Robs Ramblings

What to do about immigration?

2012-11-13T12:02:00.001-08:00

Take a deep breath and internalize this: the illegal immigrants aren't going anywhere. They are here and we need to accept it while we "fix the car” (more on that in a sec…) We can stamp our feet and hold our breath and throw a temper tantrum and scream how “unfair” this all is – which will do NOTHING but make us look sillier than we did for allowing Mitt Romney to be our candidate…. OR we can realize that we are IN this mess. We can’t wish ourselves out. This problem won’t be solved today, or tomorrow, or next week. We have a HUGE amount of people that aren’t going anywhere. Keep realizing that. They are here and are NOT going away. On our current track they are going to be further burdens on our society. They are going to further the problem of multiculturalism. They are going to keep fragmenting our society, not learning our language and just being a problem in general. They will suck up public aid, jam up emergency rooms, continue to take jobs at too low a pay (yes, THIS is a problem for all of us!), due to their poor education, they will have no access to better jobs, and will never be truly productive members of society. The way things are now, the illegal aliens (who are NOT going away, accept that) are going to be a continuing problem.

It’s a problem that won’t go away, so we need to fix it. It’s like if you have a broken car in your front yard. Just wishing it would go away doesn’t do anything. The illegal aliens are our broken car – and in THIS case, there aint no tow truck we can call. We have to fix the car!

If “our side” TRULY wants to solve this problem (fix the car), we have to be like the marines and “adapt and overcome.” We have to adapt to the problem – it’s not going away. They will NOT be deported, and they sure as heck won’t leave willingly. Our original solution was to ship em all out. How many times do we have to get smacked down before we realize this is a dead end? The classic definition of insanity is to expect different results from the same actions. We need to adapt and change tactics. Our side needs to (at least for now) abandon the “deport em” mentality (except for criminals).

MY idea is this: We need to champion a NEW mentality, summed up in this philosophy: “You want to be in America? Fine, then BE AN AMERICAN!”

By that I mean:

- School will be taught in English. If you don’t speak English, then most of your day will be spent LEARNING English. Reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, elocution, etc. With the goal of having you speak English PERFECTLY (for your age group) within 1 year of your enrollment in school. If you are over 18, the SAME English course will be made available for you free of charge. Indeed, it will be MANDATORY. You MUST complete this course in order to be a citizen.

- ALL Government documents will be presented in English. All road signs and such will be in English. The driver’s license test will be available ONLY in English. You can NOT get a driver’s license until you have passed the English course that is MANDATORY for all immigrants who intend to live here. You cannot get a driver’s license unless you are enrolled in the citizenship program – and YES, you MUST have a picture with your face being FULLY VISIBLE. We’ve all heard it before; driving is a “privilege, not a right.” You don’t want your picture taken, fine - don’t get a license. You want a license, take off the burqa and smile for the camera.

- Schools will begin offering “trade” training – like electrician, construction, computer repair, automotive repair, etc. Basic ESSENTIAL jobs that society NEEDS, the schools will offer training in the BASICS of these areas, beginning at grade 6. They will be basic courses (which of course will advance per grade level) that will provide you with the skills needed to obtain some sort of entry level/intern position in that field upon graduation. You MUST complete at least 2 of these courses in order to graduate (that way you have options). And yes, they will ONLY be offered in English. [Continuing in this line, too many college graduates take silly courses and then find out their degree in “ancient Sanskrit theoretical comedy” won’t help them get a job, so public colleges will continue the “trade training” which will have begun at grade 6. The college course will teach beyond the basics in the chosen fields, meaning that at the very least, public college graduates will have at least SOME marketable skill in an ACTUAL field, and thus be able to gain employment and not be a burden on society. The “trade training” will be REQUIRED for ALL degrees at public colleges.]

- This "trade training" is not intended to force you into a particular career. It is intended to give you a skill or skills to fall back on should you be unable to support yourself in other fields. Furthermore, you will be allowed to CHOOSE what trades you learn. No one can make the choice for you. Parents and school guidance counsellors can make suggestions and give advice, but the final choice will be left up to the individual. The skills are yours to do with as you please - they are intended to act as something of a "safety net" should your chosen career not pan out as well as you might have hoped. Use the skills or don't - that is entirely up to you. We will simply provide you with tools to succeed.

- Immigrants MUST be enrolled in the “citizenship program,” and be able to prove it in order to obtain public aid (which will be limited to TWO YEARS per decade, enlistment in the military, leaving the country, or private assistance will be the ONLY option beyond the “Two in Ten” rule). Public aid WILL be difficult to get, and need not last the ENTIRE two years, the two years need not be contiguous, and the cases will be reviewed every 3 months to verify continued compliance and need.

- If you are here longer than 1 year and cannot prove that you are enrolled in the citizenship program (or offer an acceptable explanation as to why you have delayed for so long), you WILL be deported. Or you can have access to the “Second Chance Program” which will include immediate enrollment in a Citizenship Program that would have you live on “campus” until completion, and then you would enlist in a 2 year term of military service.

-If you commit a violent felony, you will serve your sentence (which CAN include death or life imprisonment) and then you WILL be deported. If you commit a nonviolent felony, you will serve your sentence, which WILL include completion of the Citizenship Program (which will be REQUIRED before you can be released) and then you WILL enlist in a 4 year term in the military. Bills for your incarceration will be sent to your country of origin. [Prisons will offer cardiovascular exercise only – what genius decided to let rapists lift weights every day for 10 years??]

- A requirement for the Citizenship Program WILL be a high school diploma or GED (which will of course include trade training in at least two socially needed skills.)

- If both parents were not citizens when you were born, neither are you – you need to complete the citizenship program (“anchor babies” are a stupid loophole that NEEDS to be closed). Since the Citizenship Program will be “built in” to the public school educational curriculum, a high school diploma from a public school will count as completion of the Citizenship Program.

- Emergency rooms will check the status of Citizenship Program enrollment status, and report compliance failure to the proper agencies (a representative of which WILL speak with the patient before they leave the ER). This would in NO WAY affect the availability of treatment. The ER would still treat you regardless of whether or not you were enrolled in the citizenship program. Failure to follow this rule on the ER part would incur SEVERE penalties (as would not checking the enrollment status). Sick and hurting people will STILL be treated. Bills for services will be submitted to the country of origin of the patient. Nonpayment will completely and immediately result in the cessation of any and all aid being offered to the country. If the country is a “third world” nation, other arrangements CAN be considered.

- Part of the citizenship program would include 1 year service in the military (expendable to “regular” terms if desired), and 6 months of community service – they need to learn to be a contributing member of society, and learn what burdens societies have to endure. Service could include anything their particular area needs – clean up, helping at hospitals/senior centers, day care centers, etc.

- A 25% tax on ALL fund transfers out of the country, until you are a citizen. Also, ZERO funds can be transferred out of country if you cannot prove you are either a citizen, or currently enrolled in the citizenship program (being here on a valid work visa would be an exception). Compliance failure by the company transferring the funds will result in SEVERE penalties, including possible loss of their business license.

- Within 6 months of completing the citizenship program, you will need to be gainfully employed, or submit verified proof that you are ACTIVELY SEEKING gainful employment in an essential field of society (acting/singing/dancing doesn't count – get a job! If you somehow became rich and famous and can pay your taxes, fine – but we all have to admit, that’s actually pretty rare). If you cannot gain employment, you can leave the country or enlist in the military. At that point, THOSE would be your ONLY two options.

