TRUTH in CHRIST

Love Only for Some--The Hypocrisy of The Naked Pastor

2019-05-15T19:04:00.001-07:00

I came across this comic and it was quite thought provoking. Take a look: click here

Hurting and Naked

If you're not familiar with the Naked Pastor you should probably at least be aware of him. I don't know David Hayward's spiritual journey except for what his About page says but I think it's safe to say that he's been hurt by people in the church in the context of personal doubts and questioning conservative Christian dogma. I say this because of the content of the overwhelming majority of his cartoons and his commentary on them.

Interpretation and Love

This specific cartoon and commentary are the best example I could find of why nobody should follow the shepherding of this pastor. When I first saw this cartoon my eyes were drawn to the Jesus figure and his words. My first thoughts were that the artist was trying to recreate a scene from the Gospels where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees (and other religious leaders) for interpreting the onus of the Law apart from grace, love and mercy. This was a common indictment by Jesus so it made sense that he would be speaking to Pharisees. So when I looked over I was surprised to see what seem to be pastors. I assumed that this was a dig at how some pastors are like Pharisees and I dismissed it as a trite and vapid commentary on today's church.
Next my eyes were drawn to the faces of the people. *Shame* "Oh. Good old shaming Jesus", I thought. Then I thought of Romans 8 where Paul says there is no condemnation for those in Christ.

I wanted to just leave it there but I started thinking more about what the Jesus character said. I started thinking that it didn't really make sense for Jesus to interpret the Bible since he spoke a majority of the content himself. I mean, he knows what he meant. I thought, also, that maybe the author was just trying to promote his own presuppositions (love over truth?) and a brand new Deconstructionist way of interpretation which would better match the current culture and he wasn't being very accurate, careful or thoughtful on the context of the cartoon.

Well I am glad to have had the author's commentary to explain his intent so I could rightly understand what he meant. (That is a basic rule of interpretation after all.) Hayward said that this is actually a redacted version of his original cartoon. I found it interesting that the original actually contained Pharisees in place of the pastors! So, why change it? Well he offers the reasoning for that, as well. Hayward was notified by a handful of people that this might possibly be taken as antisemitism and in fact one Jewish person who clearly is not familiar with the historical context did say that. He actually goes so far as to say that the cartoon took on a new meaning apart and quite different from the meaning he had given it so that it actually was anti-Semitic even though he didn't mean it that way!

So, Hayward decided that offending Jewish people would not be a good idea. He also apparently did not think it was a good idea to correct their hermeneutic. This is ironic since this is exactly the goal of the cartoon! It seems safe to say that he is willing to change the meaning of a text or forgo sound principles of interpretation to make somebody feel good. One wonders then how he can claim a foundation for his own understanding of love including his hermeneutic of love promoted here.

I assume he would say that it was not a loving thing to do to leave the cartoon as it was. He didn't want to offend or come across as being against Jews. What he did think was a good idea, apparently, was to offend and hurt pastors and conservative Christians. Remember the faces of the group of people on the left. *Shame* I find it hard to believe that Hayward thinks that the people being represented are actually ashamed or saddened by their interpretive method. It is probably best to see this as what David Hayward would like the folks represented here to feel: shame, condemnation, isolation, rejection and sadness. If you read a lot of his cartoons and commentary you will quickly see that those are all the things that he is accusing (accurately enough) the church of doing to certain types of people.

Here is where Hayward's hypocrisy begins to emerge. It is overtly apparent after spending a bit of time viewing his content that he is concerned for people who have been hurt by the church. However, this page makes it apparent that his concern and love only applies to some.

Hayward's Sheep

A perusal of a decent sampling of the cartoons available on The Naked Pastor website makes it clear who he is looking to protect and who they are being protected from. The idea is pretty clear. There are sheep, wolves, and shepherds. The wolves seem to be consistently evil and represent people who obey bad pastors. Shepherds also seem to be consistently bad. However, I think it's safe to say that the one good shepherd is the author, Hayward himself (and is arguably represented by the Jesus character). The sheep represent nominal Christians and there are at least 3 types: bad sheep who follow the bad shepherds, black sheep who leave the church for various reasons (e.g., dissension, church discipline, apostasy, 'enlightenment', etc.), and rainbow sheep who openly engage in homosexual acts.

