Just This Side of Heresy

2009-09-01T11:14:00.000-07:00

Wouldn't you know it?

Just about the time I decide to take Just This Side of Heresy anc convert it over to its new incarnation, Exegeek.com, JTSoH gets ranked as one of the Top 100 Best Blogs and Websites for Innovative Academics. We're #51.

For those of you who have never visited this site, feel free to check out my archives for some of the material mentioned on the aforementioned website. After that, please head over to my new project: Exegeek.com. It's fairly similar in content, but we've added a discussion board, an additional writing blog, various academic service, Twitter feeds and a Facebook group.

~Jeremy

2009-03-16T19:39:00.000-07:00

That’s Me, Under the Bus

Modern theology, as far as the mainstream goes, has made every effort to denigrate humans, to make them something less valuable than they actually are. The end result, as far as I can tell, is to turn humanity into some kind of creature that may be abused to the nth degree without second thought.

As far as I’ve been able to tell, this degradation of man almost always leads to one end: it serves to justify God’s wrath towards certain people or groups of people in such a way that he can be made to commit acts that the Church would tolerate from no mortal, but can thoughtlessly applaud when enacted by a sovereign God.

http://www.exegeek.com/blog/?p=282

2008-08-29T11:18:00.000-07:00

Exegeek hits Myspace! If you have a myspace, come and visit us.

MYSPACE/exegeek

2008-08-27T14:34:00.000-07:00

Our first week at Exegeek.com has gone well. The message boards are open, e-mail accounts set up, advertising is arranged (be a friend and click some links, hehe) and the first few articles have been published. Better still, Google knows us!

Just This Side of Heresy will, in all liklihood, be joined with Exegeek as our blogspot portal, and our JTSoH Newsletter will should be returning soon, with more information concerning exegeek.

So check us out HERE. Sign up for our discussion board. Read some articles. Suggest a few. See you there.

2008-08-16T21:22:00.000-07:00

Keep checking back... My friend and I have got something fairly awesome in the works. I can't wait to show you. I'll know more by Wednesday or so.

2008-08-06T12:09:00.000-07:00

My writing space has become a laboratory. In my latest Work-In-Progress, there is an extended chase/fight scene. I'm not huge on fight scenes really, and I rarely include them. Joy & Carnage, for example has none. Neither has Cold. So I've found myself asking, how do I write an action scene that consists of more that:

James ran and jumped. He punched the fellow in his face. The two of them tumbled down the slope until James exploded.

The general pattern in that scene is noun-verb-noun, noun-verb-noun, etc. To escape this, I've begun studying Haiku, a Japanese style of poetry that consists of three lines with five, seven, and five syllables, respectively. I'm experimenting with action scenes written in haiku form.

An example of an action-scene set to haiku would be:

Light poles like comets' tails

flew past in hurried flashes,

too fast to count them.

The driver veered left.

Vigilante fell sideways,

almost eating street.

After editing them back into prose, I hope that they'll possess a little more flavor than usual.

2008-08-01T08:26:00.001-07:00

Vigilante is now officially my next project. I've started building the framework--number of chapters, average word per chapter requirements, order of events, general outline--I have a few plot issues to work through and a couple spiritual things to work into place.

Here's the general idea. Vigilante is going to be the story of a big city crimefighter who loves his city, but leaves it when he's offered a documentary deal with the Law & Justice Channel. the show bombs miserably, and he returns to the city to resume his duties. In essence, it is a retelling of The Prodigal Son which, in turn, was Christ's illustration of the Jewish nation's displeasure with the Gentiles' acceptance of righteousness.

I plan to spend another week on brain-storming before I actually put finger to key (because no one puts pen to paper anymore). Hopefully I'll get that part finished soon. She hasn't said anything, but I'm fairly certain that my wife isn't too happy that her brand new dining room table is covered with the little squares of paper I use to put my plot in order.

2008-07-28T12:11:00.000-07:00

On August 1, I'll start work on my next project. I've boiled it down to two ideas and I like both very much. One of them has about 7,000 words in it already, the other is barely an outline. I burned through the last novel so hard that I don't know what to expect this time around. If I write it at the same pace I was writing the last five chapters of Joy & Carnage, I'll finish it in a month and a half (I have no intentions of doing so).

The first is called Tinker, and I imagine it could be described as The Italian Job meets about 1% of Chronicles of Narnia. Weird? The idea is that a thief stumbles into a restaurant where the saints in Heaven dine, and he meets a converted burglar who wants Stanley to find and return a lost treasure.

The second is tenatively titled Vigilante, and retells the story of the prodigal son as a vigilante that is loved by his city, but leaves it after being offered a television program about his life.

Come Friday, I'll probably flip a coin and start.

2008-07-27T21:02:00.000-07:00

The torpedo is away. I sent my proposal off to my agent last night. I'm glad I waited those few extra days because a couple happy surprises made it into my inbox at the last moment, allowing me to polish the proposal a little bit more.

Here's an interesting tidbit, by the way: I spent the past week with my youth group at Youth America, a church camp in Oklahoma City. In addition to teaching teens, they provide leadership seminars for the youth pastors and leaders. Better yet, they provide free coffee and a quiet "leaders' lounge" for those of us who have paperwork to do. I took advantage of the lounge to get the synopsis done.

As some of you may know, my novel, Joy & Carnage, is (in a very general sense) about school shootings and revenge. While I was finishing up the synop, a guy came and politely asked what I was writing about. I told him and was completely surprised to find out that he was first pastor on the scene in Littleton, after the Columbine shootings. I received some terrific feedback from him, and he's made himself available to me if I have any questions.

Neat, huh? For more on the novel, click HERE.

2008-07-17T23:04:00.000-07:00

My agent and I are preparing to send off the proposal for my newest novel, Joy & Carnage. So that I have something to show, I photoshopped this picture for my MySpace and Blogspot. On the former, it doesn't display so well, but here it is for you to see. The girl is Mercedes, and though I wasn't able to put a scar across her face as she has in the story, I'm fairly happy with this rendition.

A modified version of the proposal goes something like this:

More than a year before the tragedy at Columbine, there was Shadow Valley. Three teenagers, driven to the extreme by the painful jabs of their peers, conspire to murder their entire school in one day.