The point of all this is, if they are going to be here, lets turn them into citizens who love their new home - lets give them all the tools we possibly can so they can succeed, have a good life and contribute to society. We should not do the work for ANYONE - but we should make sure our citizens have the tools to do the work themselves. This isn't about "leveling the playing field" - that is a hopeless pipe dream that is simply beyond the reach of human ability. No, THIS is about making sure everyone at least has equipment to play the game at all.

All of this could be paid for by eliminating non essentials that we are currently paying for. Government grants are given out for the silliest things. Overseas aid NEEDS to be brought down by HUGE MASSIVE amounts. We have things we need to take care of HERE. We don’t need to eliminate it completely, but I would say by 80% or so. It can be temporary, but it needs to happen at least for now. My point is, this could be done with ZERO new taxes. We are spending money on ALL KINDS of things that (at least for now) we shouldn’t be. Let’s use that money to strengthen our country.

Now, I know – this won’t all be popular, and it no doubt needs SERIOUS tweaking. It’s just some things I have thought of over the last few weeks. We just lost a VERY winnable election, and a large part of it was our stance on immigration. Our stance is muddled, not thought out, and complicated at best. Amnesty in and of itself is simple surrender. They get to stay and AT MOST get a slap on the wrist. We need to say, “Fine, you can stay – but you’re GOING to do it our way.” With that, we can take this growing portion of society which is currently a growing burden – and turn it into productive members of our society.

I know some illegals. Not many, but some. Most are very nice, hardworking people who simply want a better life. I have no problem with them personally. But the democrats have basically condemned the illegal aliens into being pawns and puppets they can use to win elections. We need to turn them into clear thinking, socially responsible AMERICANS who can earn good pay checks – and at THAT point, I betcha they would vote to KEEP their paychecks rather than give it to some group of people to spend for them.

Now, no doubt this will ruffle the delicate sensibilities of the average liberal, and unable to form a coherent rebuttal, they will simply do what they ALWAYS do regarding disagreements on this topic: they will slap down the "race card." So any liberals who read this, let me save you some trouble. I don't care what you think. You are a fraud - you claim to be liberal but in reality, when it comes to your OWN money and your OWN stuff, you are conservative. In essence, we are ALL conservatives - I am just among those who admit it. If you want to prove me wrong - start sending me some of your money. Until then, you are a fraud. The democrat party has USED illegal aliens for their own gain for long enough. I accept the fact that they are here and not going anywhere, so I say lets turn them in to citizens that love this country. I am curious as to why that frightens the average liberal so much.

Is Calvinism A Sin

2012-02-20T10:16:00.001-08:00

OK – I am getting a little tired of this. Most “non Calvinists” have two things in common. They don’t know what Calvinism is – and they think it’s wrong. Some think it’s terribly wrong – evil even. Chuck Smith (yes, THAT Chuck Smith) called it “almost demonic” – Brian Broderson called it “Christianity without Jesus".” This isn't hearsay – I heard them say it. Here is a link where you can here some of it also: http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Feedback/calvinism_almost_demonic_chuck_smith.mp3
Raul Reese called it a cult. Not to long ago there was a conference called “The John 3:16 Conference” whose main purpose seemed to be figuring out what to “do about” Calvinists. Most recently, Gerald Harris wrote an article called “The Calvinists Are Coming” (found here.) According to these people – we Calvinists are pretty close to evil incarnate – a “problem to be solved,” an “issue to be dealt with.” At the very least we are seen as an attack to be repelled.

The terrible treatment you will get at pretty much any Calvary Chapel if they find out (or even suspect) you are a Calvinist is legendary. My Pastor recently told me of a phone call he received a few years ago. It seems Greg Laurie (yes that Greg Laurie) had gone through the bookstore and ordered all the books he felt were “Calvinist” books taken off the shelves and thrown away. I guess burning them would have been too cliché’ Luckily, the bookstore employee simply bagged them up and called my pastor and asked him to come get them. Some great books found there way into the hands of some very hungry and grateful Christians (And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.)

If you doubt ANY of this, I dare you to do this experiment. Resolve that for 90 days, you are going to mention that you are looking into Calvinism and that you think it makes sense. In 90 days, you will (most likely) have basically been shown the door. They wont be friendly or even remotely Christian about it either. Don’t believe me ? I double dog dare ya to try it!

But why? These people will think nothing of quoting Luther, Augustine, Whitfield…. most notably they loooove to quote Charles Spurgeon. Pilgrims Progress by John Bunyan is very popular with these people. The John MacArthur Study Bible is a best seller in most Calvary Chapel bookstores. I purchased several R.C. Sproul books, John Piper books and even “The Pursuit of Holiness” by Jerry Bridges in the Harvest Christian Fellowship Bookstore – after Greg Laurie “cleansed” it. All these authors I mentioned are DIE HARD CALVINISTS! So according to the behavior I have pointed out, these authors espouse a view that is coming dangerously close to being labeled heresy. I have said before – if you remove all Calvinists from church history – you are pretty much left with Wesley and Finney (and Finney was a heretic ).

Like I said before, most – maybe all – non Calvinists make two errors. They have very little idea of what Calvinism is – and they think it’s wrong. Its very similar to the atheists who say, basically, that there is no God and they hate him. If you don’t know what Calvinism is – how can you possibly say it’s wrong. Most non Calvinists I know don’t even want to discuss it to find out what it is – they just want to go on thinking it’s wrong – all the while having no clue what it is, and unwilling to let someone who actually believes it explain it to them.

I guess my point is – is Calvinism a sin? Are Calvinists Christians? If they think we are Christians – then maybe we can end all this horrendous behavior. Maybe we don’t need more conferences trying to solve the “Calvinist problem.” If they think Calvinism is a sin – then maybe they should stop quoting them and be consistent in their shunning. Maybe they should condemn Spurgeon as a heretic and burn and ban all copies of “The Pilgrims Progress."

As for us - the Calvinists – us on the other side of this. We think Greg Laurie is a Christian. I fully expect Chuck Smith to be in heaven. I think they do good work for the Kingdom of God and I have benefited from some of their preaching. We would like non-Calvinists to at least be willing to discuss the issue – or at the very least, we would like them to accurately represent what we believe (without the slightest hint of hyperbole I say that not one single non-Calvinist in the history of the world, as far as I know, seems to understand what Calvinism is – I mean that as a literal and true statement). Non Calvinists are not a problem to be solved, they are not heretics – if you are a non Calvinist who would like to attend the same church I go to – you would be welcomed. This near hatred is definitely a one-way street. NON-Calvinism is not a sin. There I said it. Simply. Plainly. I have non Calvinist books in my library – and I use them. Knowingly. I sure wish the other side could say the same.

Is Hermeneutics REALLY important?

2010-06-07T14:12:00.001-07:00

Why is hermeneutics important?

I get asked this question on a fairly regular basis – almost as often as “What IS hermeneutics?” The fact that any Christian would ask either of these questions is pretty disturbing. Hermeneutics is often called “The art & science of Biblical interpretation” – but you can just as easily say it is “finding out what the Bible really says – using common sense and basic logic” …but that doesn’t sound very impressive!

First off, a couple of sad but true points. Most Christians today:

· Are lazy. They don’t want to find out what the Bible says – they want someone to TELL THEM what it says.

