somewhere else."

Evolving Arguments: Expelled the movie again

2008-04-17T09:45:00.005+02:00

In my first post about the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," I looked at the beginning of the Ad Hominems surrounding this movie.

Now plagiarism is disgusting, and anyone who commits such an act, evolutionist or creationist, ought to be expelled for breaking moral and academic rules. By I'm getting ahead of myself.

The Harvard Scientific Animation company, XVIVO made a cell animation video and have accused Expelled producers for copyright infringements. The original can be seen here [XVIVO video]

Now I wonder how much you can copyright cell descriptions. Now we have only seen one side of the story. At P.Z. Meyers' blog, he compares two screenshots P.Z. Meyers. He makes an interesting statement:

"Another curious coincidence: you've heard of the concept of plagiarized errors, the idea that the real tell-tale of a copy is when it's the mistakes that are duplicated, in addition to the accuracies." [P.Z. Meyers]

I agree. But there still exists the possibility that both made the same error, having the same source. But lets be closed minded.

As I mentioned in another argument:

"Are you proving evolution by proving this movie to be fallible? There is a fundamental fallacy here." [SOURCE]

The movie itself is not the argument. Just because an evolutionist plagiarizes doesn't mean evolution is bad.

Thank goodness there are still some people who aren't lowering themselves like P.Z. Meyers and the rest of these evangelical evolutionists:

"Is it really that unexpected that someone would show kinesin as making a stately march down the microtubule?

I don't doubt that they did their best to copy the harvard videos, but that bit about kinesin makely a stately march is hardly a smoking gun." [SOURCE]
...
"I should amend that: I do have some nagging doubts, it is afterall(sic) entirely possible based on the little information presented that they did in fact produce this video from scratch. If I were producing these videos, based on my knowledge of cell biology, I would have done something very similar. We really need more examples to determine whether this is really an attempt at exact copying of the Harvard material." [SOURCE]

More can be found at WorldNetDaily: [ARTICLE]

Chuck Norris

2008-04-17T09:11:00.005+02:00

Guess what people? He's a creationist!

What's more important is that he is a Christian. What is great is he is not afraid to teach Christ crucified. He takes the bible and the great commission seriously. It is awesome to see that God puts some in those very visible places that are His own:

"...here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures." [Chuck Norris]

Please note I do realize that Chuck is not a scientist - that doesn't mean his beliefs are any less valid than yours or mine. I know that he probably doesn't study genetics or geology. What I am speaking about is the fact that he is a Christian who trusts in God, who is willing to stand up and be counted. Praise the Lord!

State of the nations

2008-04-17T06:31:00.004+02:00

Dr Ravi Zacharias' radio podcasts have been playing in my household for a while. I love listening to what he has to say on philosophy and God. He made a quote by G.K. Chesterton that really makes you think. This quote is the substance of my blog today:

"But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." [SOURCE]

We all know how to argue our point by poking holes in the other person's arguments, but do we really know how to argue the truth? We can break down an opponent's argument, but that does not necessarily mean that our argument is correct? We must be careful not to deal out doubts, but rather certainties.

Bible Quiz

2008-04-17T06:21:00.003+02:00

You know the Bible 100%!

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

I don't know my bible that well. If I was truly 100% I wouldn't be on earth still. It's an easy quiz, I recommend it. No cheating!

Errata 2

2008-04-16T14:55:00.002+02:00

Sorry - I made another mistake:

"I can tell you something about the practicalities of ‘Evolution’: there are none." [SOURCE]

Here I make a classic atheist mistake - I posit a negative statement. I should not do that. If I were to correct myself, I would say: You would be hard pressed to find one, when you do, please tell me.

Errata

2008-04-14T11:24:00.004+02:00

I have made some mistakes and I would like to address them. I have only thought of two but I assume the list will grow.

Firstly, in my starlight post (here) I actually came up with a biblical version of the cosmic inflation principle that evolutionists use. While the cosmic inflation principle is valid, it might have happened, it is not good science (It is good origins science, but not good operational science). There are better explanations of distant light, which I will discuss at a later stage.

Secondly, I undermined Einstein's theory of relativity (here). I did not understand the theory and was answering a fool in his folly. What is amusing is that the theory of relativity proves the existence of absolute truth. It says that two objects, traveling at different speeds (speed being a relative measurement), if they were to measure the speed of a third object traveling at a different speed, would come out at the same answer. That, is absolute truth. While it is still theory, it is a good theory and certainly cannot be used to prove that truth is relative. [wiki] I think that the theory of relativity is good science.

More evolution

2008-04-14T11:00:00.006+02:00

At this blog they will not publish a comment I made. While I respect their right to exclude me, I will at least hear myself out.

“…Evolution is a theory that has paractical(sic) application in medicine, agriculture, research, economics, conputer(sic) science, many other fields…”

I would challenge you to give one practical example. One kind to another kind.

I also understand that we must not let ourselves get tied up in a word debate. The word ‘evolution’ can have several meanings. I am not attacking ‘evolution’ if it involves minor changes within a bound set of constructs (accurately known as Natural Selection). What we claim is that there is no evidence of one kind of animal producing another kind of animal. This claim is valid: no evidence has surfaced.

As a ‘conputer’ scientist, I can tell you something about the practicalities of ‘Evolution’: there are none[Errata 2]. Minor changes in genes NEVER result in an artificially intelligent construct to be more complex than the parent. Even computer “evolutionary” algorithms don’t (and can’t) work like that.

The process of Natural selection used in computer science is often mistakenly called evolution. NS does not lead to the formation of new kinds. Check it out here.

“We do not have a predefined expectation of what the answer should be and we do not ignore or twist the evidence to fit the model.”

You know what amuses me the most? The fact that we are all humans deep down. Probably the most common feature which permeates to our core is the dogmatic assumption that we are right in ourselves. Christianity says no to that.

Everyone makes assumptions. You think you are so smart? Where were you when it all began? Who are you to tell the universe how it came into being? If you think I should turn these questions on myself, you can rest assured I do. Every single day.

Dr Smarty Pants Dawkins is obligated in his worldview to assume that no God exists. We all work with the same evidence, it is our perspectives that warp our conclusions on that evidence. Since Dawkins believes there is no God, then his interpretation cannot, because he has a foundational ‘truth’ to uphold, veer away from that belief. He is not as ‘open-minded’ as you think.

I’m not saying we should sit back and say “well God did it, it doesn’t matter how.” That is blatant ignorance. Since we are capable of discovery, we should do all we can to figure out how this world works.

We all have beliefs, to ignore that truth is to be blind and ignorant. To claim that “us scientists” are so much smarter because “we are beyond all that God stuff” is foolishness. The God you worship is found in where you determine truth.

--------------------------------------------
I have been researching my creationism and evolutionism to this point and feel a little bit more eager to dive into the waters. One thing though - I'm not searching out evolutionists in order to argue with them, like I used to. I am an evangelist first. So while I am convinced in my beliefs, I will not search out debates on purpose. But I am open to debate.

Here is a great quote by Sir Isaac Newton, who is rapidly becoming my favourite historical figure:

"Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and other suchlike considerations, always have, and always will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, who has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared." - Sir Isaac Newton

Veggies in the fruit salad of life

2008-04-14T10:11:00.003+02:00

I am attempting to eat healthier. In my exploits, I have given up sugar and today I started bring a salad to munch on instead of having lunch. My mother usually makes a salad for herself so I asked if she wouldn't mind just making a little extra for me. Now what goes into the salad is another thing. I asked her not to put radishes in, because I really don't like them. But I specifically didn't ask her not to put carrots in.

I hate carrots. I really do. They are part of God's creation but I would rather enjoy them from a far distance than ever have them in my mouth. As I was eating them this morning (I hate wasting food more than I hate carrots), I thought to myself: "I'll eat them today, but tomorrow, they are so gone!" But then something struck me. Something I determined blog-worthy and profound: The main goal of my salad is not for enjoyment. If the main goal was to enjoy the salad, then I could easily say that it is right to throw out the carrots. But the goal is a healthy lifestyle. So why throw something away that I know is good for me, to spite what it feels like.

There is a gospel lesson there, I feel that we miss out so much on the real blessings of Christianity. It's really nice when things go the way we want them to go, but when they don't, we need to be prepared to accept those things as good things from God. We can't just ignore the bad things and take all of the (perceived) good things.

God chastens those He loves. If you don't ever feel chastened, you've really got to wonder if He loves you.

When God gives you carrots, what do you do with them? More to myself, what will I do if I ever get a radish?

It's happening again.... the e-mails are back....

2008-04-08T09:49:00.004+02:00

Emails. This time I don't even have to put my name on it. All that is required of me is to forward it. Sin lies at the door.

"...
A child dies every day from child abuse.
And if you have an ounce of pity in you for Aurora (the little girl),
And you hate child abuse with a passion,
You will repost this and help out those abused children,
And let them know that someone cares for them.
It doesn't take that long only about 10 seconds
So please just do it.

She was only 5 and never loved ...

Forward this saying: she was ONLY 5"

I am trying to get away from "fake" imagery (movies, tv, etc.). When I see suffering, I want to make sure that I am sensitive enough to truly weep in despair. This kind of e-mail does not help. (I couldn't even put the whole thing up because it is too painful.) It stirs the emotions, but at the end of it, all I have to do is take 10 seconds out of my life and I will be "helping" child abused children.

How? I am forwarding a story I can't prove is true, making other people do the same, with some false sense of "I did something right today." This microwave oven 'solution' does nothing. Is this a Christian manner of behaviour?

I've been noticing how sensitivity effects evangelism. When you see someone in need, does your heart truly go out to them? Or do we harden or hearts because of all the trash we let in when we watch the news and hear stories? I'm nearly there... I'm nearly at a point where I see someone and I want to speak to them. I don't feel like I have to speak to them. Or do something nice for them. Evangelism is a lifestyle, not a trip to the shopping center.