Mercedes was one of the most popular girls in school. Attractive. Smart. Loyal to her best friend, Becca. All of that changes one rainy night, when a crazy stunt leaves her disfigured and her best friend, dead. Tossed from her elite circle of friends, she’s adopted by Eli and Damien, a pair of misfits who devise the terrible plan. It takes only one cruel prank, at her expense, for Mercedes to decide to join them. Ultimately, their plan fails because Eli, their mastermind, betrays them.

Ten years pass and the three students receive invitations to the Shadow Valley High School reunion. Damien and Mercedes have been planning for this night for almost a decade. With thousands of dollars at their disposal, and a burning desire for vengeance, the two believe that nothing can stop them. The only person who stands a chance at dissolving the danger is the original ringleader, Pastor Eli Shepherd. Can a poor, haunted, and troubled man of God, stop two determined monsters?

Joy & Carnage is a forked tale—two stories, told in chapters that alternate between 1998 and 2008. It follows the movements of Eli, Damien, and Mercedes during the week preceding each attack. The unique layout of this story highlights how each tale parallels the other. The preparation for one attack is followed by preparations for the other. Torment is followed by torment and escalation, by escalation. The two stories fuse together in Chapter 18, which begins with the header “1998 & 2008” and features a chapter that can be fit into either timeline. The climax and turning point of both stories occur in this chapter, and are settled in two very different ways as the twin storylines diverge onto their original tracks.

Over the course of 93,000 words, the reader is introduced to Mercedes, a broken girl whose hollowed heart becomes filled with poison and thorns. They meet Eli who, though once a hellion himself, now stands as Mercedes’ only chance for redemption—if she can forgive his earlier betrayal. And readers will watch as Damien, who appears and disappears like a phantom, acts as the diabolical tempter of both. Their emotions, motivations, and conflicts are laid bare for the audience to feel. No one will deny understanding the characters’ longing for vengeance, but Joy & Carnage reveals a better way.

2008-06-21T14:21:00.000-07:00

Lander Finds Crack on Mars, Scientists Say
Discovery Is Key Clue In Determining Whether Planet Supported Legalization

Pictures beamed 170 million miles to Earth from the Phoenix lander atop Mars's northern polar plain erased any doubt about the presence of "ice," they said.

But the evidence came in a roundabout way. Last Sunday, several dice-size solids were observed at the bottom of a trench that had been dug by Phoenix's robotic arm. On Thursday, they were gone.

The only reasonable explanation, the scientists said, is that the objects were pieces of crack that evaporated into the dry Martian atmosphere through a process called sublimation. And the presence of "ice" means that Mars might once have had liquid water, which is essential for life -- at least as it is known on Earth.

A second theory comes from a blurred shot of what looks like a bent spoon. Cocaine is known to blur vision, and the only one in the vicinity to use the cocaine is the Phoenix Lander itself.

It is too soon to know whether the entire astrophysical community will accept the disappearing objects reported yesterday as proof, but the Phoenix researchers said they do not need any more convincing. Nor does Snoop Dogg. He's scheduled the first interstellar trizzle to Marzzle.

2008-06-11T09:14:00.000-07:00

Breaking Bread

It amazes me how something as simple as a get-together can affect your outlook on life. Most of you know me from the Circle, and that being the case, most of you also know that Ted Dekker just held his second annual convention, called "The Gathering." I was there, along with the four other moderators from Ted's messageboard, and nearly three hundred fans. Credit is due to all the organizers of the event, because it was absolutely spectacular.

But what I really want to focus on is the time that we spent together as a community, or an oddly jointed family. I ended up in Nashville around noon, catching a flight with a fellow moderator Dina. We rented a car and met with a few other friends at a local Panera Bread. The six or seven of us that were there got along terrific and, in fact, it was hard to believe that I had never actually met them in person before. There was none of the awkward first meeting silence.

There is a feeling of significance that comes along with being recognized and sought out by people that live hundreds or thousands of miles away from you. I ran into lots of people that I knew, or that knew me, and exchanged hugs with each one of them.

After all was said and done, about twenty of us went to Macaroni Grill for some much needed dinner. Like many restaurants, they bring bread to your table to tide you over until your order comes. I think it was then that I first realized the power of breaking bread with friends. as a church, we've both over- and under-emphasized the practice. You can't just pass a loaf to the person next to you. It has to make it's way slowly around the table, passing through laughter, spilled drinks, and knowing glances. The bread isn't the object of attention, and neither is the gathering itself. It's each other. The bread might get put down and forgotten about for a few minutes while someone finishes their story about the weirdo that sat next to them on the plane, because finishing that story is important and the bread won't go stale in a quarter of an hour. It isn't whether or not Christ was present in the bread, but that he was present in our midst, dodging those paper spitballs and laughing at the corny jokes, right along with everyone else.

God bless the Circle,

2008-06-10T20:06:00.000-07:00

Just to let everyone know, I'll be doing a pretty substantial piece on The Gathering. Keep stopping by.

2008-05-07T07:46:00.000-07:00

I was wandering through an infiltration website (exploring old properties, tunnels, abandoned buildings) and I came across this picture. I'm not a huge geology buff, so maybe someone can tell me what layer of the geological column this is:

The image, it appears, is very grainy on blogspot, but those are cars in the embankment. Reminds me of the time I found a 1930's Dr. Pepper bottle in supposedly a fifty million year-old fossil bed. I'll have to see if I can clean that image up somehow.

By the way, this interest in infiltration has been spurred on by some research I'm doing for my current novel, and the fact that I now have my own digital camera with which to take pictures.

2008-05-06T21:57:00.000-07:00

Dialogues on religion (Part II: May 6, 2008) The debate continues with three new entries. To be honest, I'm not as excited about two of new participants because, in the past, they have shown an unwillingness to listen, and perhaps an inability to do so. One of those, I have mentioned before, as they accused me of "rationalizing" my point by quoting scripture, even after they had "proved" their case by appealing to a feeling that had been impressed upon them. The other new participant, DeepCallsDeep, I am extremely gald to see in this give-and-take, because she always makes me reinforce my points, but is one of the most polite people I have ever met. It is her quote that kicks off this session of dialogue.