· Defend their laziness by saying “I just let the Spirit lead/teach/guide (etc) me”

· Almost completely lay aside the concept of “context” with regards to the Bible, and treat the Bible as a collection of verses, or “wise sayings” – though they would never admit to that directly!

As a result of these points, most Christians today are Biblically ignorant. They have a few “life verses” they have smashed together, and have very weak and shallow theology. They know next to nothing about doctrine – often chanting “doctrine divides” – even though the Bible is FILLED with doctrine. Most Christians have no idea what the Bible says – and they don’t seem to care. So the church is filling up with bad teachers and even worse teaching. This explains why people like Benny Hinn and Joe Osteen haven’t been dismissed as frauds and charlatans who would fit better as cartoons on a Denny’s kids menu than on TV preaching ANYTHING!

If we would take some time to make sure we are “getting it” – and use some common sense, we could avoid some serious errors. I thought I would use an example that most people are familiar with, and show you how some simple and basic hermeneutics can make a BIG difference. But this example is not from the Bible. It’s from something we are hearing more and more about these days… a phrase I am sure we are all familiar with: “Separation of Church and State!”

I am sure you have heard that statement. Regardless of your position on it, for our purposes here, that doesn’t matter. What do you know ABOUT the statement? Well, a fair number of people have heard that phrase attributed to Thomas Jefferson. Some have even heard that it’s from The Constitution. It’s taught in our schools – it is routinely talked about on the news, the “who’s who” in Hollywood shout it out on an increasingly regular basis. It’s chanted in near reverent tones in Washington – it has become sort of a “Prime Directive” in America… but what are the facts? Did our forefathers really intend this phrase do govern our lives? Let’s use some hermeneutics and see what we can find out.

Did Thomas Jefferson say it? Yes! Well, actually he wrote it… but where? I mentioned that some people have heard that the phrase was in the constitution, but is it? No! This is the first problem – most Americans have not read the Constitution (and most Christians have not read the Bible). So since most Americans are ignorant of what’s in the Constitution, it’s easy for this error to continue on. You need to be familiar with the source you are citing. The phrase “Separation of Church and State” never appears in the constitution.

But Jefferson DID write it – now another principle of hermeneutics is needed: Be familiar, at least to SOME degree, with the historical context surrounding the source you are citing or dealing with. The phrase appears in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group called “The Danbury Baptists Association.”

But WHY did he write it? Yep, another hermeneutics principle – know the “situational context” …or the “why” of the source you are dealing with. This part may be a little long – but I will try my best to keep it short. Before the USA won its freedom from England, we were PART of England (duh). In England at the time, if you were not a part of the “Church of England” you had very limited rights. You couldn’t go to most universities, you couldn’t hold a government office, and you had to have a license to preach the Bible – a license that could be revoked at any time. And also of EXTREME significance, it was not unheard of for the government to remove pastors from Non Church of England churches (these churches were called “Non-Conformist” churches). The government in England exercised DIRECT control over all the churches in England – even sometimes getting involved in what was allowed to be preached! After the revolution in America, MOST of the people who were involved in writing our foundational documents, and setting up the government in general were Presbyterian (or a similar denomination). Well, the Baptists saw this as a potential problem – fearing a repeat of the situation in England that they had just (hopefully) gotten rid of. You have heard that one of the issues regarding the revolution was “freedom of religion” – well, THIS is what that was about! One group of Baptists, calling themselves the “Danbury Baptists Association” decided to write to Thomas Jefferson and express their concern. He RESPONDED to their concerns with a letter that contains the now famous phrase! All that is (heavily condensed of course) the “why” behind Jefferson’s letter.

But what exactly did the letter say in regards to this phrase? You guessed it, another hermeneutics principle! We need to know the grammatical context of the source we are dealing with. This is what Jefferson wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” – You see, Jefferson was assuring the D.B.A. that the founding fathers had taken steps to ensure that the government could not interfere with the practice of religion – in anyway. That there was a “wall” protecting the church FROM the state! Wow! Context makes all the difference in the world. Far from keeping the church out of politics, the founding fathers wanted to make sure the government kept out of churches! The “wall” was intended to be a “one way” form of protection. This is absolutely backwards from the way this phrase is being used today…. Because most people only hear this phrase yanked out of context, mentioned with the authority of Thomas Jefferson, and then we end up with bad policies and silly laws. Much like many bad teachers mentioning a verse, yanked out of context, presenting it with the authority of the Bible, and then we end up with bad doctrine and silly teaching… and HUGE heresies (“The Shack” anyone?)

If you’ve made it this far, it should be obvious that the overriding principle of hermeneutics is “Context, context, context!” Context can take many forms, in our example we used, historical, situational, grammatical and general context. You can boil all these down to this: context means what’s around the source you are dealing with. Context is key, it should never ever EVER be ignored. If you are interested, one of the most important things you may ever read can be found here: Never read a Bible verse!

Thanks for readin!

Rob

I am not a liberal, so…

2009-09-10T13:10:00.001-07:00

I am not a liberal, so you can have a “grown-up” conversation with me. If you say something I don’t like – that’s ok. I am an adult and fully capable of hearing something that bothers me without suffering any psychological damage. If you and I disagree on something, we can discuss it – and I will honestly try to deal with your argument rather than attack you personally. We can keep our discussion to the area if the disagreement and the merits of our arguments. If I get offended, it’s not the end of the world, feel free to speak your mind.

I am not a liberal, so I am willing to offend you and hurt your feelings if that’s what voicing my opinion will do. I will not intentionally hurt your feelings or offend you, but if my opinion does that – well, I won’t lose any sleep over it. I will let you speak your mind, and I fully intend to speak mine. Freedom of speech is a very special thing, and I support it and encourage it – I can speak, and you can speak. But freedom of speech does not obligate anyone to listen, and I understand that… feel free to walk away if you don’t like what I say – it may not thrill me to see you walk away from the discussion… but again, I am an adult and I will live. Who knows, I may walk away when you talk. That also means that maybe you and yours won’t do well in a given area (Talk Radio, for example), so rather than stamping your feet and insisting that Rush Limbaugh gives you time on his show, maybe you should allow the Talk Radio world to simply walk away from you – they/we are not obligated to listen to you… remember that.

I am not a liberal, so if you have more money or material possessions than me, well and good for you! I hope you enjoy it and have a happy life. If you see someone who needs help and it is within your means to help, I would hope you would – but if not, well then that’s your business, not mine (and certainly not the governments). I don’t think you are a bad person because you have more than me. If you got your prosperity from working hard and being smart, that’s great! Maybe you can give me some info and tips on how I can do the same for myself (but again, you don’t have to!) and if you came by your money through inheritance or the lottery or whatever – then that’s still great! Not everyone gets the same opportunities and I am ok with that, and I do not for one second hate you for what God has given you. I do not think anyone has the right to take what you have by force and give it to other people. I was always told that was called “theft” and I have yet to understand why it’s somehow ethically acceptable if it’s the government taking what you have by force and giving it to other people – still sounds like theft to me.

I am not a liberal, so I don’t think anyone owes me anything. In fact, with all the kindness I have been shown in my life, I owe the world in many ways, and I think that is a pretty universal truth. The government does not owe me healthcare, nor does an employer. If an employer chooses to provide (or help provide) health benefits, that’s great! If not, that’s ok too! I am not entitled to a nice car, a big house or even a well paying job. Not everyone gets those things, and I am ok with that. It’s ok to want those things and to work towards them, it is not ok to demand them.