This e-mail does not help anyone, it gives a false sense of 'right-doing.' There is also a flaw in the logic: by forwarding this e-mail, how will abused children know I care? You want to help kids? Donate some money. Spend a weekend helping an orphanage. Get your hands dirty, feel some loss.

My favourite sayings, and a little philosophy

2008-04-04T09:11:00.005+02:00

I was thinking of some statements I actually use (or could use) in evangelism:

You have to believe in free will
I am absolutely sure everything is relative
Say no to just saying no
It can only be both "EITHER OR" and "AND ONLY"
Nothing makes sense
Nothing can be known
No statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically

I was interested in the first cause on Wikipedia:

"First-cause arguments are described as self-refuting. For example, the philosopher Theodore Schick suggests that an argument by Thomas Aquinas can be formulated in the following terms:

1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely a divine entity.

– and suggests that this is self-refuting because "if everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false."[SOURCE]

There are so many flaws in the argument. Firstly - it denies (or at least fails to include) the concept of infinity. Does there exists a number n such that n + 1 does not exist (n being an element of Integers)? Of course infinity exists!

This a naturalistic argument for God. It assumes things must exist within the 5 senses in order to be. This is clearly false, since consciousness exists, right? What about reason? You cannot have an argument for God that denies infinity.

Nor can we define God in naturalistic terms. He is Spirit, which enables Him to be infinite and therefore the first cause in a string of (7) limited causes. We must work FROM God and not TO God in such arguments. The last cause (where we are) cannot be the foundation for God's existence, rather God is the foundation for OUR existence.

Something to look forward to

2008-04-04T06:40:00.013+02:00

Creationists, young and old alike (excuse the pun), have something to really look forward to: An upcoming movie which explores the Darwinian movement as it is today: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial examination of the theories and people involved in the evolutionist movement today.

To be honest I can't wait to spend my money on this one. I have been reading articles on it and even the evolutionists are fighting for sneak previews:

"When confronted at the screening by Myers' friend Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist who is himself featured in the film, as to why Myers was 'expelled' from the screening, producer Mark Mathis replied that the producers were eager for Myers to screen the film but only after he had paid $10 to watch it with the rest of America after it releases on April 18th."[SOURCE]

I'm starting to like Ben Stein, we have the same birthday.... Oh and I like the idea of this movie.

But, of course there is always the Wikipedia view of things:

"One of the pro-evolution scientists interviewed for Expelled claims that he was interviewed under false pretenses and assumes the quotes are edited in a way that misrepresents his original statements" ... "This claim has been further corroborated by an incident where the same scientist, who was acknowledged in the credits, was ejected from a private screening on March 20th, 2008, and not allowed to view the movie."[SOURCE]

I have been looking for this 'corroboration' but have been unable to see it. If P.Z. Meyers has been misrepresented, then it doesn't matter when he sees the movie. Plus not even old Richie Dawkins claims that they were misrepresented. He had more problems with the crowd, apparently. I suppose he's fortunate for him that evolutionism teaches survival, rather than sacrifice.

"They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …

Richard Dawkins." [SOURCE]

And Richard had a lot to say [HERE]. It's amazing how people will react when they are treated the way they treat others. If you are goning to be exclusivistic, then be prepared to be excluded. Of course they would know that if they had read their bibles.

"The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid -- pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough." [SOURCE]

Can anyone smell the ad hominem? As to the eviction, well there's speculation. Apparently, the speculation that Meyers had no ticket and was disturbing the crowd is unfounded - more reliable sources state that Mark Mathis, producer, had this to say:

"Yes, I turned Mr. Myers away. He was not an invited guest of Premise Media. This was a private screening of an unfinished film. I could have let him in, just as I invited Michael Shermer to a screening in Nashville. Shermer is in the film as well. But, in light of Myers’ untruthful blogging about ‘Expelled’ I decided it was better to have him wait until April 18 and pay to see the film. Others, notable others, were permitted to see the film. At a private screening it’s my call."[SOURCE]

So there you have it. You could have registered on the net, or you could have been invited. Since some where explicitly excluded, some were not. It's amazing how post modern Richard Dawkins is. He looks at his own understanding and assumes it's truth. There's a lesson for our kids: "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you are louder than the other guy."

All in all, we weren't there. I believe that the side on which you fall will depend on how much you trust either of the parties, not on the evidence of what happened - since we will only ever have the parties testimonies. And you know what? If Mark wants to be a kid in the playground and say "it's my call!" - then so what? If it is his call - then let him make his call. It's childish, yes, but what can we do? Any response to it is becoming the other kid in the playground. Grow up.

This is probably going to do a lot. It has a lot of potential, my prayer is that it comes through with a gospel message. If not, then let's hope it opens the door for one. I'm excited and optimistic.

8 April Update: I found this, a creationist review:
[AiG on Expelled]

It tolls for thee!

2008-04-03T06:31:00.002+02:00

I am watching Hells Bells 2 again, and I think it is a great apologetic for Christians. At least twice I have been questioned on music and the evil behind it. What is great about the DVD is that it does not condemn rock and roll, it merely points you to the beliefs behind the music that so often go unheard.

Yesterday, while at varsity, I was listening to some of the music (that I own) that I had put on my computer. I was so shocked to hear these words by Ok Go:

"If evil were a lesser breed then justice after all these years the righteous would have freed the world of sin.
The house wins.
Oh the house always wins." [SOURCE]

Just give up on goodness, because the 'house' always wins. What a statement. Now I'm not going nuts over this song, but if you have heard it, you've probably never actually listened to those lines. I actually put away the CD for other reasons (they blaspheme in one song - and yes that's enough for me to put away the CD - my computer is on random and the songs on there are quite old), but isn't it amazing that we can hear that and be 'unimpressed.'

The question is - can music influence you? The answer, no matter what you think, is yes. Has a song ever made you feel better? Has a song every related with you on your level, making life easier? We've all experienced the power of music. For some reason we seem to think that music can only have a positive affect on us. To think like that is plain naïve.

Well, there's a lot I could say on this topic, but I won't dive too deep. I would like to leave you with some more words from Ok Go:

"You don't have to be alone to be lonely
You might as well give in.
You don't have to be sick to be dying
You might as well give in.
You don't have to have lost to be lost.
Oh give in.
You don't have to be alone to be lonely
You might as well give in." [SOURCE]

Denominational Discord: Part 2

2008-03-25T10:39:00.058+02:00

[PART 1]

Well I finished my research and it's quite obvious that there is not much variation in the opinion of scripture. It comes down to interpretation and application. I suppose in a world where there are only two groups (literal and non-literal) I should not have expected much else. But it was fun.

*Denomination*	*View of the Bible*	*Reference*
Amish	We believe that the God of creation and redemption has revealed Himself and His will for men of all time in the Holy Scriptures. His supreme and final revelation is in His Incarnate Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe in the plenary and verbal inspiration of the Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament, as the Word of God: that it authentic in its matter, authoritative in its counsels, inerrant in its original writings, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We believe holy men of God moved by Holy Spirit recorded and communicated divine truth without any mixture of error.	[SRC]
	Difficult to find, but they seem literal	[SRC]
		[SRC]
		[SRC]
Anglican	The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the authentic record of God's revelation of Himself, His saving activity, and moral demands - a revelation valid for all men and all time	[SRC]
	The Old and New Testaments are "God's Word written," inspired and authoritative, inerrant (true and trustworthy), coherent, sufficient for salvation, living and powerful as God's guidance for belief and behaviour. The church may not judge the Scriptures, selecting and discarding from among their teachings. Rather,the Scriptures under Christ, judge the church for its faithfulness to His revealed truth.	[SRC]
	(1.) We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life. (2.) With regard to the interpretation of Holy Scripture, we affirm the clarity of its plain sense so that it may and can be understood by ordinary readers. We hold to the importance of the scholarly interpretation of Scripture by a faithful use of responsible historical and grammatical scholarship. We affirm that the original meaning of the text is to be given its due primacy. Further we believe in the unity and harmony of its various books and two Testaments so that one place of Scripture may not be expounded so as to be repugnant to another. Also, it is only by referring to the whole Canon of Scripture that Scripture will be allowed to interpret Scripture. We hold to the sufficiency and trustworthiness of Scripture in bringing unbelievers to Christ and nurturing and sustaining believers unto eternal life. By following these principles of interpretation the Church will interpret Scripture in accord with its nature as the Word of God written.	[SRC]
Baptist	The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.	[SRC]
	If we truly believe in a sovereign God then we must believe that He not only communicated to men but that He did so by His Spirit in such a way as to preserve the text of Scripture (2 Peter 1:21). God breathed His Word (2 Timothy 3:16) and so we have before us the inerrant Word of God to guide us unto salvation through Jesus (John 20:31; 1 John 5:13). The Bible sanctifies us as we allow it to pierce us within (John 17:17; Hebrews 4:12-13).	[SRC]
	The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation	[SRC]
	The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.	[SRC]
	We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired; that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the age, the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.	[SRC]
	the individual is free to interpret the Bible for himself or herself, using the best tools of scholarship and biblical study available to the individual	[SRC]
Eastern Orthodox	The Bible is always interpreted within the context of Holy Tradition, which gave birth to it and canonized it. Orthodox Christians maintain that belief in a doctrine of sola scriptura would be to take the Bible out of the world in which it arose. Orthodox Christians therefore believe that the only way to understand the Bible correctly is within the Orthodox Church	[SRC]
Emergent / Emerging	Postmodern literary theory critiques the referential theory of language. For some in the movement, the text takes on a personal meaning as they experience it, but it has no authoritative meaning such as authorial intent to distinguish a right from wrong interpretation. Others consider the reader based insights that arise from the biblical text alongside other considerations like textual content and authorial intent. A plurality of Scriptural interpretations is acknowledged in the movement	[SRC]
Lutheran	Lutherans believe that the Bible, as a divinely inspired book, is the source of all revealed divine knowledge. Scripture alone (Sola scriptura) is the formal principle of the faith, the final authority for all matters of faith and doctrine. The Book of Concord, published in 1580, contains ten documents which Lutherans believe are faithful and authoritative explanations of Holy Scripture.	[SRC]
	This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life. This church accepts the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as true declarations of the faith of this church. This church accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it In faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. This church accepts the other confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church. This church confesses the Gospel, recorded in the Holy Scriptures and confessed in the ecumenical creeds and Lutheran confessional writings, as the power of God to create and sustain the Church for God's mission in the world.	[SRC]
Methodist	By reason, it is said, one reads and interprets Scripture. By reason one determines whether one's Christian witness is clear. By reason one asks questions of faith and seeks to understand God's action and will.	[SRC]
	[Methodists] have learned that the Bible's writers are as contradictory, fallible, rooted in their own cultures, and individual as any other human authors.	[SRC]
Pentecostal	Theologically, most Pentecostal denominations are aligned with Evangelicalism in that they emphasize the reliability of the Bible and the need for the transformation of an individual's life with faith in Jesus. Pentecostals also adhere to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. Pentecostals differ from fundamentalists by placing less emphasis on personal spiritual experience and more emphasis on the Holy Spirit's work within a person than other Protestants.	[SRC]
	In the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments.	[SRC]
Presbyterian (Calvinist Methodist)	The church confesses the Scriptures to be the Word of God written, witnessing to God's self-revelation. Where that Word is read and proclaimed, Jesus Christ the Living Word is present by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit. For this reason the reading, hearing, preaching, and confessing of the Word are central to Christian worship. The session shall ensure that in public worship the Scripture is read and proclaimed regularly in the common language(s) of the particular church.	[SRC]
	The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.	[SRC]
Protestant	Most mainline denominations do not require strict acceptance of everything written about or spoken by Jesus in the New Testament.	[SRC]
	Protestants believe that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church obscure the teachings of the Bible by convoluting it with church history and doctrine.	[SRC]
Roman Catholic	The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error, that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.	[SRC]
	I believe that God will safeguard the infallible Sacred Magisterium from the errors in this poorly-written, poorly researched, heretical document [referring sarcastically to the bible]. And I know that the faithful will continue to believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Sacred Bible, despite the errors of some Bishops and the erroneous teachings of the document called 'The Gift of Scripture.'	[SRC]
	We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision	[SRC1][SRC2]
Seventh Day Adventists	The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of [God's] will... They believe instead that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical authors, and that the authors then expressed these thoughts in their own words	[SRC]
Wesleyan	We believe the Bible to be the inspired, only infallible and authoritative Word of God, fully inerrant in the original manuscript.	[SRC]
	The priority of Scripture as the inerrant and authoritative written Word of God that guides us in all matters of faith, learning, and living.	[SRC]