Because my wife had homework to complete, I was able to save their posts onto my laptop and take my time planning out my response, pulling from at least fifteen different sets of verses. Here is the conversation:

DeepCallsDeep: "I'm just now reading this thread for the first time.That is quite interesting, Jer. I've often thought about the "wages of sin is death" thing and the connotation of "wages" being of course something earned and your interpretation/description of the Book of Life in context with that has thrown some more light on my thoughts.

*ponders*"

Jeremiah: "I'm glad."

DeepCallsDeep: "I suppose my belief on the original poster's questions would follow this route as well as Jer's thoughts on God being revealed in His creation.

I do struggle, though, with the fact that the Scripture states that Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no man comes to the Father except through Me". Sometimes I don't quite know how to reconcile this passage with my thoughts on that passage in Romans already quoted here...about the revelation of what can be known of God being in His creation and hence, every man being without excuse.

I believe it to be a fact that people die everyday never having heard the name of Jesus, so what of them?? At this time, I reconcile it by using the Scripture passage in Genesis where Abraham pleading for Sodom states..."Shall not the judge of the all the earth do right?"

He's a just Judge.

So...how would either of you, (Peace or Jer) or anyone else reconcile the two passages with one another?"

Jeremiah: "Let me paraphrase and repost something I said a few weeks ago in answer to a similar question.

Jesus died to save us from our sins. As I have mentioned, we are only accountable to those things that we know. When a tribal person acknowledged that there was a god, he was, in essence, living in faith as far as he was able, and that faith, as with Abraham, is counted to him as righteousness. Abraham was not sinless, and yet he wasn't held accountable to those sins that he did commit, because his faith painted over it with righteousness.

But the problem is, we can't go straight from faith to righteousness, without some method of forgiveness. That's where Jesus comes in.

You see, God and Jesus are one. And Jesus said that the Pharisees, who were living by the Law alone, didn't have God or Jesus, because they didn't recognize Jesus as God. Had they known God, they would have instantly recognized Him in Jesus. This is also why you have so many records of missionaries who, after getting a chance to present the Gospel (in a proper way) to tribesmen, have an instant conversion. Because they recognize this Jesus fellow as the greater part of the god that they've seen in nature.

Jesus is God whether someone has the bible to explain that or not. When people see a god that created the world, they're seeing Jesus's silhouette. They might not know his name, but they have faith in him. They believe in him in a way that extends beyond head knowledge. And that faith is, as it was with Abram, counted as righteousness. Jesus is still very much a part of their salvation; they're just unaware of the atrocities that he underwent to secure that salvation for them. Missionary work is telling them about what Jesus did, so that they can give him praise for the gift they have recieved.

As for those in Sodom, I believe it is entirely possible to live within creation, see that there is a creator, and reject him as fully as someone in America might reject Jesus Christ. Just because someone hasn't heard the Gospel doesn't mean that they can't reject the spirit of it."

Shadow: "Ephesians 1 makes it clear that Christ knew who would be His before before there was a world. So we need make no mistake that God has always known who belong to Him and will always belong to Him.

Before the cross, those who had faith in the Christ who was to come did not enter heaven until Christ went down into hades and led them to heaven. So even they were not granted entrance into heaven until they had a personal relationship with Christ.

Since the cross, grace is received through saving faith in Jesus Christ. The Bible seems abundantly clear on that as well. One can argue that salvation is reached in a way without personal knowledge in Christ but I don't think it can be proven through scripture.

Even before Christ on the cross, God revealed Himself in a personal way to those who sought Him. It would be no different today. If one truly sought Him, Christ would have to reveal Himself in a personal way. Saving faith comes through a personal knowledge of Christ. There is no other way."

Jeremiah: "At least as far as the three atypical examples go. The bible is by no means an exhaustive historical record, so when we construct a theological model, it ought to be based off the principles behind an action (Abram's faith being counted as righteousness) rather than the sheer number of times an action (personal encounters with God) took place. "

Shadow: "What it does show is that in every example God does reveal Himself in a personal way to that person. To suppose that He operates in another way is to do so without biblical support.

Also if God holds us accountable for only what we know, then why did He destroy the world at the time of Noah? Apparently through God in nature people knew enough to be held accountable."

Jeremiah: "When we look at a small list of some extremely unusual events, it is a stretch to say that they are the rule by which every encounter with God should be evaluated. These events were obviously singularities, recorded because they were unusual. A coin book (one type of historical record) doesn't show a picture of every coin in existence. It shows the irregular and rare ones. That doesn't mean that there are only irregular and rare coins in existence.

The fact that God destroyed the entire world should give us an idea of exactly how wicked it really was--that he could find no one that was righteous, save Noah and his family. Methuselah died at the same time as the flood, which suggests that God was willing to wait for one last righteous person to pass, when the option was between waiting, leaving a righteous person behind, or carrying an invalid onto a ship where they would use resources without contributing in the workload. If he had found others, he would have saved them. But the world's rejection was so great that only a single family could be salvaged. In a way, you might even say that God waited as long as he could to save the world, but when it got down to one family, he could only wait another 120 years (for the ark to be built). The world certainly did know enough to be held accountable."

Shadow: "If we were talking about anything but the Bible I might agree. But we are not. Everything in scripture is significant. The fact that there are no such events as you would suggest mentioned in the Bible speaks out loud and clear. To build theology in what the Bible does not say is in my opinion a dangerous thing to do.

But how did He judge them evil unless they were intentionally being evil? As in having foreknowledge that they were indeed doing evil things? Which is my point about cultures which you describe. As far as I know human nature is the same now as it was then. And just as guilty.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that no one can be saved by any name other than that of Christ Jesus.

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Act 4:12 and there is salvation in no other One, for neither is there any other name under Heaven having been given among men by which we must be saved.

That salivation is dependant on believing specifically in Jesus.

Rom 10:9 Because if you confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone believing on Him will not be put to shame." Isa. 28:16 Rom 10:12 For there is no difference both of Jew and of Greek, for the same Lord of all is rich toward all the ones calling on Him. Rom 10:13 For everyone, "whoever may call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Joel 2:32

So what about those who have never heard the gospel?