I am not a liberal, so I am perfectly willing to tell you that the liberal worldview is wrong. Of course, I am also willing to let you say that I am a terribly mean and horrible person for saying such a mean and hurtful thing. I am not a liberal, so I can take it… and to tell you the truth – after hearing so many liberals for so long, I kind of expect it.

Preach the Gospel…with WORDS!!!!!!!!!!

2009-06-12T11:33:00.001-07:00

Ok, a little history first. A long time ago, in a place far far away, lived a man named Francis of Assisi (1182-1286). He became the founder of the Franciscan Monks – but I think he got special consideration because his name was Francis and the monks were Franciscan monks (politics!)

Seriously though, most people know very little about this man… but most of today’s professing Christians know one thing about him. They know he said “Preach the gospel at all times, and when necessary use words.” Now, they may not know Francis of Assisi said it, but they know someone said it. It becomes their shield of sorts. This quote probably created “Lifestyle Evangelism.” This quote gives them license, so they feel, to not actually SPEAK about Jesus – they just just smile and say “This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine!” They say that they are going to “live out” the gospel in front of people. All this is defended with “Francis of Assisi said ‘Preach the gospel at all times, and when necessary use words!” But there’s a couple things you should know…

The first thing is: HE NEVER SAID IT!!!!!!!!!!! Ever. Nope, he didn’t. It’s a Christian version of an “Urban Legend.” This quote is not found in ANY of Francis’ writings – I can’t find anyone even attributing it to him until the last 50-60 years (maybe someone attributed it to him earlier, but I can’t find it – and I did look). This fact is becoming more and more known these days – so much so that now people are starting to attribute this quote to other people! Ya see, this quote has become a precious little hiding place for people who don’t WANT to preach the gospel.

The next thing is: THE QUOTE DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!! It’s actually kind of silly. The thinking goes like this, Christians think if they will just be nice and live good lives, then people will… well, Christians can never seem to articulate the next step very well. I suppose some think that if they are nice, other people will just “become” Christians – others may think that if they are nice, people will ask about Christianity, other think that if they are nice, people will want to become Christians, other may think… well who knows what they think. First, I have met many nice Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Hindu’s and I have even met nice atheists! They live nice, kind, quiet and (from a human standpoint) moral lives. So now what do we do? Next, answer me this: How many times has someone, unprompted, asked you about “why you are so nice?” I would guess it’s NEVER happened to you, but on the off chance it has, compare the number of times it happened verses the amount of people you have met in your life… Chances are, most people just think you are a nice person, which is good… but it aint the gospel! What IS the gospel?

“Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1Co 15:1-4)

So that’s the gospel. Anyone want to try to explain how being nice and kind will somehow tell someone that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead? Remember, the quote in question implies that you can get this message across WITHOUT words. Now, if you want to say that the gospel is about feeding the poor – then, yeah, words quickly become unneeded. But remember, Jesus actually only did this a few times – and even when He did, it was ACCOMPANIED WITH PREACHING – WORDS! The apostles in the book of Acts fed the poor that were IN THE CHURCH, that is professing Christians… and if you read the Epistles, those that were in the Church also had the gospel preached to them. Feeding the poor is NOT preaching the gospel. If you want to say that the gospel is about taking care of the sick, I would point out: “And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.” (Luk 9:6) Notice there are TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS – and healing is listed as a separate action! Taking care of the sick is NOT preaching the gospel. I maintain that preaching the gospel is IMPOSSIBLE without words! Your lifestyle IS important, but its more along the lines of supporting your message and giving you the CHANCE to preach the gospel – WITH WORDS!!

Finally, THE QUOTE IS UNBIBLICAL. We have seen that the gospel is NOT feeding the poor, it’s NOT taking care of the sick. It’s preaching:

preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (2Ti 4:2)

I have told the glad news of deliverance in the great congregation; behold, I have not restrained my lips, as you know, O LORD. (Psa 40:9)

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Mat 4:17)

but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you. (1Pe 1:25)

but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, (1Co 1:23)

For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. (2Co 4:5)

--I gotta thank Mark Cahill for the legwork on those verses… speaking of Mark Cahill, he says (and he ACTUALLY said it!) “Funny thing is, that in the Bible, preaching actually means talking with someone. It means parting our lips, opening up our mouths, and speaking forth truth.” (Mark Cahill did a GREAT job of dealing with this very topic here: http://missionaryroad.wordpress.com/2006/01/22/should-we-preach/)

So enough with the Francis of Assisi quote, enough with the “lifestyle evangelism” – get up, get out and share your faith… and in the words of Mark Cahill - “Where are YOU preaching today?”

Thanks for readin!

Rob

A bowl of soup and some new shoes?

2009-06-08T11:02:00.001-07:00

Through some bizarre link following the other day, I ended up on Amazon.com reading reviews of Rob Bell’s “Jesus Wants To Save Christians.” Now, unless you are either unsaved, or saved but want to raise your blood pressure, I would strongly suggest you just stay away from Rob Bell stuff – unless you are a Pastor and want to be able to warn your flock. Rob Bell is a heretic – lets just get that out of the way.

Anyway, while I was there, I stumbled on this quote: “Social justice IS the message of salvation.” Now, on the surface, this sounds nice. Most people care about the poor, sick and needy – Christians HAVE to care (the Holy Spirit ensures that Christians WILL care – it is not up to the Christian). But is this the gospel? Did Jesus come down from Heaven, take on human form, live a perfect sinless life, allow Himself to be brutally beaten and suffer a horrible and excruciating death, raise Himself from the dead three days later and then ascend to Heaven so that we could have a full tummy? Did the God of Heaven become a man and submit Himself to unimaginable pain and suffering so we could have nice clothes? Did Almighty God, maker of Heaven and Earth, sustainer of all things – allow Himself to be murdered so to save us from hunger and nakedness?

Did Jesus die to make sure we all had a bowl of soup and some new shoes?

If you think He did, then you might want to re-read the New Testament (even better, the entire Bible). The Bible speaks of Jesus as the one “who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1Th 1:10). Jesus said “the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost" (Luk 19:10) & “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mat 20:28).

I’ve mentioned it before – caring for the poor and sick IS important… but it can NOT be a Christians primary concern! Jesus did not tell us to go into all the world and pass out sandwiches and blankets – but to go and make disciples. I keep pointing this out: How often do we have Jesus taking care of the poor in the Gospels? Only a few times – it was important, but it was NOT Jesus’ primary focus. Think about the fact that the rest of the New Testament does not emphasize Jesus life, but rather His person and His work on the cross and His resurrection. Not His teaching, not His miracles and not His treatment of the poor and sick.

The fact is, Donald Trump is NOT poor. As far as I know, he is healthy… and as far as I know, he is not saved. Unless he repents and trusts Jesus, he will go to hell when he dies. If he suddenly got advanced cancer and lost all his money – his eternal destiny would remain UNCHANGED! A homeless man who is dying of pneumonia who is also unsaved has the same eternal destiny as the Sultan of Brunei – and your treatment of either man will not change YOUR eternal destiny. It’s about their sin, its about YOUR sin. God is not going to check financial statements or records of charitable contributions. My pastor said “Quality of quantity of service does not earn Gods favor.” Feeding the poor may make you feel better (and it IS an important thing to do!), but it wont get you to heaven!