Hayward seems to see himself as the correct representation of Jesus and the best example of being a pastor (thankfully he is not literally a nudist) who shepherds and counsels the dissenters and outcasts safely in a pin far away from the other sheep and shepherds. It's clear Hayward loves his sheep. However it is also clear that he has contempt for the rest of the fold and the other workers.

Notice in his commentary on this comic that he is not just afraid to be seen as anti-Semitic but he also says that the church is largely anti-Semitic itself and he even goes so far as to say that he doesn't want anyone to think that Christianity is better than Judaism! (It is at this point that liberal Christians start to take exceptions with the teachings of the apostle Paul.) In order to love non-Christians and those who have been put outside (by themselves or by church discipline, whether done rightly or wrongly) Hayward is more than willing to cause his enemies, the wolves shepherds and evil sheep, to feel all the things that he blames them for causing his sheep to feel. It's clear that his love only goes so far.

Hayward has made a career out of bashing the church and helping people leave it. (For more information visit his other website https://thelastingsupper.com/about-tls/) One has to wonder how long he can keep imagining himself as being a part of the true church while constantly condemning the church at large. When does his flock become the only true flock. This is always a danger with 'discernment ministries'. When you progress in your skills of discerning teachers, churches and denominations out of the true church you eventually run the risk of discerning yourself right out of the church because there's nobody left but you and your followers. It is important that we take notice that the author titled the comic "Love Versus the Bible".

David Hayward may think he's helping people but until he has removed the chip from his shoulder and the beam from his eye he is only creating a pen full of victims. I too say that we should follow Jesus teachings about love. I suppose I'd differ with Hayward where it comes to knowing what that means, where the authority that compels us to love comes from and what else Jesus and his appointed followers commanded us to do. At the end of the day I can say confidently that the Naked Pastor is not a shepherd whose voice should be heard.

How Are Women Saved By Childbearing? (1 Tim 2:15)

2019-01-17T21:47:00.000-07:00

Photo by Gift Habeshaw on Unsplash

1 Timothy 2 English Standard Version (ESV)

2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

Whenever I think I understand this passage about salvation and childbearing I quickly become a skeptic of my own understanding. That said, I think I can offer a simplified way to uncover what I think was originally a fairly plain meaning. I also believe this way of reading the passage will make it easier to remember the meaning of the text.
What is it that I believe would make this arguably enigmatic statement (which some have called the hardest interpretive challenge in the NT) something that can be simply and quickly decoded? Okay. Are you ready for this? You aren't going to like my answer.... It's context--the undefeated, reigning king of all interpretation.

So, maybe you are saying to yourself, "Yeah. I already knew that." Well, let me explain a little more. I think the context of chapter 2 is not just in chapt 2. First, let's zoom out. (You'll need your Bible for this next part.) The most important context for interpreting chapter 2 is in both chapters 1 and 2.
If we pull back a bit we see two things which are very important for providing clarity to our pesky passage--one in chapter 1 and the other in chapel 2. These two things will provide clarity by discussing purpose. As we look at those two things I think you'll begin to see why they're so important.

Paul writes in chapter 1 that he left Timothy at Ephesus to tell certain people that they shouldn't teach things which are contrary to Paul's teaching. Paul's reason for this is twofold: 1) these teachings produce things that are not in agreement with God's plan and 2) Paul's teaching produces "love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith" (1:4-5). Paul starts chapter 2 with prayer for those who are in charge of people. He also gives us the purpose for that prayer, namely, that it would produce lives that are peaceful, quiet, godly, and dignified. The purpose for Paul's teachings and his prayer may be different but we should look at them as one unified goal for the people of Ephesus. If we put the individual purposes together into a sort of landscape painting then when we get to the didactic (teaching) sections of the letter we can place them onto this stage and more clearly see them against the backdrop as a whole integral message. We could summarize Paul's goals as the things which produce God's plan for our lives, including (to just name a few) purity, authenticity, peace, quietness, and godliness.

This background gives us insight into why Paul commands the Ephesians to do the things he does in this letter to Timothy. So, when we come across a passage that seems strange we can stop and look at it to see how it produces the good things which Paul says his teaching should produce. With this in mind let's put a couple passages "on the stage" to see how it works.