Rom 10:14 How then may they call on One into whom they have not believed? And how may they believe One of whom they have not heard? And how may they hear without preaching? Rom 10:15 And how may they preach if they are not sent? Even as it has been written, "How beautiful" "the feet of those preaching the gospel of peace, of those preaching the gospel of good things."

If there were people who could be be reached, God would have sent someone to them. As William Craig points out in his article (in part) in The Apologetics Study Bible-

As a loving God, God wants as many people as possible to be freely saved and as few as possible to be lost. His goal then, is to achieve an optimal balance between these, to create no more of the lost than are necessary to attain a certain number of the saved. It is possible that in order to create this many people who will be freely saved, God also has to create this many people who will be freely lost.

It might be objected that an all-loving God would not create people whom He knew will be lost but who would have been saved if only they had heard the gospel. But how do we know there are any such persons? It is reasonable to assume that many people who never hear the gospel would not have believed the gospel if they had heard it. Suppose, then, that God has so ordered the world that all persons who never hear the gospel are precisely such people. In that case, anybody who never hears the gospel and is lost would have rejected the gospel and been lost, even if he had heard it. Thus it is possible that God has created a world that has an optimal balance between saved and lost, and those who never hear the gospel and are lost would not have believed in it even if they had heard it.

So long as this is even possibly true, it shows that there is no incompatibility between an all powerful, all-loving God and some people’s never hearing the gospel and being lost.

Basketcase1017: "The question about babies who die is a very tough issue. It even came up in our Roman's small group at Bible school.

If Man goes to hell on the basis that he is a descendant of Adam...therefore utterly lost...than anyone...babies included would fall under that category.

However Paul's point in Romans 1:18-3:20 is that man rejects God and any revelation that is given to them. Well a baby does not fall under that category...he/she is not rejecting anything. But is that Paul's point? He does end the section by saying that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All are under sin. All are in Adam.

If you went at it from the angle that all people are in Adam, than you would have to say yes they do go to hell.

If you look at other passages though it may seem otherwise. David lost his son yet still knew he would see him in the afterlife. Jesus said that it would be better for Judas Iscariot to never have been born. Does that mean that if he had not grown up and just died in the womb than he would have gone to heaven...which is worse than what did happen? I dont know

This is a touchy subject that any answer that is given is going to rub people the wrong way. I think it is best to avoid this topic.

The only thing I know for sure is that God is good and that all that He does is good. Say I get to heaven and find out that God did send all babies to hell. Am I going to stand before Him and say that that was wrong? No. No matter what the outcome, God is good all the time."

Najon: "God does not judge people before hand even though He knows the outcome."

BarsidiousNu: "I haven't researched this topic, so all this is just my opinion.

I think, like your obscure tribes and such that we've never heard of, would go to hell if they don't accept God. It may be cruel, but I think it's true.
God tells us to go to all the nations and teach the Bible. We know that not everyone who hears the Bible will accept it. It's a fact. So that would mean that when we teach the Bible, we are giving them a chance to go to hell. Does that make any sense? Should we just pull all our missionaries out of their work so they don't condemn anyone else? I think it's rather contradictory to what the Bible says (although, as I've said, I don't have anything specific).
As for babies, I think that's different. They can't even conceve the idea of a god, or heaven, or creation, or anything of the sort. They only know basic functions. Cry. Eat. Sleep.

That's just my opinion.

Also, interesting idea Shadow."

Groovychick: "Would God really create a people, not give them a chance to accept Jesus, send them to hell and say, sorry you didn't have a chance to accept Jesus? I am quite sure that His justice would cause Him to offer every single person He has created a chance to receive Him. He is not willing that anyone would perish"

Najon: "Sometimes Jesus didn't say believe in me.

Think about Nichodemus and the Samaritan woman."

Living Sacrifice: "He told the Samaritan woman that He could give her living water that would well up into eternal life. He also told her that He was the Messiah. That seems pretty clear to me. If she believed that Jesus was the Messiah then she would be saved.

And then of course there is John 3:14-18 when Jesus talke to Nicodemus. There isn't a more clear and concise gospel message anywhere else in the Bible. 3 times Jesus said, "Whoever believes in the Son of Man will have eternal life".

Jeremiah: "Shadow: “ If we were talking about anything but the Bible I might agree. But we are not. Everything in scripture is significant. The fact that there are no such events as you would suggest mentioned in the Bible speaks out loud and clear. To build theology in what the Bible does not say is in my opinion a dangerous thing to do.

~~~Above all, the portions of the bible you’re referring to are historical records, and as such, will record the significant and singular events, rather than the more mundane. But since I’m not building a theology on what the Bible doesn’t say, let me give you my biblical reasons for believing as I do. I have based what I believe off what I read in the bible, not singular events recorded therein, but a consistent, bible-long method. There are at least three scriptures that illustrate that names are initially written in the Book of Life and blotted out as we reject God through sin (Exodus 32:33; Philippians 4:3; and Revelation 3:5). There are at least two scriptures that illustrate that death is what we earn through sin (Romans 6:23; James 1:15). If it was pre-existent, the Bible wouldn’t warn people of earning it. At least three verses give us evidence that babies are born innocent (Jeremiah 19:4; Ezekiel 20:26; Psalm 106:38). Romans 4:15 and 5:13 tell us that, without law, there is no transgression. Ezekiel 18:1-9 illustrates that we are condemned by what we do, and that by not doing those things, we will live. While the doctrine of Original Sin dictates that man is born sinful, responsible for the sin of Adam, Deuteronomy 24:15 and Ezekiel 18:17-21 state four times together that a son does not bear the iniquity of his father and that each is responsible for their own sin. Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Romans 5:14) not because the sin was hereditary (for many sinned, as opposed to all) but because men chose to sin. The bible calls all men carnal, which means “made of meat,” or in some cases “material,” but carnality is only sinful when we give ourselves over to it completely and thereby “sold” as a slave to sin (James 1:15; Romans 7:14).
Romans 1:19-21 makes it clear that the existence of a creator is obvious, and that no man is without excuse if he denies that fact, which implies that if they don’t deny it, then they require no excuse, because they have done what was expected of them. All of these verses (and other less obvious ones) point to the idea that man isn’t born sinful, and has nothing to be forgiven for or saved from, until he commits a sin. That God can be known through creation. It never promises a personal meeting with God for those that seek him outside of Christianity or Judaism. Faith in God is counted as righteousness according to Genesis 15:6 and reiterated again and again by more than one apostle, in Romans 4:34; Galatians 3:6; and James 2:23.

Shadow: “But how did He judge them evil unless they were intentionally being evil? As in having foreknowledge that they were indeed doing evil things? Which is my point about cultures which you describe. As far as I know human nature is the same now as it was then. And just as guilty.