Your treatment of the less fortunate is not your problem – your problem is that you have broken Gods laws. Repeatedly. You have lied, you have stolen, you have been ungrateful, you have hated people – go through the 10 Commandments and be honest with yourself. Pay special attention to the first 4 Commandments – those will show you how you have treated God Himself! You have broken Gods laws countless times – you are guilty before God. You are a sinner. Not in some abstract sense – in a very REAL sense, you are a criminal in Gods sight, and God would be just in sentencing you to hell for your crimes. But God is “ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love (Neh 9:17).”

If you just humble yourself and agree with God that you are NOT good, that you deserve His judgment and condemnation and ask Him for his mercy – He WILL forgive you. You need to trust that you CAN’T earn Gods favor, and trust that Jesus earned it FOR YOU – and then you go and take care of the poor and sick, and here’s the key, in order to get a chance to TELL THEM about Jesus – about who He is and what He did, and about their problem… their REAL problem. Because when they die, whether they were in Armani or rags, whether they were hungry or full, whether they were a body builder or died of aids – none of that will matter.

Thanks for readin!

-Rob

Is it "God" or "G-d"?

2009-02-21T14:44:00.001-08:00

I have noticed this trend picking up a small amount of steam over the last year or so. It's not widespread, and I can never see it becoming the "norm" or anything, but it is more noticeable now then it was a while ago. I even have a family member that does this. What is it that I am talking about? It's the conscious decision not to write out the name of God. They would, instead, write "G-d". Now, lets be fair - it's not that these people hate the letter "O" or anything - and I am sure the "O" key on their keyboard works just fine... it's just that, for some reason, they have decided that it is somehow more respectful and/or reverent to write "G-d" instead of "God."

....but is it?

Well, it is almost always traced back to the fact that the Jews in the Old Testament times would not write out the name of God when they were making copies of OT scrolls. Now, right here we run into an important point: the original writers had no such tradition. When Moses wrote the original scrolls of the Pentateuch, he wrote out the actual name of God. When Ezekiel wrote his original, he wrote out the name of God. It was a tradition that developed later that the Jews would not write out the name of God. Furthermore, it was the personal name of God that they refused to write. Eloheim, Adonai, etc, they had no problem with - they would simply not write out the personal name of God - and that is a very condensed version of how we ended up with Jehovah/Yaweh. Anyway, all that to point out that not writing out the name of God is a tradition of men. There is no such commandment from God.

The debate should end there - but it probably wont. We may need to point out that God gave lots of commands in the OT - and the Jews expanded greatly on these commands.... something that Jesus seemed to go out of His way to oppose. For instance In John 5, Jesus healed a man who could not walk. Jesus told him to pick up his bed and walk. Now the Jews got upset and told him that it was not lawful for him to be carrying his bed (this took place on the Sabbath). Now, the Jews were wrong... how do I know? Because Jesus told this man to do it, and in reality not doing it would have been disobeying God (since Jesus is God). Not carrying a bed on the Sabbath was a commandment of men. Commandments of men were things that Jesus seemed to greatly dislike: "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'THESE PEOPLE DRAW NEAR TO ME WITH THEIR MOUTH, AND HONOR ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME. AND IN VAIN THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.' " (Mat 15:7-9). Once again, there is no command from God that says you can't write His name - and the original writers of the Bible did write Gods name. Throughout history, the great men of the Church (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Whitfield, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc) all wrote out the name of God. We can write out the name of God.

To be honest, I tend to think writing "G-d" is a unconscious work of self-righteousness. I don't think these people are deliberately doing it as such - but the end result is the same. They are following a tradition of men in an attempt to be reverent - reverence pertains to righteousness.... and since this tradition is solely of men with absolutely no Biblical support, this ends up being at least close to self righteousness. I don't mean to sound harsh - and once again, I don't think they are deliberately being self-righteous.... I just think they need to honestly ask themselves why they feel the need to add this requirement to themselves when God gave them no such command.

One final thing - the three letter word "God" isn't nearly as important as the name "Jesus":

"let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the 'STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED BY YOU BUILDERS, WHICH HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE.' Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Act 4:10-12)

Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Php 2:9-11)

...and yet no one writes "J-s-s" It's ok to write "God" and it's ok to write "Jesus".

Thanks for readin!

Rob

Are we all children of God?

2009-02-20T14:58:00.001-08:00

"We are all children of God"

You'll likely hear that a lot. It quite often comes tied to the concept that a "loving God wouldn't send His children to hell!"

But ….is the concept true?

No. Not everyone is a "child of God". Let's look a little closer at the concept.

People usually don't know where this concept (children of God) even comes from – I mean, they know it comes from "The Bible", but they have no idea where (very few of the people who claim to have read the Bible really have read it!). Well, it is mentioned a few times, but the "main one" is John 1:12 -

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name [John 1:12 NKJV]

Now, let's break this verse down a bit.

First off, the "Him" in this verse refers to Jesus (if there is any doubt about this, a quick read of the first chapter of John should make this clear).

Ok, so we have the first part "as many as received Him" – now, right off the bat, notice that it doesn't say everyone received Him, it says "as many as received Him". This seems to be a clear implication that the verse is speaking of a select group of people, not everyone. But maybe some will still doubt – so let's take special note of the first word of this verse: BUT. Ok, so why is that word there? Well, it points back to the previous verse, which says: He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. [John 1:11 NKJV] – this verse explicitly says that not everyone receives Him. Now, this particular instance is talking about the Jews, but it establishes the precedent that not everyone is a "child of God" (I really don't think anyone would even bother making the ludicrous claim that everyone is a child of God except the Jews!)

Next, we have this part: "to them He gave the right". Again, it doesn't say "to everyone He gave the right" or "to all He gave the right" – no, it says "to them". The very notion indicates some people were not given the right. It's "to them", a select "them" are given a right that other people are not given.

So what right did He give them? "The right to become children of God" – Note that they had to BECOME children of God; they were not children of God beforehand (this is true of EVERYONE – no one is born a "child of God", they have to become one!), this lets you know that what they were before was not what God wanted them to be, and the fact that He gave them the right to become something, would seem to indicate that He wanted them be different. This is further borne out in 2Corinthians - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. [2Co 5:17 NKJV]

Now, John 1:12 closes with a reiteration of the very point I am making; who did He give this right to? "To those who believe in His name" – This would indicate that those who do not believe in His name are not given this right. Now, lots of people "believe" in Jesus, but that's not quite what's in view here, as can be evidenced by this verse: Even the demons believe--and tremble! [Jas 2:19 NKJV] No, these people "Believe in His name". So what's the deal with Jesus' name?

And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. [Isa 9:6 NKJV]
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name [Php 2:9 NKJV]
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. [Act 4:12 NKJV]

Ya see - Jesus' name is special – special in a way we can only barely understand. Part of believing in Jesus name is to be in complete agreement with everything He said, among which is this: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." [John 14:6 NKJV]

So what am I getting at here? If you believe everyone is a "child of God", then you believe that those who are not trusting in Jesus alone for their salvation are children of God (the old "all roads lead to heaven" deal), which means that you disagree with Jesus who claimed to be the ONLY way to heaven, which means that you DON'T believe in His name (at least not in the way the Bible says you need to!), which means that YOU are not a child of God!