So it would be best to divide them into two groups: literal (Amish, Anglican, Baptist, Pentacostal, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventists, Wesleyan) and non-literal (Eastern Orthodox, Emergent, Lutheran, Methodist, Protestant).

UPDATE 21 January 2009: [HERE] is a nice in-depth comparison.

The news is starting to kill me

2008-03-20T07:00:00.005+02:00

I just finish the evolution in the news, and what do I find?

Numerous studies have shown that humans are not especially self-restrained when it comes to gratification. We prefer to indulge in pleasure when opportunity arises.[SOURCE] (Emphasis mine)

It's called radical depravity people!

It turns out, when people think about their partner, they are less inclined towards temptation. I'm glad to see this kind of thing in the news, but surely this kind of thing is obvious?

Evolution brings me down

2008-03-20T06:32:00.005+02:00

Hey! BREAKING NEWS!!! This one is going to BLOW CREATIONISTS(like me) OUT OF THE WATER!

I really don't know how we are going to come back from this one!

Scientists have made found the first evolutionary rule. And I'm sure there is NO going back on this one!

Apparently, according to the latest research in evolutionary biology, [gulps in despair], ANIMALS GET MORE COMPLEX!

SHOCK AND HORROR!!

Just in case, I am being extremely sarcastic. Surely evolutionists must be a little insulted by this research making headlines? This is what evolution has been teaching and "proving" since Darwin.

Surely this is what the WHOLE debate is about. This is, at best, OLD news. I believe that complexity cannot be inherited, just like genetics dictates. If I inherit my genes from my parents, how can I expect to get more complex genes that they don't have? The ONLY option is loss. But hey, that's genetics, not me.

And on the topic of old news: I'm still a God fearing, bible believing six day creationist.

Denominational Discord: Part 1

2008-03-10T12:05:00.008+02:00

One thing my pastor says is:

"I would challenge you to know both what you believe and why you believe it." [Doug Van Meter on Revelation 1:1]

This principle is echoed in scripture, requiring us to search and study the scriptures to make sure we are not taught false doctrines:

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." [Acts 17:11]

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." [2 Timothy 2:15]

So I was thinking of looking at broader Christianity - what views do each of the major denominations believe with regard to the bible. I believe it is important to be able to state what we believe about the only book that actually binds us. I think it would be only right, before I look at what most people believe, that I state my opinion of scripture:

Intention and authorship. I believe, that the 66 books of the bible are the inspired works of God, working through His servants to:
Reveal Himself as the one and only God eternal
tell His people of His son Jesus Christ and the salvation that He provided
instruct ALL people on the manner in which they ought to live, the judgment for disobedience belonging to God alone
Since these books have come primarily from God, they are inerrant and infallible, meaning there are no errors regarding the individual words and verses, as well as no errors in continuity. Any error perceived only reveals the readers response to the text in a manner that is unwilling to submit to the authority of the God who inspired it. In other words, the problem with 'errors' in biblical texts lies solely with the interpreter and not the author.

Regarding interpretation. While many interpretations exist, there can be only one proper interpretation of a biblical text. That is, a grammatical historical interpretation. The text must be read as it is written, in manner consistent with the interpretation of the original recipients. To understand a text beyond the audience to whom it was written is incorrect, unless another passage of scripture allows for such an interpretation. Scripture must be used to interpret other scriptures, using the scriptures which convey meaning the most fluently to interpret the scriptures which are difficult to understand. The bible must be read with the very principles it promotes: humility on the part of the believer. The more one reads biblical texts the more one's understanding will increase. It is the believers duty to seek God in prayer in order to understand a text.

Regarding textual portions in which inclusion is questionable. Grace and understanding need to be applied in the contention of these portions of scripture. They should be dealt with like any other segment in scripture in the sense that they are not to be considered in isolation. The context of the passage must be considered as well as other doctrines of scripture. These texts should not be used as the primary texts for new doctrine, or be the sole foundation of new doctrine.

Well, that is my opinion of the bible. I did not always hold to this view, it has been a process. I find that unless I take the bible this seriously, I cannot call it the word of God. I still have to look at the apocryphal books, but I do believe the testimony of my leaders at this point. I still need to research the canonization process and the exclusion of the apocrypha.

Now, as the title suggests, I have laid down my framework of belief in the bible. I will be looking for different denominations' statements of faith. So far I will be looking at:

Now I cannot tell if these even HAVE a statement of faith. Also it needs to be mentioned that there are sects inside each denomination. If you are not correctly represented (or not represented at all) - I would love to hear from you. I am sure a research project like this will be a benefit to many. If you are insulted by what you read, please check out the reference before you comment. I will not publish my own bias, but if you do notice a biased comment, please let me know. I will try to use only the wording of the statements of faith. The two faiths I am most interested in are, of course, the ones in which I was involved: Baptist and Methodist.

Part 2, hopefully will be the conclusion of my discussion, but I may go in further.

Futurama: Bender's "big" score

2008-03-05T21:35:00.005+02:00

Futurama has made a comeback as a straight to T.V. movie. It portrays every character of the series in a one and a half hour feature film. Now, I don't like television, but I did watch this movie, and while I have my reasons, the movie remains 'watched.'

But I'm not going to blast it. Just like every other television show, it takes God for granted, so no surprise, right? Wrong! As usual, Matt Groening surprises us with the things that might ordinarily be missed.

The movie involves time travel (which is as easy to prove as the existence as free will) and needless to say Bender takes advantage by stealing relics from the past. Right at the end of the movie a horde of Benders (duplicated by time travel) emerge bearing a massive amount of 'treasure'. One item that can be clearly spotted is a large wooden cross with a small sign attached to the top.

Now my first reaction was "that is so blasphemous!" But that was because I was taken aback. After carefully considering the evidence, I am just confused as to the intention. Clearly the broader perspective is that this is a comedy movie, designed to make people laugh. So is it mocking the cross? Or is it depicting the cross as an actual historic event, since none of items Bender stole were fictional (since they had to be recognizable). I also noted the move went back to a maximum of 1500 b.c. ("b.c." also being very notable - antagonistic secular dating refers to b.c. as "b.c.e.") One could easily support the historicity argument since it is not an "in your face" reference. It is subtle and could be easily missed.

Now I don't know. I can't accuse them of blasphemy in this case. There is blasphemy elsewhere, so the movie is definitely not trying to encourage sinless behaviour. But is this seemingly random insert a glimmer of hope? Or is it dancing on a very dangerous edge? I honestly hang my shoulders and say that I can't tell you.

What is interesting is that there are enough relics in the common pool of knowledge to avoid including the cross. So why put it in there? Clearly it's intent is to create questions. My question is: are there people who deny that Christ ever existed? Or is it safe to say that history itself testifies (at least) to a man whose name was Jesus and was crucified? I suppose the world is full of all sorts of people, including those who will distrust even secular historians like Josephus(37 to after 100 A.D.) who at least made references to Christians, possibly even Christ. We cannot expect Josephus to give us right answers to Christ and His nature, but there is a thread there that is good.