Firstly, we can go to verse 8, "I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;". When read through the mesh of Paul's 'goals' it's easy to see that acting "without anger or quarreling" produces love (ch. 1), peacefulness and quietness (ch. 2). So, this verse fits right in with what Paul has already stated in 1 Timothy up to this point. That should come as no surprise.

Secondly, we can use vv. 9-10 as an example:

"9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works."

The question should come at once, 'What does this have to do with Paul's previously stated goals for the Ephesians?' Let's try another layout that might help visually.

(i) likewise also that women should adorn themselves

(ii) in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control,

(iii) not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,

(iv) but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works."

In line (i) Paul says women should adorn themselves, but in (ii-iv) he says how. It's clear that Paul isn't concerned with whether they should adorn themselves but how they should adorn themselves. Further, (ii) and (iv) describe ways to adorn, whereas, (iii) describe ways not to adorn. Put simply, Paul wants them to be living lives decorated with respect, modesty, self-control and good works rather than lives decorated with material gain, affluence and status seeking. Again, looking through the filter of Paul's epistolary purpose it's easy to see that a life lived with this kind of focus on a more inward appearance assists the person to "lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way". Let's continue.

Verse 11 should be pretty easy now that we understand how to use the "purpose filter". Quietness is in Paul's prayer. What about verse 12? Quietness again. (Note that in these verses learning submissively is contrasted with teaching authoritatively.)

Verses 13 and 14 serve as an example of the natural relationship of men and women by using the archetypal man and woman to support his statements in the previous verses. The idea is probably that God's authority was given to the "firstborn" (created) and that a massively detrimental consequence of the woman going outside the natural structure was that she became the first transgressor. Of course, a quick reading of Genesis 3 shows a few closely tied ideas found in verses 11 and 12. Have you ever noticed that the serpent came to the woman and not the man who was clearly the representative of humanity? Did Eve refer the serpent to him? No. Did she attempt to teach the serpent the doctrines of God? Yes. It could be argued that she taught falsely. She also gave Adam the fruit to eat which could be taken as an authoritative action. Of course, this could all be prefiguring the curse which befalls Eve (and arguably all women since) that she "will want to control [her] husband, but he will dominate [her].”¹ Obviously, this did not create any of the things which are part of Paul's goals for the Ephesians. So, these verses serve as both guidance and a warning.

Before we continue I must introduce you to a literary term which I think is used in the next (and final!) verse. The technical term is synedoche. Simply put, the term means "part for the whole". This is where we use a word which is part of something that easily represents the larger thing it belongs to. Let me quickly give some English examples before we move on. One is, "My old car broke down so I just bought some sweet new wheels." Are we to understand that the person bought a couple wheels or a whole car? How about this, "Do you know your ABC's?" Just those three letters? "The hand counted the cattle which totaled 300 head." There are two there. And my personal favorite,

"I should have been a pair of ragged claws

Scuttling across the floors of silent seas."²

Hopefully it is clear that synedoche is a common human linguistic tool. Two words in v. 15 are used this way.

15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

One is "she" and the other is "childbearing." (Technically there is no word here for she. The verb "will be saved" refers back to "the woman".) She (part) can be said to stand for women (whole) including Eve and the Ephesians. This makes sense of the change from singular (she) to plural (they) in this verse. Childbearing should be seen as standing for the whole of the role of women (which Eve forsook). Specifically, childbearing here represents the lifestyle which Paul has been asserting produces the things found in his purposes for writing his letter to Timothy. The rest of this verse, "if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control", drives this point home. Paul is actually clarifying that the type of "childbearing" (proper feminine lifestyle) that saves is one that produces this type of life. We see a very similar idea in chapter 5 of this same letter.

"and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work."³

Okay, but how are they saved by living a proper feminine lifestyle? That sounds like a salvation by works. Well, to understand the salvation Paul is talking about here we just need to look at another passage in this letter where he uses the word.

"Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers."⁴

We often use salvation to refer to conversion. "When were you saved?" However, the NT writers often used it to refer to being preserved or to perseverance (eschatological salvation). Paul was not telling Timothy that he should attempt to gain conversion and be born again. He's telling him that by continuing in the faith he will be preserved in the end--he will persevere. In the same way, women--Eve, the Ephesian women and every woman--having been born again, persevere "in faith" in "God's plan" (1:4) by living godly lives consisting of all the things Paul prayed for (ch 2) and which he claimed are products of God teaching (ch 1).