My favorite preacher, C. H. Spurgeon had this to say about John 1:12 – "All men are not the sons of God; the doctrine of the universal Fatherhood is utterly untrue. They only become the sons of God who receive Christ, and believe on his name; else are they heirs of wrath, even as others: 'To them gave he power to become the sons of God.'"

So, if they (and possibly you) are not children of God, whose children are they? Well, first off they are "by nature children of wrath." [Eph 2:3 NKJV] – notice that it is "by nature", that means that they are born that way, their natural state is a child of wrath… and the wrath in question here is the Wrath of God – not something anyone will want to suffer! The Bible makes it easy for us and breaks things down into two groups: "the children of God and the children of the devil" [1Jn 3:10 NKJV]

So which one are you? If you are a child of the devil, then you cannot enter heaven – at least not as you are. You need to become a child of God – you literally need to be born again, because only people who are born again go to heaven - "unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." [John 3:3 NKJV] You need to realize your state of absolute sinfulness. God's standard is absolute perfection – no exceptions. God demands a life of perfection – and you don't have one to offer Him! You have broken His laws and as such deserve His punishment which is (as I'm sure you know) hell. This wasn't an accident either – every time you lied, you knew it was wrong, but you did it anyway – each time you stole something, you knew it was wrong… now maybe you tell others that you have NEVER stolen ANYTHING, but you and God both know the truth – and HE is the one you have to answer to. Just look through the 10 commandments and try to gauge how many times you have broken each one over the course of your lifetime. Keep in mind that God doesn't just go by what you DO, He also demands perfection in everything you ever say or think – if you have a sexual thought about someone you are not married to, then you are guilty of actually committing adultery in God's eyes!

Now, you may hope that God will see that your good outweighs your bad – but it doesn't work that way. The Bible says: "There is none who does good, no, not one." [Rom 3:12 NKJV] and "all our righteousness are like filthy rags" [Isa 64:6 NKJV] – that means that the best, most nice and kind things you have done in your life are less then worthless to God – and to offer them to Him in an attempt to get into heaven is insulting to Him. Imagine if you were selling a brand new BMW – and I said "Here, let me give you a dirty diaper to pay for it" – you would either be angry or think I was insane (maybe both!), but either way I doubt I would get your car! It's the same thing with God – you have nothing to offer Him. NOTHING. The best you have available to offer just angers Him… so what do you do? Well, you need to realize that you have nothing to offer God, that since you willingly sinned against Him you DESERVE to be sent to Hell – that you have no excuse or defense, and you just ask for His grace and mercy. The most absolutely stunningly amazing thing is---- that HE PROMISES HE WILL GIVE IT TO YOU!!!!

"The one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." [John 6:37 NKJV]

If you ask Jesus for forgiveness and mercy – He WILL give it to you! The INSTANT you do that you will become a Christian, and will be destined for Heaven!

Then get a Bible and read it EVERYDAY and obey what you read – try to find a good church (there's no such thing as a Christian who doesn't at least try to hang out with other Christians!) and tell others about Jesus!

Thanks for readin!
-Rob

JW's at my door!

2008-08-02T10:14:00.001-07:00

Well, this morning two Jehovah's Witnesses came a' knockin' at my door! In the apartment complex that I live in they come around a lot - but usually they speak Spanish and are looking for Spanish speaking people - that's not me. I drive for DHL and on my route I frequently see JW's going door to door - but I am working and can't talk to them. What I am saying is that contrary to the stereo-types, I actually don't get "bothered" by them much - and I wish that I did!

When I was younger, (back when I thought I was saved but really wasn't) I did quite a bit of study on the JW's - and Mormonism, but that's another post. I learned quite a bit about what they believed, and what their specific errors are (trust me, there are a LOT of errors!) but I was really just looking to show off about how much I knew, and I always kind of enjoyed confrontations.... especially when I felt like I was at such an advantage, like I said - the errors are PLENTIFUL, winning and argument with a JW or Mormon is really pretty easy. I was basically just a theological/intellectual bully. I didn't really care about these people - I just wanted to win an argument.

Now, I am saved. I do care about these people. It kills me to see them walk by while I am on my route. I hate that I don't speak Spanish. I want them to talk to me. So I was ecstatic when they knocked on my door this morning. This would be literally the second time since I have been saved that God let me talk to a JW - the second time in a little over 3 years!

Now, remember - I still know all the stuff about what they believe, I know a lot about the errors in their belief system - I know that they are wrong. More importantly, I know about the truth - I know what the Bible says, I know the true Gospel that these people so desperately need - I am basically well equipped for this encounter.... and I knew it! But I was soooooo nervous!

I didn't want to "win an argument" - and I certainly didn't want to say anything to make them just walk away. My heart was pounding - my mouth was dry - I was kind of freaking out.

But I remembered something else. See, I have been studying Romans. Studying it VERY in depth. After about 2 months I am up to verse 14. Of chapter 1! One of the things that I noticed right away about Romans is how fast Paul starts talking about the Gospel: "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God" Romans 1:1 (ESV). Bam! Right off the bat Paul is talking about what really matters. The only thing that matters!

These nice ladies actually wanted to talk to me about global warming - something I am totally unconcerned with (and pretty tired of hearing about) - and I was freaking out inside trying to figure out what talk to them about - I knew global warming was a waste of time.... so I said a quick silent prayer and suddenly remembered Romans 1:1. "Get to the point" I thought. So I did. They didn't get upset, they didn't leave. It went very well. We didn't get all that far because they are on something of a schedule - but they asked me if they could come back next week. Of course I said yes... guess what we are going to talk about?

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (ESV)

So my point is, when you get a chance to talk to someone - don't waste time. You need to be talking about what really matters. Get to the point!

Thanks for readin!

Rob

It's all Greek to me!

2007-09-07T14:39:00.001-07:00

So I am learning Greek. Most people when I tell them that, all ask the same question: "Why?"

Well, there are many reasons - but some of the ones that I thought I would post here are:

1. It's yet another way that I can learn more about God. Greek is a very precise language and often times you see things in Greek that you can't see in English. You have heard the term "Lost in Translation" - I mean, nothing critical is lost, and most pastors will make you aware of these things in Church (assuming you are going to a good Church), but it is kinda neat to be able to see them myself!

2. It's fun and I like being able to read the New Testament in it's original language - there is something neat about knowing that the original author wrote the very same word I just read rather then a translation of what he wrote... makes everything seem even more "real" to me somehow.

3. How many times have you heard something along the lines of "The Bible has been translated over and over so many times that no one knows what it originally said!" - it's this one I would like to (briefly!) deal with.

First, it's a stupid argument, and I wish people would stop using it... I know they wont, but I still wish they would. It's not like the Bible went from Greek to Latin, from Latin to German, from German to Slovak, from Slovak to .....whatever. It didn't happen that way! Whenever someone wanted to translate the Bible into a language, they went back to the original language to translate from! They may have used some of the other translations as reference works, but they main tool was the original language. It's not like our English Bibles are many steps away from the original languages - they are ONE step away. The analogy of the old "telephone" game is brought up (usually about the original writings themselves, but also for the translations), they say one person tells someone something, then that person tells someone, then that person tells someone... and eventually the original message is all messed up.

But what we have with our translations is Person A told Person B something. Done. Person B now decides to write it down in HIS language.... but he constantly checks with Person A to make sure he is writing down the correct message. Again, not several steps - just one!