"In short, while there is reason to doubt the validity of any references to Jesus Christ in the works of Josephus, the general consensus is that they are genuine at least in part." [REFERENCE]

It is important that we as Christians do not let symbols be our downfall. However we must respect the importance of them. I think the cross itself was two pieces of wood, but what it represents is a God who paid the debt for us all. Symbols are important, since they remind us of an entire concept. The whole bible is contained inside that symbol. But some take it too far in saying that it is 'holy.'

I would ultimately say that Futurama did Christianity a slight service in this movie. People will see that cross, know what it means and ultimately see it as a real event. But the context is so blurred I wonder what God's purpose was in allowing it. Some may scoff, some may ask questions. Questions are good.

Some might argue that I'm looking too deeply at this, but everything we sense effects us. If this were not so, then why do advertisers advertise? Everything we put into ourselves will affect what comes out of ourselves. We have to be prepared to accept that seeds may fall through the deepest cracks of our hearts and find them germinating in our most fertile grounds.

Dangerous statements

2008-03-04T09:13:00.005+02:00

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."[Richard Dawkins]

I suppose by 'untested belief' he means religion in general. But the question of origins is a unique question, since, origin was a one-time event. If origin was a one time event, then either it needs to be reproduced to be tested or it needs to be believed in.

I think Dr. Dawkins has clearly stated the evolutionists case. They will use the power of their institutions and the passage of time to get their message out. To accuse religion of being the only one to do so is an unfair argument.

"What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"[Richard Dawkins]

I would first beg Dr Dawkins to consider Theologies purpose. It is to reveal God, not to give us every scientific answer. God has allowed us to test and experiment, and we should do so. I find it rather ironic that the first scientists allowed their belief in God to determine that there were observable rules in the universe.

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." [Isaac Newton]

We can't expect the bible to give us ALL the answers in science, that was not it's purpose. But we can say that God wrote it and it dictates the manner in which we see the world around us. Just as much as you can reject God's word. That doesn't make theology any less important or true.

"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."[Richard Dawkins] (Emphasis added)

You know, I couldn't agree more, you would have to be mad to consider those things fact.

Moral Issues

2008-03-03T15:46:00.004+02:00

I've been surfing around the blogsphere and finding some pretty disturbing arguments. It seems the evolutionists are taking to the bible trying to confuse moral issues. One of my very first visitors to my blog, Corey, who either can't read or remember, has posed a question to Christians: Does bible condemn pedophilia?

After researching the blogsphere, I am amazed at the lack of response. Now firstly, the question remains: why go to the bible if you are trying to prove evolution? It's not there! That's why we're arguing, right? Secondly, why are you trying to defraud the bible on a moral issue? Evolutionists are the ones who have no basis for being against pedophilia. If we are simply animals, then things like pedophilia are fine, after all: survival of the fittest, right? All I have to do, as an animal, is make sure I don't get caught.

That's the only moral I can see with evolution: don't get caught. It seems I've landed on a planet where these creatures only care when they find out. As long as my actions are kept under the rug, they won't care. Big bang forbid there is a God out there to whom I'm accountable.

But consider the question: Does the bible condemn pedophilia? Is there a verse? Let me give you the answer: the bible does condemn pedophilia, but not in one verse. Although it is consistent with "evangelical atheist's / evolutionist's" to shake the proverbial eight ball when it comes to the bible. I wonder why they expect one verse to solve all their problems. Genesis 1:1 is an awesome verse, but it isn't the whole story, is it? The bible is a whole, and as a whole, it must be read as a whole. For them to claim the bible does not condemn pedophilia is like me saying Darwin didn't give an evolutionary model because he didn't do it for every creature.

So how does the bible condemn pedophilia? Well, God has always taken sexual activity very seriously:

¹⁰"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. ¹¹ If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. ¹² If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. ¹³ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. ¹⁴ If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. ¹⁵ If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. ¹⁶ If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

¹⁷ "If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. ¹⁸ If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. ¹⁹ You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for that is to make naked one’s relative; they shall bear their iniquity. ²⁰ If a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. ²¹ If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is impurity. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
[LEVITICUS 20:10-17]

These principles are echoed in the new testament. The old covenant was a quid pro quo covenant, whereas the new one is not. But since God's moral standards do not change, we know that we can take the principles out that God laid down here. (There are many methods of coming out to the same laws, by the way.)

Since God is so particular about sexual sin, as well as the role of sex as inside marital vows, we know that a man and a woman ought to only exercise sexual intimacy inside a marriage, it becomes evident as to why God did not explicitly condemn pedophilia: He didn't need to. He began with a man leaving his house to be with his wife in Genesis 2:24, and prohibited anti-marital relations by saying that if you do sleep with a woman you must pay the bride price for her in Exodus 22:16. This This limits the use of sexual intimacy to those who are married, or in the case of infidelity, to those who are able to wed. Now the new testament makes it clear, only have sex with your wife (1 Corinthians 7)

So there you have it: sexual activity is limited to marriage! It is sin to be involved in sexual intimacy before or outside of marriage. The next issue is the "fuzzy" one. This is why I believe God didn't explicitly condemn pedophilia: the question of age. In the OT, when did they get married? They could have been married at 14 for all we know. But what God permitted then, He may not permit now. This is evident since God has placed governors over us that dictate the legal age of marriage, so we follow those. God has given the positive and some of the negative. The positive being that a man must be one with his wife. The negative that He does mention is not exhaustive, the Bible is supposed to be the GOOD news. I would warn people who want to "make up" moral issues:

God gave us the law because our hearts were so hard (Mark 10:5), which is confirmed by the manner by which some use the law. But He has planted the law (to a degree) in the hearts of men, so that by the "moralists" addressing a moral issue they actually prove God's word (Romans 2:15). But be warned that those who make up new evils do themselves no good, they give themselves up to a debased mind:

²⁸And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[ROMANS 1:28-31]

Just because these verses give examples does not mean it is an exhaustive list.

The creation issue and non-Christians

2008-02-12T13:05:00.000+02:00

SUMMARY: Creation isn't the gospel, therefore: don't start arguments with people who do not want to submit to the word of God.

I have started seeing the need for the gospel more than ever. I don't hide the fact that what I believe takes faith. In the same vein EVERYONE must be able to concede that they simply cannot know everything.

I saw a beautiful constellation on news24, and wanted to check it out biblically. Some reports indicate that stars are "born" here. Now I wanted the Christian perspective on star formation. Instead what I found was No Answers in Genesis' site.

I must say I get angry when people will blatantly disregard the faith, I wish they would see the light (pun intentional). But I have to smile when I see things like:

"There is absolutely no scientific evidence for a worldwide flood." [GO TO SOURCE]

Really? I have a philosophical problem with this rather than an evidence problem. If I were to say "There is absolutely no evidence for evolution," an evolutionist would point to all his "evidences" and called me bigoted and narrow-minded. It's amazing how defensive people get when you disagree with them, but when you agree with their narrow-minded foolish perspective, all of a sudden you are intelligent and reasonable.

You see, it's all about how one interprets the evidence. Interpretation requires presuppositions. I presuppose God created in six literal days and I don't have a problem with it. When evidence comes along that is difficult, I say "Woah, I have such an awesome God. Maybe tomorrow He will grant me insight."

But to say that there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood is plain stupidity right from the start. I hate calling people stupid but that is how I feel about this. Suppose I said "there is absolutely no gold in china." What would that mean, it has a couple of implications:

I would know exactly what gold is
I have looked in every square inch of china for gold

To bring my allegory back to the argument: He clearly is not looking for "gold" (the evidence of a global flood). He must be aware of his presuppositions. Secondly, he has not looked everywhere on earth. If he has, then why doesn't he list everything on earth?

This site is for Christians. So what do you think I'm going to put on here? Things to edify and give Christians an opportunity to defend the faith. However, I am open to dialog on the issues. This guy clearly knows everything:

"Fundamentalist Christians (and creationists) also believe that our society should conform to their moral and social precepts..."

I disagree* AND I'm a fundamentalist creationist. His logic has failed. But clearly this guy knows everything.

*While I think it would benefit society I cannot say I would agree with Church state. I would, in fact, stand against a church state.

In the end Christians, people need the GOSPEL. AnswersInGenesis is for people who WANT CREATIONISM. If you don't want it, it's not for you. They look at evidence and interpret it in a biblical manner. In order to desire a biblical interpretation of evidence you have to believe the bible!

A short word

2008-02-12T12:16:00.000+02:00

While reading John MacArthur's "Think Biblically", a book he did not author but just edited, one of the contributors clarified this quote:

"God says it. I believe it. That settles it."

While most people (especially reformers) would respond with a hearty AMEN, we must be careful our humility does not fail us. The order here is wrong. MY belief has nothing to do with the settling of the matter. God said it, that settles it. I am privileged by the grace of my Saviour to believe it.

This comes right to the heart of the gospel. sinners need the Saviour. We need to give God His rightful place.

Prostitution in South Africa

2008-01-30T07:24:00.001+02:00

Cape Town - An ANC MP on Tuesday proposed that prostitution be legalised during the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

"It is one of the things that would make it (the tournament) a success because we hear of many rapes, because people don't have access to them (women)," George Lekgetho told a meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Arts and Culture in Parliament.

His suggestion was met with a groan of protest and chuckles from other MPs.

"If sex working is legalised people would not do things in the dark. That would bring us tax and would improve the lives of those who are not working," he added.

DA MP Sydney Opperman disagreed, saying one could not commercialise relationships.

"You cannot attach a price to the deepest union between a man and a woman and link it to our tax base." [GO TO SOURCE]

I must admit that I can accept it when we fall on one side of the fence or the other, but the South African government has turned "flip flopping" into an olympic sport.