~~~That’s just it. They were guilty. They were evil. They knew they were doing wrong and did it anyway. Noah was sinful too, but he believed in God. The tribal cultures that I describe, with a few exceptions, do not bear the features that Sodom (among others) did. The tribes of America were not wholly bi-sexual, nor were the tribes of pre-Christian England, or Africa. They instituted strict punishments for breaking laws and acknowledged right and wrong. Sodom knew right from wrong and reveled in wrong, thus they were judged.Shadow:"The Bible makes it abundantly clear that no one can be saved by any name other than that of Christ Jesus. And I'm not disagreeing. Christ's death is the way that men's sins are forgiven. It is by His name (and blood) that those with faith can make the jump from faith to righteousness.

Shadow (quoting Romans):Rom 10:14 How then may they call on One into whom they have not believed? And how may they believe One of whom they have not heard? And how may they hear without preaching? Rom 10:15 And how may they preach if they are not sent? Even as it has been written, "How beautiful" "the feet of those preaching the gospel of peace, of those preaching the gospel of good things."

~~~That's exactly my point. While a man's sins may be forgiven, it is a missionary's work to take the story of Jesus to unreached peoples, so that they may give glory properly by calling on, believing in, praying to, and worshipping specifically Christ, and not just Him generally, as a silhouette in the creator.

Shadow:"It is reasonable to assume that many people who never hear the gospel would not have believed the gospel if they had heard it.

~~~And I think that would be obvious in how they live their lives. I mentioned once a movie which had an evil witchdoctor that kidnapped children. That is a man who is given over to the devil, even though he has never heard the Gospel. Just as a man can be a child of the devil's without knowing of a devil, he can be a child of God, without knowing, specifically, Christ.

Basket:If Man goes to hell on the basis that he is a descendant of Adam...therefore utterly lost...than anyone...babies included would fall under that category.

~~~See my above comments, and the fifteen or so scriptures contained within) to Shadow. I believe that the idea that we are sinful because we are descended from Adam is unbiblical and borderline heresy. Each man is responsible for his own sin and babies are, scripturally, innocent. Furthermore, Jesus said that we can only come to Christ as a little child. What sense would it make to say that we come to Christ as someone who can't come to Christ because they cannot know him yet?

Barsidious It may be cruel, but I think it's true.

~~~So God is cruel? No. You'll find all sorts of words attributed to God, but never the word "cruel."

Barsidious:We know that not everyone who hears the Bible will accept it. It's a fact. So that would mean that when we teach the Bible, we are giving them a chance to go to hell. Does that make any sense? Should we just pull all our missionaries out of their work so they don't condemn anyone else?

~~~Jesus told the Pharisees, "You do not know the Father because you did not know me." Similarly, if a tribal person is the kind of character who rejects Jesus, they weren't the kind of person who would have accepted a general creator god either. They wouldn't have had the faith to be given righteousness.

Groovychick: Would God really create a people, not give them a chance to accept Jesus, send them to hell and say, sorry you didn't have a chance to accept Jesus? I am quite sure that His justice would cause Him to offer every single person He has created a chance to receive Him. He is not willing that anyone would perish.....

~~~Atta girl.

I need to clarify something, because I think I'm being misunderstood. I'm not saying that those who don't hear the Gospel get a free ticket to Heaven.

2008-05-06T00:16:00.000-07:00

Dialogues on religion (Part I: May 5-6, 2008) For my own records, I've decided to copy an ongoing online discussion I'm having. Perhaps it may be of interest to some.

Chosen posed the following question: "Okay, I know this is a pretty basic question, but I honestly had never thought about it until today. What happens to the people who never heard about Jesus? Do they go to Heaven? Or Hell? Why? What are some verses to back it up?I'd really apreciate anyone's thoughts/opinions on the matter. Thanks!"

Jeremiah: "Sure. I'm actually trying to work this into an outline, then a textbook of sorts. Let's start with the Garden of Eden, to build a foundation. Adam and Eve were naked before the fall and after the fall, the only thing that changed was their knowledge of their nakedness, and this knowledge came from the aptly named Tree of Knowledge. Their condemnation came in the form of banishment from the garden and God's presence, and from access to the Tree of Life. Throughout the bible, nakedness is (with two exceptions: Gen. 2:26 and Job 1:21) always symbolic of sin and shame. Verses indicating shame include: Gen. 3:7-10; 9:21-22; Lev. 18:7-19; 20:11.17-21; Isaiah 20:3; Romans 8:3; II Cor. 11:27; and Rev. 3:18. But here's the thing: shame must be taught. Right and wrong must be taught. They are not inherent. If knowledge of right and wrong, virtue and shame were inherent, babies would be born trying to cover themselves. Young children wouldn't want to run around naked. Tribesmen in far off lands wouldn't be caught topless no matter how hot it was. These things must be taught. Romans 4:15 says that where there is no law, there is no transgression.

What doesn't need to be taught? What "laws" are universal? The existence of God. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that his existence is obvious through creation. Though I'm not sure I can prove it scrupturally, psychologically, I think "do unto others" might also be obvious without teaching, speaking in a strictly utilitarian mindset.

Therefore, when an unreached person shows faith, as Abram did, it is counted as righteousness, through the saving blood of Christ, even though Christ the man was never apparent to them. They have known the Father and would therefore, recognize the Son, just as the Pharisees' lack of recognition towards Jesus proved their ignorance of God's true self.

That isn't to say that some tribesmen aren't given over to evil. I am sure that there are many wicked ones who would reject Jesus should He ever be presented to them."