To summarize, if you simply use the "purpose filter" that Paul lays out in chapters 1 and 2 then this passage isn't as hard to understand as it seems upon first glance. So, how can you easily remember that? My suggestion is to read the entire letter through that filter and see for yourself how Paul gives specific instruction on how to harvest the fruits of his teaching and his prayer.

¹Genesis 3:16 NET
https://bible.com/bible/107/gen.3.16.NET
²T.S. Elliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock; https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/44212/the-love-song-of-j-alfred-prufrock
³1Timothy 5:10 ESV https//bible.com/bible/59/1ti.5.10.ESV
⁴1 Timothy 4:16 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/1ti.4.16.ESV

The Resurrection--Are You Fool?

2018-04-01T18:00:00.002-07:00

Today happens to be April Fool's Day and Easter Day: April 1, 2018.

In my last post I discussed the idea of valid doubt or skepticism. Here I will discuss foolish doubt and foolish belief.

The Hebrew songwriter, King David of Israel, wrote of foolish skeptics in Psalm 14

The fool says in his heart,

“There is no God.”

They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;

there is no one who does good.

The Lord looks down from heaven

on all mankind

to see if there are any who understand,

any who seek God.

All have turned away, all have become corrupt;

there is no one who does good,

not even one.

Do all these evildoers know nothing?1

And in the first chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians from Paul of Tarsus he wrote to them,

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;

the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.2

We don't have to look too closely to see the contrasts between these passages. However, did you notice the similarities? Hmmm.... Let's discuss. David is speaking of fools who purposely remove the idea of God from their palates. Notice that they are saying in their hearts that their is no God. This should invoke in us the idea of purposeful suppression--borne of desire of the heart. They are not merely making an intellectual and scientific discovery and reporting back the data. In the rest of the Psalm we see what their reasoning is for making this heartfelt confession: evil. To quote St. Paul again, "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."3 Most honest men and women will admit (maybe not publicly), when asked whether they would want God to exist, will say no. Why not? Isn't God a crutch for the weak and a genie for the feeble-minded? The answer is obvious to the earnest truth seeker. These fools would deny the genie or the crutch because of their wickedness.

To better understand we can look at the first law of thermodynamics. This law tells us that heat is energy and cannot be destroyed but merely transferred. In much the same way, since God can not be destroyed, he must be displaced. What can an ant living in an ant farm do but develop a sort of psychological myopia when he has a desire to escape the all seeing eye of the 9-year old child who created that farm? So, the wicked persons described by King David are clearly believers in a contrived skepticism, but what about the persons described by Paul in his letter to ancient Corinth?

Paul, in verse 18, talks about a message which is foolishness to or with those who are perishing. This also can and should be thought of in the same humanly derived sense of discernment as the fool in Psalm 14. To the people who reject the message about Jesus' death and resurrection (the thing which signifies and solidifies the metaphysical implications of that death for humanity) it is absurd and foolish. That is, as far as they are concerned it is to be assumed as culturally foolish. This is the same in any culture--whether the culture's truth stems from philosophers, priests, scientists or shaman--it still stems from the culture. In the next verse (19) we see a quote from the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah. Here God might seem to be saying that he will in fact destroy intelligence and wisdom! God forbid it! In fact, what it says is that he will destroy the wisdom of the "wise men". It should be clear that God is in search of destroying that wisdom which is creation-made and contrary to the greater, more panoramic knowledge and wisdom of the creator. So, at the end of the day the believer in the message of Christ's death and resurrection is opposed to the creaturely understanding of what is true and possible in their known world. Christians, according to Paul, are fools in relation to the world, but wise in relation to the culturally transcendent knowledge of God.

If today is April Fool's day, then maybe it is the day on which we need to discover which kind of fool we are. One of the best ways might be to talk about the systematic, bottom up, minimal facts, or lowest common denominator approach of resurrection historian Gary Habermas.

In Gary's career he has developed a method of researching the facts of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth that only focus on those facts that are accepted by all those who are intellectually honest--those who are not philosophically committed to the denial of Jesus at all costs. He has a clever way of finding out how many of modern scholars conclude that the necessary facts of the resurrection are undeniably true history. It's not that clever sounding after you hear it, but here it is: find the percentage of liberal, skeptical scholars who believe the bare minimum of the facts required to believe the resurrection of Jesus without a reasonable doubt and add that to the 100% of conservative scholars who affirm the same. (For reasonable doubt, though, refer back to Psalm 14.)