The other reason I think this is a stupid argument is this: imagine you saw a sign in Spanish - and you didn't read Spanish. Would you just give up and say "well, we can never know what that sign says, it's lost forever!" Stupid, right? You can simply ask someone who speaks Spanish to tell you what it says - they can even write it down for you (translate it)..... and if you wanted to, you could learn the language yourself and read the sign in it's original language! The same is true of the Bible - and pretty much everyone knows it. All kinds of people speak the Biblical languages, and they will be happy to tell you EXACTLY what the Bible says - we have many, many good translations.... and people are learning the Biblical languages all the time.

Like I said - it's a stupid argument. I think it will be amusing if one day when I am talking to someone about the Bible - if they bring up the translation issue, that maybe one day I will be able to tell them "Well, actually I am not reading a translation at all, I am reading the original language!" ....it wont really do much, the person will likely just switch to a different argument, but it will be amusing none the less!

Anyway, thanks for readin!

Rob

Survey of The Book of Haggai

2007-08-25T17:08:00.001-07:00

Heya everyone! As I mentioned in a previous post, I am working my way through a hermeneutics book - and that means I am writing papers on various topics. The last one was on slavery in the New Testament times. This time I had to write up a survey of the background and situation that was going on at the time the events in the book of Haggai took place. I am going through this book for myself - so I have no one to "turn the papers in" to - so I thought I might as well post em on my blog pages - who knows, maybe someone will find them interesting. Anyway, here's the paper on Haggai:

The events of the book of Haggai took place in 520 B.C. - there seems to be unanimous agreement to this point. Several things said within the book correspond to very well known and established dates and events. The historical accuracy of this particular book seems to be well attested to, since the details can be compared to extra Biblical sources. This is after the 70 years of Captivity in Babylon, and 16-18 years after Cyrus had decreed that the Jews could rebuild their temple (2 Chron 36:22,23). This is during the second year of the reign of King Darius. Darius was not really a name, but more of a title, and this particular Darius was Hystaspes (or Hystaspis) who ruled Persia from 522-486 B.C. The precise date this book begins from is the 1^st day of the 6^th month of the Jewish calendar- which would be the month of Elul, roughly corresponding to August – September on our calendar Reckoning from our calendar, and the first message Haggai delivered was August 29^th, 520 B.C. - work began on the temple 23 days later on September 21^st, 520 B.C. (it took just over 3 weeks for the people to respond to Haggai's message.)

In 2 Chronicles 36, Cyrus had decreed that the Jews could rebuild their temple. Cyrus, however, was heavily involved in the other duties of his office, and (unfortunately) appears to have paid little attention to whether or not the Jews actually rebuilt the temple. Under Cyrus' decree, just over 42 thousand Jews (Ezra 2:64) returned to Israel under the leadership of Zerubbabel [his Chaldean name was probably Shesh-bazzar, as mentioned in Ezra 1:8) the son of Shealtiel who was the governor of Judah. 1 Chron 3:17 names Pedaiah his father, so Shealtiel was likely Zerubbabel's uncle, who adopted him after his father Pedaiah died. Cyrus had appointed Zerubbabel governor.], and had settled in Jerusalem and in the neighboring towns of Bethlehem, Bethel, Anathoth, Gibeon, Kiriath-jearim (Ezra 2:20). The Jews were anxious to reestablish their religious practices, and erected the altar of Burnt Offering almost immediately. They also made plans to rebuild the temple, and actually started to rebuild it.

At that point the Samaritans approached and offered to help rebuild the temple, but their offer was refused. This angered the Samaritans, and so (encouraged by Cyrus' successor Cambyses) they harassed the Jews until they gave up and stopped building the temple. They did, however, build themselves nice houses, planted crops – and pretty much resumed their lives, without God. National disobedience in the Old Testament is commonly connected to national adversity, so it shouldn't be surprising that their crops began to fail, inflation was out of control and life got very bad very quick.

Shortly thereafter, Hystaspes ascended to the throne. As a young man, Hystaspes had vowed, if ever he became king, whatever of the holy vessels were in Babylon, he would send to the temple at Jerusalem; and upon solicitations made to him, the Jews were encouraged to go on with the building of it. It was at this point that Haggai delivered his messages.

Haggai delivered his messages to Zerubbabel, the governor, and Joshua, the High Priest – so Haggai's ministry took place in Jerusalem. Haggai means “festive” or “festal” - it may also be a shortened form of Haggiah (1Ch 6:30), meaning “festival of Yahweh” According to Jewish tradition, he was a member of the Great Synagogue. Haggai is the 10th in the order of the Twelve Prophets. He also may have been a very old man at this point, and may have actually seen the first temple.

Haggai's message was fairly simple. God told Haggai to tell the Jews that the reason for the bad crops was that they had not built the temple – they had put themselves before God. They all had nice homes, but Gods temple was unfinished. Joyce Baldwin explains “The nations had to know beyond any doubt that the God of Israel had not gone out of existence when the Israelites were removed from their land.” The Temple and the Covenant were bound up together and “while the temple lay in ruins there was no outward sign of the Lord's presence with the restored community.” The Lords reputation was at stake, and He will not tolerate His name and honor to be impugned.

At the same time Haggai was preaching, Zechariah was also preaching. Just over 3 weeks after Haggai delivered his first message, work on the Temple resumed, and was finished 4-5 years later. The wall around Jerusalem, however, was not built for another 70 years.

Slavery in New Testament times

2007-08-12T13:02:00.001-07:00

[I am currently going through a textbook/workbook on hermeneutics, and one of the exercises I had to do was to type up a summary of slavery as found in the New Testament era. So I figured I might as well post it here - hope ya like it!]

Ok, this is supposed to be a 1 – 2 page summary on the practice of slavery in New Testament times. As my library is currently on the small side – the direct historical information I could find was rather limited, so I don't know that it will actually reach 2 pages in length. I will do my best to be straight forward and honest.

It is often mentioned that the Bible condones slavery – but this is not accurate. Old Testament slavery has no modern parallel, there has simply never been anything like that before or since. It bore several similarities to our modern day employee – employer relationship, but even that comparison limps. The Mosaic Law jealously guarded the human rights of slaves. They were to be treated with dignity, respect, love and kindness. One extremely important distinction of OT slavery was that slaves were to be freed every seven years. Another, possibly equally significant fact, was that the slaves were to be treated so well that God put provisions in the law allowing for the slave to basically become part of his masters family if he so desired – which happened very frequently.

But that was Israel's law in the OT times. What we encounter in the New Testament era is completely different. In the NT, we find Israel under the occupation of Rome – and as such, they were subject to Roman law. Roman law had no provisions for the human rights of the slaves. Put bluntly – the Roman practice of slavery was just as evil as the American version was. Rome saw slaves as property, as tools. Aristotle, one of the most enlightened of the Greeks, held that the Creator had made the majority of the human race for slavery – he was quoted as saying "The slave is a living tool, and the tool is a lifeless slave." This mindset survived into the NT times. Slaves in the NT era had no rights what so ever – they were not seen as human, and there was absolutely no law governing how a master could treat his slaves. It was this system that the first Christians had to live with.

Approximately half of the population of the city of Rome – and a large part of the Roman empire as a whole, were slaves. A very large number of the early Christians were slaves. Domestic slavery was the most common form, where slaves were owned by private citizens to work at their masters homes or businesses – but there were a significant number of state and city slaves as well – these slaves were owned by the state itself and they performed an increasing amount of tasks.