These are issues that should be pro/con on the legalization of prostitution. Should we really modify our law to make space for visitors? Or is this some excuse to change the law and make it sound 'legitimate.'

In my opinion, there are far worse things than prostitution. That is, in a worldly sense. Prostitution is a sin and therefore ABOMINABLE. But to enforce religious rules on people who are not under God is not the manner in which Christians operate. Separation of Church and State is part of the baptist confession.

I say if they are toying with the idea of legalizing prostitution, they should just do it. Forcing MORALS on people is wrong. Also there would be a tax benefit. As for "commercializing relationships," I'm not sure whether it's that kind of relationship that the involved parties are looking for. The only bad side is it will not help the AIDS epidemic - I wonder if government has thought about that issue when they bend over for tourists. On the advantages - at least police will be chasing after thieves and rapists rather than women in unfortunate positions in life.

I think prostitution should be a MORAL position and not a legal position. But I am open to correction. Any ideas?

Surprised by Bush

2008-01-30T06:16:00.000+02:00

"My only point to you is there are a lot of faith-based organizations that exist to help deal with very difficult problems," Bush said. "It starts with the notion that there is a higher power that will help people change their thinking.

"It's very important for everybody to understand that there is a commonality, that we all have to deal with the same problems in different ways," Bush said. "First is to recognize that there is a higher power. At least that helped in my life -- it helped me quit drinking."

Moseley interjected, "That's right, there is a higher power." [GO TO SOURCE]

This is promising. We always want to say how bad things are going and then the most powerful man in the U.S. says something like this. It's not Christianity, although it is implied in the article. I, for one, am hopeful.

What more can I ask for?

2008-01-29T22:27:00.000+02:00

If God has given us eternal life, what more can we honestly ask for?

Surely our perspectives must change to look at God and just say "wow!"

I'm sure a "thank you" wouldn't hurt either.

My perspective on finding a wife

2008-01-29T22:23:00.000+02:00

I'm kind of sick of girls telling me I'll make "some" girl very happy. For me that kind of sloppy figuratism has reached a point where I can't (and refuse to) believe it. Please don't take offense by this, I just feel I have something to say in the area. It may be of some help to others.

I'm well aware that PRACTICALLY I am the ideal husband - I cook, I'm happy to clean, I enjoy music (making, dancing, etc.) and wish to have a Godly relationship (which is the only worthy kind of relationship). I make a decent salary (for now) and while I'm no hulk I'm not skinny either. Girls constantly tell me I have a great sense of rhythym and that I wish to share that with the one woman I will spend the rest of my life with. I will love with passion unfailing and will refuse to give anything but 100%. Please don't assume this is pride, it's not. God has surely blessed me and for it I am overjoyed and in order to be thankful I am aware of what I am thankful for. More importantly He granted me the gift of repentance unto knowing His Son. I can ask for no more and He gave anyway.

Just so you know - I am quite well aware of my flaws. I do not assume they do not exist. I'm smelly, messy at times (making me a hypocrite in addition) and I can be selfish. I make inappropriate jokes and comments and I have a problem noticing details that may be important. I also have anger issues and have a problem making eye contact. But surely to add to my good points is that I can be honest about myself. I am also prepared to put effort into correcting them.

I know that if I wait on the Lord His grace will abound and He will gift me as He pleases. I admit I desire the gift, but I know not to EXPECT it. If I have any testimony from scripture, it is those who trust in God that wind up with the greatest blessing in Him. I know that IF I wait and IF God gives me a wife, she will be beyond my expectations. However if I demand and lament God may (graciously) give to me in my impatience. That opens the door only to suffering, and I do not wish that on anyone, least of all on myself. If God keeps me single, it is only to His glory I live, and then to His glory I will die. I have been consoled on this issue. I need no other council.

By demanding what I want, I only find loss. In asking for what I need, I am constantly absorbed by the awesome love of God.

No rock to stand on

2008-01-29T09:33:00.000+02:00

An interesting article appeared in Christianity Today

"Megachurch pastor Rick Warren suggested Sunday that mainline churches need to reconcile with evangelicals to counter their mounting problem of membership decline.

“The reconciliation is that in a pluralistic world...we [Christians] need to be on the same team because we share the same Saviour,” Warren, of Purpose Driven fame, contended Sunday." [GO TO SOURCE]

But if you deny the existence of absolute truth, how can you expect people to absolutely agree with you? We, as Christians, need to unite. But it must be on the rock of the word as the absolute standard that sets the standard. Without the bible, what are we?

If we read the bible to determine what it says "to me," we actually have selfish motives. We should be reading the bible saying: "What has God said to His people?" It must say the same thing to everyone. It must say exactly what is said.

We are not to be worried about membership decline, we must lament those who depart - but they fall under the category of non-Christians. Our goal is to preach the gospel: We are sinners, there is a saviour!

What do you think?

2008-01-28T09:17:00.000+02:00

How do we react to news like this?

"Space scientists and government officials are tracking two massive objects that are hurtling toward Earth, but only one, a dead satellite the size of a bus, is expected to hit somewhere on the globe.

Government officials said Saturday that a large U.S. spy satellite has lost power and could hit Earth in late February or early March. And an asteroid at least 500 feet long will make a rare close pass by Earth early Tuesday, but scientists say there is no chance of an impact." [GO TO SOURCE]

Keep your eschatology* in mind. Are we hopeful for Christ? As my studies continue, news like this becomes less and less disturbing. I have to admit that partial preterism has a strong case for optimism.

*Doctrine of the end times

This week in living

2008-01-21T06:56:00.000+02:00

I didn't get to blog this weekend because I was hectically busy.

In the first place, I quit my new job and got a newER job. I had to for the sake of my studies. So my evenings were a little shot because I got back late, which effected my bible studies.

I was not so happy because I wanted to read quite a lot of the bible and trying to read 50 chapters of the bible in one day is not recommended.

Well, I do have good news. I read 13 chapters from Exodus 20, my church is making me a member and I have to get into a study groove.

In the Exodus, I read about the Holy of Holies and the Ark measurements. All I can say is that God is quite specific. I don't understand how people can use the excuse "but the intention was right." How dare we excuse our sinful behaviour with intention? No, God requires absolute obedience.

And on the topic of absolutes, I learned something awesome from statistics. It's called the Law of large numbers: It basically states that given a set of random inputs, the average mean will approach the expected mean as the set of inputs increased. To give an example, if you flip a coin, what are the odds of it falling on heads? 50/50 right? Try prove that using actual flips! You may get heads 3 times and tails once! That isn't 50/50! But that is only four inputs! The more times you flip, the closer you will approach the expected 50/50!

Knowing that, you can actually talk to a post-modern. People sometimes throw away the thought of God due to the fact that interpretation is limited to the readers perspective. They hate Christianity because there are such diverse interpretations, and those interpretations cause divisions. But just because there are diverse interpretations doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth. The whole point of Christianity is to find out the truth, it's not imputed TRUTH, it's imputed righteousness! God's word itself tells us to study and be diligent. So post-modernism is no excuse.

Also my pastor made an awesome point last night. Some people reject limited atonement. They fail to realise that everyone limits the atonement. Either you limit it's power (I have to add MY faith to be saved) or you limit it's intention (Christ died to save His people Matt 1:21). Now to be honest I'd rather belong to the camnp that exludes unbelievers that tries to limit the power of Christs death, and I certainly refuse universilism.

Every corner I turn, I find no reason to accept Arminian theology. So many times in evangelism, people will ask "What about a guy on an island that has never heard of God? What about him? God is unfair to ask that people believe!" That is actually a very good argument, if you don't trust God to save people. Exposure to the gospel would be a great exuse to God on judgement day: "You never sent anyone to tell me to repent." People would be right if salvation was a work of man and they had less opportunity to repent than others. That is why I can say: "if God purposes to save that man, He will. Let's worry what you are going to do now that you know that you are a sinner in need of a saviour."

We are sinners. We need a saviour. Jesus Christ is the only one who can save. That is the gospel. That's what everyone (including Christians) need to hear. We never outgrow the gospel.

Praise the Lord. Grace and Peace to you!

Bible study

2008-01-13T13:02:00.003+02:00

I have decided that I will try to blog once a week. Just on the studies that I have been doing and the intersting things that I see. If I determine something is stand-alone blog-worthy, like the science thing underneath, I will separate the issues.

So I started reading the bible. I got a NKJV audio dramatised version. I have been through Genesis and Exodus 1 - 20.

Genesis was interesting. I have read it a couple of times, as well as my paster going through it at church. Plus my interest in creation/evolution has spiked the interest. So there has been much effort there. But I must say there are always some parts I cannot simple 'read straight through.' They require me to focus and go back:

Genesis 2. I always need to look at it and make sense of it. But it's there and it's easy. The way I remember to look at it is that the word "formed" is past tense. So since the word includes a past preposition it's easy to see that God had done this thing in the past. Now since it is a translation and therefore not infallible, I can simplify what I mean by adding one word, without changing the meaning. In your KJV, just read (2:19) "And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." Now you can see what I mean. Easy right? But I can understand why the word isn't there. It's tautological when you see that formed is past tense. There's no need for it.
The length of time Jacob serves laban. Later Jacob says it was 20 years he served Laban, but I always get 21 (3 sets of 7). I but what happens in Genesis 29 is that Jacob serves 7 years, gets Leah. A week later (literal days) he gets Rachael and works another 7 years. That makes 14 years, then he works another 6.
The story of Judah and his sister. Just know that you leave Joseph for a chapter and this tells of Judah's way. It just effects me when I read it.

Then I started on Exodus. Never read it but I thought I knew it. What a bad testimony I am. I never knew Moses had two signs to show Pharoah on his first trip, the serpant and the lepourous hand signs. I thought there was only one. This is why everyone should read the bible instead of making assumptions like me.