Habermas ultimately comes away with 4 necessary historical facts of the resurrection that have well over 90% of all scholars (liberal and conservative) affirming their historicity. Those facts are (1) Jesus of Nazareth lived and taught about the Kingdom of Heaven, (2a) Jesus of Nazareth was hung on a cross, (2b) Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross for claiming his Kingship, (3) his students had inexplicable, genuine encounters with what they believed to be the risen Jesus of Nazareth and (4) an enemy skeptic of Jesus and his students, Paul of Tarsus, claimed to have had an encounter with the risen Jesus which he believed was 100% undeniable. Remember, these are not things that Christian apologist Gary Habermas thinks are historically true, but facts that 90+% of all New Testament historians believe are historically true!

Being honest in our approach to discussing the resurrection requires us to first to decide whether we are skeptics at all costs (fools of the heart) or willing to be led by the evidence even when our heart desires the opposite and believe in that which seems contrary to our current cultural epistemic model (fools to the wise). At the end of the day we must admit that anyone who denies the resurrection in light of the evidence is somebody who who has a deep desire--an ulterior motive--to deny the truth.

2 1 Corinthisans 1:18-25; ibid.

³Romans 1:18-19; ibid.

Are You Doubting Enough?

2018-03-20T13:24:00.004-07:00

Everyone doubts. Everyone trusts. Nobody trusts perfectly or doubts perfectly in everything and at all times and in all ways. So, you could always doubt more or get better at it. The question would be, then, should you?

To answer that we should probably discuss why you should do anything at all. Some say that everything that we should do is really only pragmatic--that it serves a practical purpose. Some say that what we should do are the higher things--striving for virtues. Others say that there is still another more external and unchanging standard--this is what you ought to do. So, if those are our options (if there is another then let me know) then which one would motivate us to doubt more and even better?

Pragmatism would only promote doubting and skepticism when it called for it. We would need to look at it on a case-by-case basis. So, three would not be a need to increase. Skepticism can only be seen as a virtue when it is freeing you from some untoward behavior or social ills. However, to be totally skeptical in all things can never be a virtuous goal mainly because it would keep you from all other virtuous goals which require trust. Even pragmatism requires a very great deal of trust. An objective ought would actually require that we only doubt when it is necessary in order to understand better what it is that we must do in light of this standard. We should doubt only to find out what it is that we should not doubt--the ultimate objective ought.

As we can see from a short assessment, there is never a reason to doubt perfectly all the time, in every way and in everything. Doubt is merely a tool to be used and never something to aspire to. It is not the ultimate goal of the pragmatist, the nobleman nor the believer in objective standards. So, being skeptical should not be anyone's goal. In fact, as French philosopher Blaise Pascal said,

"What then is man to do in this state of affairs? Is he to doubt everything, to doubt whether he is awake, whether he is being pinched or burned? Is he to doubt whether he is doubting, to doubt whether he exists?

No one can go that far, and I maintain that a perfectly genuine sceptic has never existed."

Pensees ( Blaise Pascal, Penguin Classics; Rev Ed edition, Translated by A. Krailsheimer)

What Is The Perfect Law of Liberty? (James 1:25)

2018-03-03T15:37:00.002-07:00

James 1:18-27

New English Translation (NET)

"18 By his sovereign plan he gave us birth through the message of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

19 Understand this, my dear brothers and sisters! Let every person be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger. 20 For human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness. 21 So put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the message implanted within you, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be sure you live out the message and do not merely listen to it and so deceive yourselves. 23 For if someone merely listens to the message and does not live it out, he is like someone who gazes at his own face in a mirror. 24 For he gazes at himself and then goes out and immediately forgets what sort of person he was. 25 But the one who peers into the perfect law of liberty and fixes his attention there, and does not become a forgetful listener but one who lives it out—he will be blessed in what he does. 26 If someone thinks he is religious yet does not bridle his tongue, and so deceives his heart, his religion is futile. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

James uses three different words to essentially refer to the same thing in this passage. We will look at each usage to see what they mean separately as well as together to discover what it is that James means by "the perfect law of liberty". The three usages are (1) the message of truth, (2) the perfect law of liberty, and (3) pure and undefiled religion.