While the system of slavery in Rome was cruel and brutal – it was not without pragmatism. A dumb slave was a worthless slave (for the most part). Roman citizens wanted to have their slaves run their households and businesses while they pursued their various amusements – but in order to do that, the slaves needed to be well educated and trained to handle the tasks they were assigned, and to handle them well. For this reason, the Roman army, on it's campaigns, often took the brightest and best young men and women from the conquered peoples and brought them home to be sold into slavery. Slaves often ended up being better educated then their masters, and were frequently used as secretaries and teachers. Slaves commonly ended up acting as the official representative of their masters in professional capacities. To help understand the issue of wanting a smart person to run your business while at the same time viewing them as less then human, it may be helpful to keep a modern concept in mind: robots. Rome would have loved the idea of robots! But, they were centuries away from even the vaguest concept of a robot, so they made due with human slaves (they just chose to try and forget about the "human" part!)

The governmental slaves are a particularly interesting aspect of the Roman system of slavery, in that a state or city slave could hold virtually any occupation – even the highest administrative positions. State slaves constituted the work force that kept the bureaucracy functioning in the Roman empire (particularly in Rome itself). To a large degree, the Roman empire (on a practical level), was run by slaves.

Slaves had significant incentive to provide good service to their masters – slaves were paid "wages". Wages, in that context, meant that the slave earned money, that the master kept for them – but was available to the slave to use – one of the possible uses of the money was for the slave to buy their freedom. Beyond that, the slave (once freed) could purchase an actual Roman Citizenship – the sale of citizenship was not officially condoned, but it was done none the less. Masters could also simply give their slaves freedom – either conditionally or unconditionally. If the freedom was conditional, then the slave usually continued in his obligations to his former master – but he now performed them as a free man. Masters could also transfer ownership of a slave to a god – which usually resulted in conditional freedom.

The New Testament itself neither condemns or endorses slavery. It simply treats it as a fact of life that must be dealt with. It gives guidelines for behavior within the existing social order of the day (Col 3:22 – 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Phil 5-9; 1 Pet 2:16-21; but see 1 Cor 7:21-24). The problem was, the Gospel put slaves and masters on an equal level within the church. It was not uncommon for a slave to end up being a deacon or elder in a church where his master was a "member" - which resulted in the slave having a certain amount of authority over his master. While this was no trouble for the slaves and masters who actually found themselves in this situation (they were all slaves to Christ), non-believing Romans perceived this situation as dangerous to the social and economic stability of Rome. The fear was unfounded. In the NT, Paul did counsel believing slaves to seek freedom if possible ( 1 Cor 7:21), but he also told slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; Titus 2:9).

In conclusion, it is unfair to claim that the Bible supports slavery. The OT system of slavery is unlike anything else in history – we have no frame of reference to compare it to, and it bore no similarity to the system of slavery we commonly think of (other then, perhaps, the word "slavery"). The NT slavery was never endorsed by the writers of the Bible. It was an entirely Roman system, set up and enforced by an occupying force in Israel -and the NT writers simply gave instructions on how Christians were to function within a preexisting system.

The NT never specifically addresses the issue of slavery because compared to the problem of sin, slavery is of very little importance (this is true of many, many issues that one could bring up). That being said, the spread of the Gospel can be directly linked to the demise of slavery. Put simply, where the gospel goes, slavery ends. Maybe not immediately, and there may be the odd hold out here and there, but in general, it is an undeniable fact.

What would Jesus do? [Part 2 - What about the poor?]

2007-06-30T22:38:00.001-07:00

Ok, first off - I am gonna start posting these on my MySpace page and my band new "BlogSpot" page - so if you are reading this on my BlogSpot page - you may want to head over to my MySpace page to see the rest of my blogs to date - and if you are reading this on my MySpace page, be sure to keep tabs on my BlogSpot page - as that is where my new blogs will always show up first.

Cool - now on to THIS blog.

More and more these days, I am hearing about what is becoming known as the "social gospel". This gospel is almost completely focused on social causes (i.e.. feeding the homeless, taking are of the needy, the environment, etc). Now these are all good things. Christians should be concerned with them, and actively involved in these issues - but they are NOT the gospel. You can do all of these things, and still be on your way to hell. None of these things will save you. For this blog, I would like to focus on the issue of the poor.

There is a passage in the Bible that is beginning to get some attention from odd places. It is quoted verbatim, or paraphrased by such people as Michael Moore, Oprah, Senator Jonathan Edwards, etc. It is also frequently mentioned by people like Brian Mclaren and Tony Campolo (people like this should, frankly, know better!). What passage am I talking about? This one:

"And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' "
(Mat 25:33-40)

I have underlined the parts that they want us to focus on. Now, just an aside, but an important one - the next passage has Jesus sending those who didn't obey this principal to hell.... the religious left doesn't like hell, but they like this passage.... what's a odd spot they must find themselves in here! Ok, anyway, on to this passage. A common problem that we can run into is the "Sunday School Jesus". The Jesus who healed people, kissed the babies, fed the hungry and told everyone to love each other. Now, Jesus did these things (I assume He kissed babies, but the Bible doesn't actually mention that...), but He said and did other things as well. You can't just take part of Jesus - He's not a salad bar or a buffet. For instance, Jesus spoke of hell more then He spoke of heaven - but people tend to shy away from that.

Lets focus on a phrase in the last part of our passage: "least of these My brethren." Who are the "brethren"" that He is talking about. Well, I would submit that there are only two possibilities here. The liberal theologians will want you to believe that it's everyone... but the text in no way implies that.

Ok, first possibility: Who is Jesus talking to? Jews! Jesus was a Jew - it is simply not that much of a stretch to think that Jesus was talking about people who were nice to the Jews. But I don't think that's it, I tend to think it's the second possibility - so lets take a look:

Possibility 2: Lets take a quick look at another verse -

"For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."
(Mat 12:50)

Hmm... interesting. Here we have Jesus saying exactly who His "brethren" (and uh.... sisteren?) are. They are the people who do the will of the Father - they are Christians!! So far from meaning that Jesus is going to ask us how we treated the poor before He lets us into heaven (the thought alone is nearing blasphemy!) - this text show us that how we treat Christians will have an effect on whether we enter heaven or not. Not that it will get us into heaven - but if we are truly saved, we will treat Christians well.... because we will love them! So no one who treats Christians bad will be going to heaven - for the simple reason that people who treat Christians bad are not Christians themselves. Christians will take care of other Christians - we will sacrifice for each other - we will die for each other.

The Bible does expand on this - for example:

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.
(1Jn 3:14)

So back to the Matthew 25 passage. John Gill said this passage "is to be understood, not in so limited a sense, as to regard only the apostles, and the least of them, for these were not the only brethren of Christ; nor in so large a sense, as to include all in human nature; but the saints only, the children of God, and household of faith."

Look - if taking care of the poor was of such paramount importance - why don't we have a record of Jesus doing it more often? We have Him healing a few people, He raised some people from the dead and fed large groups of people twice. Now I am in no way belittling these miracles - they are indeed amazing! But, when you consider that Jesus ministry lasted 3 years - it seems that the poor were not His primary concern... at least not in the way that Brian Mclaren would like. What was Jesus' primary concern regarding the poor?

"The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them. "
(Mat 11:5)

"THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE HAS ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR;
(Luk 4:18)

And exactly what is the gospel?

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures
(1Co 15:3-4)

Thanks for readin!

Rob