Grace and peace to the reader!

A note on Science.

2008-01-13T13:02:00.001+02:00

I watched a nice short DVD last night. One thing mentioned really gripped me. The fact that the first scientists, probably not all of them, were aware of God in some manner or another.

They came to that conclusion by way of a very reasonable assumption: I am a scientist. I want to be able to see the rules that govern the thing around me. That means first of all I must assume there ARE rules around me. If the world in which I live works according to rules, someone or something must have put these rules into place.

Notice how all these scientists managed to come up with a thing called LAWS. Gravity, for example. Since the departure from this basic presupposition, we have only been able to come up with THEORIES. Now theories are good, but they are not proven. Natural selection is a law since it is provable. Evolution, in the sense of mainstream understanding, is a theory, since it is not.

I said it once and I'll say it again. I think evolutionary theory is a solid place for people who wish to understand. I don't think it's for 'stupid' people. But everyone must be able to agree that it is only a theory.

But I was astounded to think that early scientists expected to come out with God, since they expected Him to have placed the rules there. What a great worldview to have! If you think it is weak, well then I challenge you to give me a sound explanation as to how you can expect the world to work as it is.

A worldview lacking in any sense of the devine tends to believe in chaos. I heard it said this week that everything tends towards chaos. Scientists of this nature would claim "well here we are! no matter how we got here, lets determine the mechanism." That is great as well. Just do not confuse the mechanism with the motive. You cannot assume since you think you know the mechanism you know the motive. Sure there are examples that show the mechanism is the motive (the human body, for example) but just because you can't see a motive doesn't mean there isn't one.

Science is about mechanism. Religion is about motive. Do not confuse these. Motive can definitly indicate mechanism (creation as dictated by Genesis, for example) but mechanism does not always dictate motive.

The Christian Problem

2008-01-13T13:01:00.001+02:00

Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, "Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?"
- Genesis 30:2

I think there is one thing modern christians have wrong. It's their perspective. Where does all the strife come from? We all have different ideas about the bible and how we are supposed to read it. I can fight tooth and nail day and night with someone with even a slightly different theological viewpoint. Even on non-divisive issues. Obviously if you deny the Holy Spirit as deity, you can't really call yourself a Christian. So things like that we can and will separate on.

So perspective, where do you see yourself in your worldview? There is a great way to test your perspective. Imagine a train coming out of a tunnel into a snowy plain. Got that a train is coming out of a tunnel (through a mountain) into a snowy flat area¹. Now I have to ask the westerners who read: "Where is the camera?" In your mind, you have a picture. Think about where the picture is taken from.

Now the western mindset (apparently) will put themselves high up outside the train. Almost floating above the train getting a "birds-eye" view of the scene, from without the tunnel. The more eastern minded person will have the camera inside the train, possibly hanging out of an imaginary "window."

I have to admit I had (and still have) the western response.

Now the problem is, is that in my mind I'm God. I put myself in His position. Now I realize it is a small thing, to be imagining a picture. But my response to such a small thing my give me insight into the larger things of life. I have to always say that God is in control. He knows the whole picture, not me.

I fear that too many of us do this. Maybe I'm the only one, but I doubt it. This is no definitive test either. I just found it very interesting.

The reason the Easterners have the humble position is they have a partially correct view of God. They mainly believe in an Agnostic style of God. I find Agnosticism to be a very intelligent position since it is in my Theology that God must be revealed to man, man can not know the Father without God drawing us to him(John 6:44). So in that they have found a correct position under God. The blame will fall under those who, knowing God, do not acknowledge Him as God (Romans 1:21).

Just a thought. Probably will attack evolution soon. Keep good by His Grace!

these thoughts did not come about from nowhere. I went on conference for my studies in computer science and a gentlemen spoke on eastern and western philosophy in computers. That's where I got the snow train thing.
¹ Concept from a story called "Snow Train." I just can't find the opening line anywhere on the net :) So I modified a bit.

A new start to the new year

2008-01-13T12:59:00.000+02:00

I haven't been on for a while since it has been holidays and then when those were over I have been at a new job. So it's more likely than not my blogs will decrease in number.

In addition to this I have decided upon two things:

Read the whole bible
Discover my eschatology

Number one is pretty obvious. I discovered my worst witness aspect is that I have not read the bible as a unit whole. This is actually a requirement considering my viewpoint of the bible (pedantic, narrow-minded view that it is the inerrant, infallible word of the one, and only, living God). Currently on Exodus so please don't hold thumbs yet.

Number two is VERY interesting. Has revelation 4 - 21 happened? Or is it going to happen. I have been listening to sermons by Doug Van Meter (Pastor at Brackenhurst Baptist) and he makes an ASTOUNDING claim. He says most has occurred in the first century. His position is known as partial pretorist. Be aware he still believes in the second coming and he knows why he believes what he believes, which cannot be said for a lot of Christians. You can get his sermons from our church website, or if you know me personally, I can make a copy. Unlike John MacArthur, my pastor does not charge ridiculous prices for his sermons. Sorry John, but it's true. I can't afford to be pre-mill at that rate :)

Luckily I will find a pre-mill pastor whose sermons are free and hopefully download those sermons. I thin John Piper is post-mill but I'll get his view. Then I'll find a pre-mill study.

That's what I'm up to at the moment. I know this blog isn't really supposed to be about personal stuff but I thought if you read it then you should know. Also I made a claim last year that I hope God keeps this faith in me and so far He has, just not in a bloggy way. I will try to make time.

God bless y'all!

Self-defense

2007-11-14T08:47:00.000+02:00

The question I have been asking myself lately is: do I defend my actions?

I am starting to live fearing the words of God:

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart."
-Proverbs 21:2

The concept here is that even when we act right, if people do not like what we say and do, do we have a biblical right to defend ourselves? Do we say "I am right because the bible says this..."?

Well, lets look at the fruits of God's spirit (Galatians 5:22-23): Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. It says nothing about defending ourselves. In fact, lets look at the example in Paul

"Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? It is in the sight of God that we have been speaking in Christ, and all for your upbuilding, beloved."
-2 Cor 12:19

Paul so often did not defend himself. I assume that was a lesson he took from Christ. Christ, so often, on Calvary's road, did not seem to speak up when He could have. I wince when I read Pilot asking Jesus "What is truth?" (John 18:38). Christ should have said "Me! You blind FOOL!" But He did not. Why?

So I would say we should not make a self-defense. If the core of the gospel is humility, which it clearly is, then why should I be right in the eyes of men? From Genesis 1:1 humility is the core aspect of reading scripture: God did it. We need humility when we read the bible, otherwise we put ourselves over God's word. I do not love the law of God because it just so happens to suite me, I love it because I find out that I am a wicked sinner. I praise God not because of the law, but because He sent His Son to pay the burden I cannot bear!

But that means I must live "coram Deo" (before God). Not before men. It also relates to not trusting God's sovereignty. God is in control, He will not permit a word to come from your lips unless it will maximize His glory in the end. So when we say the wrong thing, we take it as correction. When we say the right thing, we praise God for showing His work in us.

Bible complaints

2007-11-08T21:41:00.000+02:00

I have recently been challenged by someone to carefully consider my beliefs in scripture. This is an awesome challenge for me as it always provides fuel for thought. Objections are those things that do not make me cringe in fear, but rather cause me to go to our Fathers word, the bible.

There are three elements to this complaint, all supported in scripture itself. What surprises me is that this person seems to be the anti-evangelist. They want to, using scripture, prove that I should not follow scripture. I would have it no other way.

"Behold, I long for your precepts; in your righteousness give me life! 41 Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD, your salvation according to your promise; 42 then shall I have an answer for him who taunts me, for I trust in your word. 43 And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, for my hope is in your rules."
- Psalms 119:40 - 43

There are many other difficult verses I want to cover and these are easy practice.

Firstly, did men write the bible? Of course they did. But they did so under divine inspiration. 2 Timothy 3:16 makes that clear. Secondly, the faith I have is in Christ alone. There is no other real God, nor is there any other worthy God. What I mean by that is: if, in eternity, I am proved wrong, I will: happily burn in (whoever's) hell for believing that my God is Christ, for all of Him. There has to be this element to faith. Faith cannot exist with proof. Since faith is what I must have, then faith is what I have.

To start off the argument I would like to say that my theology may be summarized in two very simple words: 'God first'. I have a high view of scripture and in all things God is sovereign. God is true because that is who He is, not because there is truth. What I mean is that if God is gentle, if He smites someone down, He is still gentle and therefore that was a gentle God. If this were not the case, He would not be God. So when the bible says that God is gentle, yet orders the death of someone, it is for His glory and His purpose. God needs no defender for His actions. There is a beautiful quote of what should be the view of scripture:

"The debate over inerrancy frequently comes down to choosing whether or not to tolerate such problems as 'unanswered questions' or to transfer them to the category of 'demonstrated problems.' Often that decision reflects ones internal attitude toward Scripture and towards critical methods. If Scripture is accepted as the inspired word of God, as the 'standard that sets the standard,' one will be reluctant to charge it with error - since to do so one must have some other, perhaps higher, norm by which to evaluate Scripture."¹

With the basis stated, lets get started.

I am not sure what the exactly the first 'complaint' is but let us look at a particularly disturbing verse:

"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD"

This seems to me the hardest of the three. What does 'assembly' mean here? Does it mean that if a man's organ is removed (against his will, or by accident) he cannot enter heaven? Or does it mean that he cannot be a priest (or hold some office) in the old testiment temple? To be serious, the context would not suggest the former. In the very next verse, it says that a bastard child may not enter into the assembly. Does God condemn people because of their parents? I praise Him by saying NAY! Even the old testiment teaches that! See Ezekiel 18. The interpretive problem here is context. In all these verses, God is protecting the purity of His people. These verses do not speak of salvation, just old testiment rules. What is the application of this verse today? God cares who is in church office.