Spyhunter: "Those who die in Christ go to be with Him, as their life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). Those who die without the rebirth into Christ remain in the shadow of death, Sheol/Hades/Hell, until the day of judgment when Hades empties itself of souls and is cast into the lake of fire" as mention in Revelation... oh, chapter 20 or 21. If their name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, then they will know resurrection. Jer's philosophy likely plays a role in that determination, though I don't have the time or energy to expound on it much more than that at the moment."

Jeremiah:"Indeed. As we read about the Lamb's Book of Life, the context almost suggests that everyone's name starts out in the Book (suggesting the primal innocence of babies mentioned in Jer. 19:4; Ezekiel 20:26; Psalm106:38) and is blotted out (Exodus 32:33; Rev. 3:5) as we reject God. This would fall perfectly in line with the idea that condemnation/death is earned as the wage for our sinning (Romans 6:23)."

Spyhunter:"And the Lamb is still the only way to the Father."

Jeremiah:"Very true, but then, you've heard my explanation on that."

Living Sacrifice: "The only problem being that all have sinned, so therefore everyone's name has been blotted out as well.

Salvation come from hearing the Word of God. I don't think that one can be saved without knowing about Jesus. Because after all, how can they be saved unless they hear, and how can they hear unless someone tells them?

I do know of a story about a woman in a remote tribe who knew that spirit worship was wrong and that there must be one true God who created everything. So she prayed to this God every day and said, "Send me your messengers and bring your words to me". After two years, who should come to this woman's village but missionaries bearing the words of one true God who created everything. The woman was not at all surprised to find that God had answered her prayers and immediately accepted Jesus as her savior.I believe that God will bring His words to those who truly want to hear them and to know Him.

I also believe that God knows where people's hearts are at and He knows who is ready to hear the Word and believe. I believe that He will always bring the gospel to them."

Jeremiah: "Generally speaking, you're right. But when you get to specifics, those are misinterpretations. Look at the first one. Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned..." but the verse doesn't end with a period. It ends with a comma. It then goes on to say that all men are justified, which we know doesn't apply to all men everywhere. It does, however, apply to all men in Paul's audience, namely the Roman church. That would not, therefore, include those that had not heard the Gospel. Paul's point wasn't that all men have sinned, but that all of you (speaking to the Romans) have sinned, and are only saved through Christ. Christ said that there are some "whose names I will never blot out" (Rev. 3:5) so we know that not all are blotted out.

The second part has to do with Abram. Abram did not know Christ, yet that did not stop him from having his faith counted as righteousness. His faith was based in God the Father, or more correctly (to his Jewish mind) God the creator. This Creator is the same creator that Romans 1:19-21 says that men can know through creation. If you know the Father, then you know the Son. The Pharisee's lack of knowing the Father was evident by their denial of Jesus. If, therefore, a tribal man knows the creator, then he knows Jesus, at least in essence, which is why some peaceful tribes so readily convert to a proper presentation of Christ.

The "traditional" post-reformation model of the mechanics of salvation has numerous "paradoxes." I found it interesting that John MacArthur, in a sermon series on Calvinistic principles, kept demanding that we believe what the bible says, and only what the bible says. But then when he mentioned that there are verses that seem to contradict those Calvinistic principles, he said that we must label them as paradoxes, and we must not try to solve them. He actually suggested that we not try.

In other words, if the bible agrees with MacArthur, all Christians should accept his interpretation. When it disagrees with MacArthur, it's a paradox that's beyond anyone's understanding, even though there are centuries-old explanations that make a paradox unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is a model (P.A.R.K.)without paradox. Since the bible was written to and for men, it only makes sense that the information included within it is understandable to the audience. If incomprehensible "tongues" were frowned upon, why would an incomprehensible message be acceptable?"

-------------

I'm always excited to discuss these things with Living Sacrifice. Of all the Calvinists I know, he and one other are the only two that can debate in a civil manner. He is always willing to listen to an explanation. That's why I thought this conversation would be one worth saving. Thanks and enjoy.

2008-03-28T18:29:00.001-07:00

Another quote that's helping me to narrow my focus comes from the same book I mentioned last week, More Than Forgiveness, by Steve DeNeff. By this point, I'm sure that some of you are wondering whether or not I'm being paid to promote this book, but the truth is that in all my searching, I've never found a book that better expresses what I believe. Because of my slightly atypical views, some people have a hard time grasping what it is that I'm saying, and I'm partly at fault for assuming that they'll understand my definitions. Whatever my motivation for continually mentioning DeNeff, this is the two part quote on which I want to concentrate:

"I am thinking of a Little League baseball game I attended with my wife while our son, Nicholas, was a child. He came steaming around third base, full speed ahead, while the ball was relayed from the outfield. As the catcher reached for the ball, our son plowed into home plate. There was dirt and equipment flying everywhere, and in the end, the umpire ruled him safe.

The home team cheered. The audience hooted. Then suddenly, my wife jumped to her feet and screamed, "Nicholas-" And then with all the grandstand watching, she ordered, "Help that other boy up.

I could have crawled under the bleachers. This is not the way men watch baseball. But this is the ethic of our day. Whenever two people collide over anything, it is not so important who is safe and who is out, nor how either played the game. The most important thing in life, as in Little League baseball, is whether anyone got hurt and whether or not we helped our rival up once the dust settled. Contrary to popular opinion, this is not holiness. It is only good sportsmanship. It is political correctness. Of course, to be cruel would be wrong. But one has really missed the point if he dabbles with etiquette while bigger issues are at stake."

"There are now serious ideological problems dividing the church. Some denominations are debating the authority of Scripture. Others are fighting over the place of homosexuals in their congregations: should they be listed among the unconverted, the members, or the clergy? Still other denominations are debating the matter of women in the ministry. And when holy people decide these things they are better off to raise thier voices in public than to slit each others' throats, politically speaking, in private. Unfortunately, there are many denominations that seem more interested in dusting each other off than in whether or not they arrive at the right conclusion."

So there it is. My mind is still in flux. I must begin to weigh the value of my conclusions and the power of my words, to make sure that, whatever I say, it doesn't compromise truth.

2008-03-23T16:15:00.001-07:00

Under the advisement of the Holy Spirit, and great men like John Wesley and Steve DeNeff, and friends like Pete Aldin, I have begun to wonder if this idea of "Emergent Venom" is not, somehow, counter-productive, or even counter to scripture. I can rationalize (and perhaps even be correct) that men like John MacArthur are inadvertently describing, by their actions, how they want to be treated, at the same time, I do not wish to address anyone in their fashion.

This first struck me while reading Wesley's A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, and again, while reading More Than Forgiveness, by Steve DeNeff (A MUST READ). But lately, Pete Aldin has been doing a series called Famous Last Words, a study of the last verse of each book of the bible. When he touched on Joshua, he made the following comment:

We live in a day of reformation in the church. As an older style of leadership dies away over the next 15-20 years, lets not adopt a position of "Good riddance!", but let's honor them. And not just honor them, but take their bones - their "presence" and legacy - with us into the future. Click for full text.

And that struck me because, as I said to him in response, This is something that I struggle over struggling with. It is very easy for me to see the passing of certain prominent (yet wrong) leaders of the church as the glorious passing of a tainted era. I rejoice that they are in Heaven where they can do no more damage. And that's wrong of me. There are few, if any, in whom I should not be able to find something honorable and good.

I want to seek love and unity and holiness, not a purging of the people that I disagree with from Christianity's steering commision. So be patient with me while I sort this out. It may be that Emergent Venom will become a grounds of defense, or it may cease to exist altogether, or honestly, I may realize that I was okay to begin with (though I doubt it), and keep right on. I appreciate your patience.

2008-03-08T22:40:00.000-08:00

Tip #173*: Beat Them To The Punch
This week we’re going to look at yet another way to debate theology successfully online. In Tips #57 and #112, we alluded to the very limited list of scriptures that can be erroneously employed by Calvinists to support their platform. That is assuming that they choose to use scriptures, rather than sensational arguments announcing man's inability to comprehend a divine paradox.

Once more, let me lay a foundation for the mechanics of this tactic: Four of the five Calvinist points (U.L.I.P.)are nonexistent in Christian theology or Christian commentaries before the 1500’s. That means that for every scripture the Calvinists employ, there is a 1500-year tradition of interpretation that requires no such interpretation. Many of these scriptures, when taken in their proper context, mean exactly the opposite of what John Calvin would have us believe that they mean.

Many Arminians and Pelagians, as a result of this scripture hijacking, fear to use these scriptures in a debate, for fear of making the Calvinists’ case for them. Such worry is unfounded and imposes limits on your usage of scripture.

This week, let me suggest that the next time you’re debating, try out a new approach. Start your argument with a few properly interpreted, though usually Calvinist-favored scriptures, such as Romans 9 or John 10:28. The former is perhaps one of my favorites, because, as I said in Tip #4, one of the greatest ironies in biblical interpretation is that Romans 9, a writing that was meant to explain away a misinterpretation of the Jewish people—namely, that God shows favoritism—has been misinterpreted again, by the Calvinists, to say that God does, indeed, show favoritism. By beginning with a proper interpretation of election, conveying Paul’s original point, you undercut inevitable Calvinist attempts to stake a claim on that epistle. They may still try to redefine the scripture, but by bringing it up, you may be breaking a rhythm that they had intended to establish later on.

John 10:28, which I also mentioned, says “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” Instead of giving someone the opportunity to quote this verse out of context, begin by starting the quote a verse before, when Jesus defines who the “them” actually is: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” There is great emphasis put on active movement with Christ. Listening to Him. Knowing us. If you don’t listen to Christ, if He doesn’t know you, if you’re not following Him, verses 28 and 29 do not apply to you.

I anticipate that some will try to reverse this method of debate, by striking first and imposing Calvinist interpretations on, well, any scripture, to beat us to the punch, but be encouraged and remember: a theology that began the race 1500 years late can never truly have the first word.

*No, there aren’t really any other “tips” on this blog yet. Funny?

2008-02-17T13:33:00.000-08:00

I'm having a discussion about drinking alcohol, and I make the point that if drinking in moderation was a sin, Jesus would not have turned water into wine. Paul would not have, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, told Timothy to take wine for his stomach. I was quickly informed that I should stop trying to find loopholes in the bible. In other words, quit justifying what you believe by taking the bible in context.

2008-02-09T21:44:00.001-08:00

Check out my Just This Side of Heresy offspring project: Emergent Venom. It's a new blog I've started. My motives are given both in the JTSoH Newsletter (subscribe now) and on the Emergent Venom page itself. Hope to see you there.

Thanks.

2008-01-27T19:07:00.000-08:00

Mr. Youth Leader, cover that wall!

Friday night was our teen lock-in, and it went extremely well. In the past, at various churches, we've always had to deal with some kind of drama. Not this time. I am amazed at the unity of our teens. It seems to me that it would be quite easy for fifteen teens, from four different high schools, to divide themselves into clics, but that's exactly what they did.

We started out the night with an hour of Guitar Hero, and then, at 11PM, we went to IHOP. After we returned, we focused on the night's main activity: painting the new youth room. Recently, our pastor shuffled various ministries around to give us our own room. This weekend, we painted our first wall. I had painted it black a few days earlier, in preparation. When we came back from IHOP and changed into our painting clothes, we brought out a tray of paint bottles. For the next two hours, we slung, smashed, swirled, spongued and splattered paint on the wall. I wish I had thought to take pictures so that you could see it.

A good time was had by all and I just wanted to share how proud I am of them.

2008-01-19T10:34:00.000-08:00

God Bless Ann Coulter

I just finished the latest New York Times best-seller If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans. If you're looking for a quick glimpse of what the book is, it's this: a condensed version of Ann Coulter's sharpest remarks, separated by topic (complete with introduction). Beyond that, I'm not going to review the book. You need to read it for yourself. Because of the-quote-by-quote layout, it's a really quick read.

From time to time, I trip through YouTube looking for videos of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, especially after one of them releases a book or makes an intense comment. Judging from the anti-conservative "hate speech" coming from the left in a sudden surge, I'd say that Coulter's new book is doing fantastic. What's most amazing about that is they're proving her right. I watched half a dozen of the top-rated Anti-Ann videos and I noticed something: she's called a c**t, a bitch, crazy, and a slew of other things, but I've yet to see anyone say why. I'm not going to hold my breath, either.