The second complaint (at least it is defined) is that the bible was written as "population control." This amuses me as those who were writing the bible would have, I assume, laughed in the face of someone who said that, had they not been so humble. Can you imagine telling a guy locked up in jail, after being beaten for preaching, that all he was interested in was population control? Paul got 39 lashes five times for preaching the gospel (2 Corinthians 11:24). People were dying because of the word of God. The 'population control' thing is Catholic and since they do not believe in contraceptives, they may even find this rather humorous.

Also the bible does not say it should be used as governmental rule. I was thinking this very morning how great it would be if everyone was forced to follow Christian rules, because South Africa could surely use it. However, as a baptist, I believe in the separation of Church and state. If you do not believe the bible I cannot force it on you. Only God can provide the repentance necessary (2 Timothy 2:25).

With that in mind lets look at the 'suppoting' verse:

" If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church"
- 1 Corinthians 14:35

I think the lady is more complaining about 'woman control' rather than 'population control.' Yes, the bible does teach this. But again your issue is context.

"the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says."
- 1 Corinthians 14:34

The Law said it. This is no new teaching. In fact all that is denied here is a little doctrine of original sin.

To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

That is why women must be silent in churches. This is obviously during preaching or something like that, not as legalistic as 'when they walk through the doors.' They are also not permitted to be preachers, for exactly the same reason (1 Timothy 2:12 - 15).

And finally, the last complaint. A question of old testiment law.

"Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."
- Exodus 35:2

So what now? I must kill people in the name of the Lord for working on the sabbath. Well, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17). What did He do? He died on the cross. He bore the punishment of sins. So we don't have to. It's the same reason we don't sacrifice animals anymore. Jesus is the sacrifice that ended sacrifices. What is the application of the verse today? 1. God is in favour of the death penalty. 2. He takes the sabbath (His holy day for His people) seriously. Plus the new testiment changes the view, a part of the new covenant:

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself."
-Romans 14:5-7

God is telling us that we are now free in Him. You'll find many old testiment laws, including the golden rule, in the new testiment. Some things fall away, but not in a sense that they are forgotten.

Praise be to God for His most awesome word of truth!

¹ "The Origin of the Bible", by F.F. Bruce, J.I. Packer, Philip Comfort and Carl F.H. Henry, Tyndale House Publishers, 2003

To be or not to be, that is the question

2007-11-08T13:35:00.000+02:00

I recently discussed this elsewhere and remembered I wanted to do it for this blog, so here it is.

Who feels like some good old fashioned philosophy?¹

I have not studied philosophy or theology, these are just some ideas that I have come up with while talking to both groups, as well as my studies in AI.

Basically, as far as my feeble understanding goes, there are three categories under which proof for God may be examined:
1. Internal gestation
2. External examination
3. Proof by negation

So lets look at number 1: Internal gestation. In this area I have seen only one argument so far, with not so many spin-offs. The ontological argument for God (SEP - "Ontological arguments") - are "arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists."

That sounds great - determining the existence of God by reason alone! I'm so clever because I knew God was there without anything other than myself! This is an un-Christian attitude because Romans 3:11 clearly says

"no one understands; no one seeks for God."
-Romans 3:11

Also the foundation of this argument is that belief itself creates the being. Rene Descartes tried this one "I think, therefore I am" to give himself assurance of his own existence. However it was actually a lesson in unfaithfulness. It stems from "Since I know that I doubt my existence, I must exist."

Also, what is the focal point of the argument? What a shock... it's man centered: "I know God exists because I can reason and I can doubt and I can..." - hmmmm, you'd think we wouldn't need a Saviour.

2. The external examination option.
The only way truth can be gathered is in this manner. As from the argument above, truth can not be determined from within us. The sad thing is that I wonder how many "Christians" get this. There is no truth in us. There is only truth in God. That is WHY He gave us the bible, that truth may be determined. 2 Cor 3:5 displays this well

"Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God."
-2 Corinthians 3:5

We are sufficient ONLY in God. God must then be external (or a separated being) in relation to us. And praise Him that He is the ONLY being to which truth is INTERNAL.

"I am the way the truth and the life"
-John 14:6

This can make sense to any man. If there is a being to which truth is not internal, that being is NOT God. God can only be the being that knows everything, can do anything. Our question is not "is there a God?" Rather it is "which God?" On a side note - only God can reveal Himself to others. There is no need for strife or anger towards sinners. We would be so much worse if we were not so graciously saved.

So from Romans 1 we can see that he can be seen from the world around us. Arguments that follow these lines are the teleological argument (one is known to anti-evolutionists as "Payleys watch"). There are many others like this.

We have to look at the scientific method. We can only perceive what is in our immediate reality. We cannot "prove" God (specfically Christ) by our surroundings. In addition we cannot exit our realm without being absurd.

"But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong"
-1 Corinthians 1:27

So when the world laughs at us you know how we are to react? In humility! Isn't it amazing that God is so logical in His word?

3. The proof by negation or contradiction.
I think this argument can fit into both categories. We can shift the burden of proof by arguing that God's non-existence must be proved. This "Kent-Hovind" style of argument is unfortunately hurtful and unhelpful. You cannot prove the non-existence of anything. But as Christians we can rejoice. Non-existence CANNOT BE PROVEN. It took me so long to get that, that since God cannot be disproved, I am free to joyful in the Lord. So just as much as I say that God exists no man can logically tell me He does not!

But in all of this, can we "prove" Christ? My honest answer is no. There is no way to argue someone through the gates of heaven. Salvation is the work of Christ and Christ alone. But praise Him that it is, otherwise we would be lost.

Another point I'd like to make is that God is the source of truth. In this we know that we have the MOST right way of dealing with everything in life. No man should be able to disagree with us, if we are able to be perfect. Since God is truth, and if He is for us who can stand against us? Paul I answer a very obvious question: NO ONE!

Also, this may sound off, but my intention is to build you all up: We cannot 'prove' God. Does this cause us distress? Well, sometimes, it can. Since I cannot prove it why should I believe it? Well, what is the core attribute of salvation?

"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
(10) For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."
-Romans 10:9-10

Seriously? Romans 10:9-10 is it? Look at this verse, belief is an essential aspect of Christianity.

We have FAITH. What is faith? "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1. Another part of faith is that it does not come from us, it is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). Know that I believe that we are not saved BECAUSE we believe, but rather, we know we are saved because we believe.

So that is my thoughts on the existence of God. Proving is impossible, because then salvation can become by works. It also helps with my understanding of why we don't see miracles and other supernatural things. It is by faith!

Praise the Lord!

¹ I are not a philo-fickle person, so I's quite stupid coming to terms wif the write fing to say

My Prayer For Today

2007-10-26T20:13:00.000+02:00

Forgive me Lord, for I have sinned.
I took the situations of today and handled them my own way,
I never stood by your council, or kneeled down to pray,
The very opportunities you gave me for growth,
I threw in your face and I neglected your guidance,
A passer-by would never have seen the glory of your grace.

But Lord I thank you, for being with me after.
For revealing my folly and setting me straight,
That even though I sin, I may rejoice in you,
For I can now see that where I lack, in all things,
You are the source of the only good that can be.

God is my strength. God is my righteousness. Though I fail, I know that He will save, He will succeed. When I sin, I see my need for Him. When I triumph, I see His work in me.

-----------------------

This came about because I failed. I started wondering... Why does God allow me to continue to sin? The answer struck me - it is so that I am reminded of how much I need Him. The process of sanctification is so interesting. It does not happen in one night. Sometimes problems we thought were long gone seem to resurface. The reason being, God reminds us of our first need. We must remain reliant on Christ.

The second step is overcoming sin. What can we overcome that we have not identified. When we know we need Christ, and trust Him, then we are in a position that we may overcome? The verse in James does not help if we go half-versim© "resist the devil and he will flee from you." God is so amazing that He does not just leave us in a state of "you, by yourself, MUST." No, instead God tells us the means of resisting the devil:

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you
- James 4:7

What an amazing God we serve. In this passage (not just this verse, the WHOLE CONTEXT) - I suggest reading James - God is telling us the means of overcoming sin.

Praise be to God!

From good news to bad news

2007-10-03T12:02:00.000+02:00

I have been dancing around the subject of correct bible translation. The problem with this issue is that people can be saved out of a very poor translation. How is this so? The truth is not inside the book, at least not completely. How on earth with incorrect translations are these people saved?

Before we go any further, I am not a KJV only guy. I am a person who cannot read or speak a single word of Hebrew or Greek, but I remain a Hebrew and Greek only person. Do you want the inspired words of God, read the copies of the original Hebrew for the old testament and the copies of the original Greek manuscripts for the new testament. Anything else is subject to err. Even the Septuagint, which is a translation.

So what are we supposed to do? The problem is that there is no scriptural example for translations. Oh yes there is. It is so amazing how the word of God can come alive if we are prepared to look for what it says. There is a story of the Ethiopian eunuch, in Acts Chapter 8

27 And he [Philip] arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
-Acts 8:27 - 36

There are many important things to notice in this section, probably enough to get a PhD in theology. But what on earth does this story have to do with bible translation? Well, we know that the man was reading "Esaiah." This is the profit Isaiah, we know this by the closeness of the spelling. The reason that they are not spelled the same is that this man is reading a translation. Why else would God entail that the verses be read. The verses he reads are very important as well, especially when it comes to translation.

The first verse is "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:" it is through this verse we find the context of what the man is reading. In the Hebrew (obviously translated to English) it reads, out of Isaiah 53

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
-Isaiah 53:7

Now this tells us that the translation is good. We do not trust the quotation of Scripture, even when quoted in Scripture, as Scripture. What I mean is we believe this section of Acts because it points us to Isaiah, which is Scripture. What the eunuch was reading means little to us, since we can find it in Isaiah ourselves. So we have to ask, why is it there?

Well the next verse answers that question. The eunuch read "In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth." but what does the next verse in Isaiah say?

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
-Isaiah 53:8

These passages, although similar, are not the same. The key part is this: "His judgment was taken away." The problem here is that it was not in His humiliation, because He bore the judgment for us in His humiliation. He became sin that had no sin. The translation issue is that it is not consistent.

Is this 'Scripture' right (or correct)? No, the bible is telling us what the eunuch was reading, in one part to show where he was reading from and in the second part to show us it was not entirely correct. This is an indication that translations were not perfect then either.

Finally, it may be seen that regardless of the poor translation of the text, the man was saved. This goes to prove that regardless of the bible, God may use it to His benefit. This does not excuse bad translations, but rather encourages us that as long as there is even a remote interest, God may work through people.

Another point to be made is that the eunuch's heart was prepared for God. Philip did not save this man, God did. God used Philip. When Philip asks "Do you understand what you are reading?" the eunuch does not say "I have need of no man, that to understand is such a thing as I can grasp it with no other man, to the point at which I believe Isaiah to be incorrect." The eunuch responds in humility: "How can I?" Even though the text was incorrect God used it to confound and humble the eunuch, to the point where his heart was prepared for the gospel of Christ.

This brings me to an important point. Can we now rest on the stick of God's sovereignty? Do we say, "A bad translation is better than no translation" and leave people to be utterly confounded? I dare say that some people would, and have, said such things to me. I was accused of taking translations too far when I started giving out ESV's to people who already have bibles, but non-literal translations. "God will work no matter what" is what I get from them.

The irony is that the people who say this to me are those who deny God's sovereignty in salvation. They claim that "we must save ourselves by making a choice that may or may not last eternally" but in the same breath will argue that the bible translation does not matter or that churches need not discipline because "God will work on their hearts." It was for this reason I was such an apostate believer. I cannot grasp this. If man is responsible for his salvation in any part, then it is upon the man during his walk with God to be responsible for getting everything exactly right. This inconsistency drives people mad.

If, however, it is God who can work through whatever circumstance, then the issue of translation does not matter. Sovereignty in all things will go with bad translations. But if God cannot save men because he incapable without the man's consent, then we better make sure people get it exactly right.

The ironic thing is, those who believe God is sovereign are more eager to see people get it right than those who trust themselves for salvation. Those who believe in the total and unbound free will of man could not care less whether he reads one bible or the next. It is not possible that we get it right with any one translation.

God will work through any translation. That does not mean any translation will do. Getting it right is important and this means that we must, with care and diligence, discover what the original author said, in its context. God did not create us to be lazy, but rather to work. From the first day He made Adam he was given work to do. We cannot be lazy. Jesus is coming, so look busy!

Like a fool to folly

2007-09-28T09:28:00.000+02:00

Last month, I took a look at contemporary media. I pondered the degree to which Christians should be involved in the world. I have been exposed several times (two or three) times to various experiences in movies and have finally come up with my conclusion.

I should have reached my conclusion a month ago, since in the comments of the previously mentioned post, I said:

"How many times must evil be glorified in what we watch to tell Christians to stop?"

Now I have to point out that there are several aspects of a movie: paying for what you want to watch and paying for what you do not want to watch.

If I pay for that movie ticket, I am contributing to the profit of whatever that movie will see. So if there is blasphemy, I am paying to see blasphemy, no matter how much I hate it. This, I am not fine with. I check out whatever movie I am going to watch on ChristianAnswers.net, but it hardly helps much. For example, ratatouille was, I suppose not suspect. But I do like to be warned about people even referring to God in an unsightly manner, be it blasphemy or not.

And this is the core of the issue: is referencing to God. If I pay to see a movie, then I pay for it. But when it is done in the adverts, that really gets my blood boiling. The last two movies I saw BOTH had adverts that I would not have optioned to pay for to see in a movie.

But I realize I pay for the adverts too. It is for this reason I do not wish to go to movies. I cannot stop these people, but I can withhold my contribution. The same reasons are applied to television. I refuse to have these things in life purely because I do not want to support these things anymore.

"No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood."

The Law

2007-09-26T09:42:00.000+02:00

The Law is such a huge thing in Christendom. Without the law no one can be saved. I have been pondering the place of the law in the Christian life. How much do we have to obey? Which are the ten commandments? Well, here are my thoughts on the law.

Firstly, you cannot be saved by the law. This, to most Christians, seems obvious. But how obvious I wonder. The law does not save you. This means that by obeying the law of God, from this point on for the rest of your life, you will not be saved by it. The reason behind such a statement is this: The law is not given for salvation. I have received many an argument from friends saying "But I love my parents, I listen and care for others!" While I am not saying these things are not good, I am saying they are not the path to salvation.

But why? I have to obey the law, so why can it not be the means of my salvation? People are looking for the classic movie "one cure for all" solution in the law. The reason the law does not save is this: the law is what we are supposed to do anyway! We(human beings) are not found in a state where obedience is optional. Obeying the law is not a choice item. Think about the road traffic laws. Have you every received a letter from your local police thanking you for obeying the traffic laws? I certainly have not. There is only condemnation in the law! It is what is required of you no matter what.

But what is the purpose of the law then? Why keep it? God has saved us, do we need the law anymore? Of course. In conversion, we realize (via the Holy Spirit) that we are sinners in need of a saviour. The law of God convicts us in our hearts, and we are drawn to God, crying out in His name to save us.

This is the amazing thing: That there is no boasting in the works of the law. If I speed at 100 and Jimmy goes 200, where the speed limit is 60, who is guilty? Who receives a fine? We both do. I have no claim to be better than Jimmy just because my crime was less. It was still a crime. People seem to think that because they have not murdered they are not that bad a sinner. These people are pharisees and legalists!

"He [Jesus] also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt:
10 "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
-Luke 18:9 - 14

The pharisee in this parable compares himself to others. But the one who is truly righteous compares himself to none other than an eternal God. He looks at himself and can plainly see that it does not matter that other people sin, but that he does. The law is pure, it converts the soul. But only God can save us.

So the law must be followed, yes, but under the realization that it is God who saves. But what law then? The law Jesus gave. remember that God gave us a new covenant under Jesus, that no longer we would be under sacrificial (ceremonial) or the Jewish(civil) law. In the NT we just follow the moral law, which are the ten commandments, summed up as

"And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."
-Matthew 22:37 - 40

Even from the old testament God was showing that ceremonies and ritual are not what He requires.

"For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."
-Hosea 6:6

Praise be to God, who made the law so that we do know the manner in which to act, but who also paid the penalty for when we do not obey His word!

Less of me

2007-09-19T22:45:00.000+02:00

Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and am come for thy words. (KJV)

Then he said to me, "Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. (ESV)
-Daniel 10:12

In so many ways the bible goes misunderstood, not that I claim to understand it completely. But one thing that can be learnt from Daniel is that he did not think he had it down either. He was constantly making sure that he was correct, abstaining in uncertainty and being diligent to his commitments to God.

When we first meet Daniel, he is proving himself a worthy man to carry the name "Friend of God." In Daniel 1:8 He does not eat the kings food or wine, in fear of defiling himself before the Lord. My question is how did he know to do that? The food was not offered to idols (the text does not indicate that it was) nor was the meat unclean. Daniel just knew to do it, granted that Daniel was "skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning" (1:4) but that does not mean he was Godly.

But as we reach Chapter 10 in Daniel we find out how he became so wise. He did two things and he was heard: (1) He set his heart to understand and (2) He chastened (humbled) himself before his God. It is these two elements that bring forth Godly understanding.

The first thing to notice is that Daniel did not miraculously achieve understanding by himself. He was not clever in his own right, but rather trusted that God would grant him the understanding that was needed. This fits in perfectly with a Christian attitude, as someone who realizes that there is nothing good in them, but all good things can be brought by God. Understanding, that is, true understanding, must come from God.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding"
-Proverbs 3:5
"Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?"
-1 Kings 3:9
" And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure, and breadth of mind like the sand on the seashore"
-1 Kings 4:29
"Only, may the LORD grant you discretion and understanding, that when he gives you charge over Israel you may keep the law of the LORD your God"
1 Chronicles 22:12

So in what manner do we set our hearts on understanding? Proverbs 3:5 indicates that we start out by trusting in the Lord with all our hearts. The amazing parallel here is that we, as Christians, should be invariably gaining some sort of understanding the more we follow the greatest commandment:

"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might"
-Deuteronomy 6:5, called the greatest commandment by Jesus in Matthew 22:38 - 39

But there is more to it than simply loving God, therefore trusting Him, we need to set our hearts to understand. This indicates that we do not perform this task reflexively. We are going to have to go against our very nature, which is to put trust in ourselves. We are going to have to put effort in to it. This is going to take some personal sacrifice, which leads into step two.

Daniel chastened himself before his God. This Greek word aw-naw' has so many meanings, all with regard to looking down and putting away, obviously in the context all relating to self. It has a connotation with lowlyness. The word relates to depression. This word is used for humble as well. So when we do not understand, there is no cause for dispair, for God is allowing for us a time of chastening, remember he chastens those He loves (Revelation 3:9). When we do not understand, God is not cursing us, He is blessing us with the constant reminder that He is sovreign! What praise can we give to the God of truth that is so amazing He chooses to share His truth with us. There are harsh reminders of this in scripture:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools"
-Romans 1:22
"Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight."
-Romans 12:16
"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise."
-1 Corinthians 3:18

There is so much in each of these verses, the glory and wisdom of God.

This is what I want to achieve: understanding in my God. This is what it is going to require: a loss of self. How amazing is my God. All the glory to Him forever.