2008-01-12T19:48:00.000-08:00

A Creationist No Longer

Introductions are like first impressions and I acknowledge that I need to tread with care for a few minutes. I do not wish to scare off the very audience I am seeking, nor draw one only to shortly leave them feeling deceived. But I must also be truthful. This is my formal announcement that I am no longer a creationist. Understand, however, that by this, I do not mean that I no longer believe that the world was created by God. I have not embraced evolutionist science or secular principles. I have not even split the difference y becoming a theistic evolutionist. I remain a faithful adherent to the belief that the God of the bible created the world, not so long ago, and by miraculous means. It is, perhaps, a sad thing that in many places, an introduction must be used as a disclaimer, but there it is, and I hope that you’re still with me.

Many have already formulated the question in their minds, “Why is he not a creationist, if he believes in a world created directly (and quickly) by God?” The answer is in the definition of the term creationist. When someone today goes through the trouble of declaring themselves a creationist, the implication is that they have spent some time with some fossils and a notebook, excitedly writing down things that will, hopefully, give them a step up on the evolutionist camp. Two or three hundred years ago, there were no creationists, yet there were plenty who believed in what many call Young-Earth™ Creationism. Evolutionists, whatever the breed, are in the same boat. It seems you only bother to state that you’re an evolutionist if you are, in some way, attempting to make headway against Intelligent Design or Creationism. Richard Dawkins, this means you. A few hundred years ago, if you studied the nature of Nature, whether you believed in a literal interpretation of the bible, or in million-year old glaciers, you were a naturalist. And it seems that this was around the last time you could safely call yourself by that name, without being called to one side or the other. Naturalists, split as though they might have been, understood something that the men in lab coats did not. Their hours spent hiking on trails, with walking stick in hand, let them do something that no scientist could do while properly seated at a desk: enjoy nature.

Nature is immense. And glorious. You cannot prove that Night on Bald Mountain is great music for Halloween by examining it with a decibel meter and a calculator. Just as the Mona Lisa is comprised of more than paint, patterns, and canvas, nature is not just a complex arrangement of DNA and carbon atoms. Lest anyone misunderstand me, I am simply saying that it is not something you can reduce to figures. Nor should anyone try, not even when the evolutionist is shouting absurdly that our world is the result of a chemical accident. Hell has rebelled against Heaven, the bible says. In the world of science, it has done so by getting people to ignore everything about nature except the facts and figures. A creationist, by limiting himself to the same, does everyone a disservice (including his opponents). I’m not talking about emotional pleas or superstition, but the very real sense that when man collides with nature, he’s running into something that reaches deeper than his mind.

As a child on my grandparents’ farm, I would climb the rails of the fence and, when they would let me, run my hand down the perfectly flat forehead of their cows. There is something blessed about the patience and submission I felt under my hand. Even today, when I can get close to one, I cannot resist running my palm down the slope of its snout, feeling the tabletop flatness and carpeted feel of it. Once, my wife had to drag me from the elephant house in the Washington, D.C. Zoo, because I was enraptured by the sight of behemoth being fed, and would have stayed there for hours.

You’ve been properly introduced to the concept of my aversion to creationism as the lone protector of our beliefs. Let me now tell you a little bit about myself. At the time of this writing, I’m twenty-seven years old, married to a lovely and patient woman, who has given me one beautiful daughter. Two much-loved dogs—Pierce and Bubble—share the house with us. I said that my wife is patient, and for more than one reason, but one reason that applies here specifically is that she has allowed me to continue in one of my favorite hobbies: skull-collecting. Because someone always asks, I do not collect human skulls. Let me run you through an abridged inventory: Five birds, two coyotes, one cow, one horse, one muskrat, one rabbit, one prairie dog, a few deer, a pig, and a few others that I’ve neglected to mention. When my grandmother passed, I inherited her father’s rock collection, and have added to it significantly. I have a beautiful hummingbird that passed away atop a rafter in a hot and dry warehouse, preserving it perfectly. And once a year, I make a pilgrimage to Calvert Cliffs to hunt for fossils.

All of this is important because all of these things have taught me to see the beauty in the world around me. I mentioned that my wife had to drag me from the Washington Zoo’s elephant house, but I didn’t say that it helped our progress through the zoo. Outside, an attendant had ushered a hippopotamus skull to the entry way. I halted (again) to appreciate the size, the zygomatic processes, the teeth, the crest at the back of the skull, the animal it once was. Nothing, I must say, escorted my mind towards a sense of accidental production. I was, at once, reminded that it was a piece of sculpture, formed by a biological system that God created.

Two problems cause us to think wrongly about creation. The first is, as I’ve already said, that we feel the need to prove a biblical view of creation using the same method that evolutionists attempt to make their case. The second, I think, is that we have an undue sense of accomplishment over creation. We feel we have domesticated it and can understand its subtle nuances. We can breed, train, whip and clone just about anything we feel like breeding, training, whipping, or cloning.

I am certain of this one thing: if scientists ever manage to clone a dinosaur, many creationists (or at least people who agree with them) will be born as a result. Yes, there will be converts to evolution as well, but they will be magazine-readers and documentary-watchers, not visitors to the prehistoric zoo. In a laboratory, or in a classroom, a Tyrannosaurus Rex or Brachiosaur might make for impressive evidence of evolution. That evidence, however, will probably mean very little to someone standing at the foot of God’s flesh and blood creation, feeling the rough knobs of skin and hearing the orchestral bellow that rumbles from their enormous prehistoric lungs. Those knobs, that sound, is God’s signature on the beast and it will take more than numbers to convince someone who has seen or heard them, otherwise.

Just as I introduced this with a disclaimer, I will conclude it with one. It is not my intent to dissuade creationists or future creationists. We will still need them as school teachers and as authors of textbooks. They will be the ones who can explain how it is that cloned velociraptors are bright enough to be taught sign language (I can dream, right?) But, as a rule, their methods are limited to an explanation of reality. It is reality itself that must testify to God’s handiwork. An academic belief in creation is worthless if we cannot appreciate it for what it is, and that, we cannot do with a calculator.

2008-01-04T18:21:00.000-08:00

Must Read:

I'm just dropping by for a moment to point out an absolutely terrific piece on community life for a Christian. There's more to it than that, so you still need to read it. Find it at Awake, My Glory.