Let's first look at the "message of truth". In verse 18 James says that the message (some translations: the word) is how we were given birth. For James, the half-brother of Jesus, birth here would be referring to re-birth--being born again. Then, in v. 21 he calls it that message "implanted within you" and "which is able to save your souls." The message that births you, then, is also the one that saves your soul. Not only that, but it is also implanted in you. This message both saves and regenerates and after that it indwells you. This must mean nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, it also means more than that. We see in Jeremiah that the law of the new covenant will be written on the hearts of those men and women belonging to that covenant.

Now, we will look at the law of liberty. Along with the "message of truth" James declares that we must live out the "perfect law of liberty" and not just take it in by the ear. You can quickly see that James merely continues his argument of the importance of being doers of the message by saying that we must also be doers of this law without making a new argument at all. Either the law of liberty exists in the message of truth or the message exists in the law. It should be clear that the message is not perfectly identical to the law but that the portion of each which involves application or (more likely) imperatives is the same. So then, he is referring to taking the same action in either case. That is, those things that we should do which are in the message are the same as the things that we should do which are in the law. So, the law of liberty and the message of truth both contain the same instructions for right conduct.

Lastly, we have pure religion. Just as in the law example of the mirror, here we have a person perceiving of themselves and then not living out a life in concord with that image. And we also have the idea of deceiving oneself both here and in the first section of the 'implanted word'. We can even see what I think is the same idea in v 24 where the man looks in the mirror and immediately forgets what sort of man he is. That man is not forgetful, but rather self-deceived! (There is also likely a tie to the double-minded man earlier in the chapter; cf. Moo.) So, once again James gives us a standard that is being heard or seen and then the absence or lack of living that standard out. That standard is, of course, God's standard of righteousness (see v. 20). Interestingly, here James gives us actual samples of that righteous conduct: "to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world." So, James warns that religious claims do not make you a righteous dude if you are simply going to the temple--pagan or Jewish--but rather it is the implanted word with the law of liberty working out good for those around you. So, once again the aspect of all three that should be obeyed are the same commands and should be plainly taken as referring to the same thing.

Putting it plainly, then the law of our true religion is found in the message of Jesus. I think it is safe to say that James here is saying that the person who lays claim to the fulfillment of all religion (which we know today as Christianity) and received the gospel, law and teaching of Jesus Christ is only fooling themselves if they are not living out the Law of Christ. As Paul said in Galatians 6:7 "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows."

The Beginning and End: Light from Genesis, John, 1 John and Revelation for Kids

2015-12-31T09:52:00.000-07:00

The Beginning and End: Light from Genesis, John, 1 John and Revelation for Kids.

Ages 5-10

This children's Bible is completely unique. There is no Bible, currently on the market, for children of this age which is an actual English translation.

This is a translation of the Greek and Hebrew Old Testament's first chapter of Genesis and of selections of John's writings (John, 1 John, and Revelation) from the Greek New Testament which speak of light.

Illustrations award winning artist Roger Archibald.

Ages 5-10

The first children's Bible of its kind. An actual English translation that they can comprehend. Watch how John picks up on the "light'' from Genesis chapter 1 and uses it in his Gospel and in his first letter and see God's plan unfold from creation to the cross to the end and fulfillment along with great illustrations.

Genesis Chapter 1

In the beginning of everything God made the whole world, and the sky and the outer space.

Then, God said, "Light, exist!" Then light existed. God said that the light was good and, so, God moved the light away from the dark and made daytime and nighttime.

Then, God said, "There should be a canvas right in between the waters, as a background. This must keep the waters away from each other. Then, that is exactly what happened: God made the background--the canvas--and God moved the water down under the canvas and up on top of the canvas. Then, God named the canvas "the sky".

Then, God said, "All you waters under the sky, come together into one big spot so that the ground is not covered up and it can be seen." Then, that is exactly what happened: the water under the sky--on the ground--was moved into its big spot and then the ground could be seen. Then, God named the ground "the earth" and all the waters that were brought together God named "lakes" and "oceans".

Then, God said, "Earth, sprout green leafy plants on the ground; ones that grow from seeds that were from the same kind of plants. Grow trees that have fruit with seeds in the fruit so the seeds can grow more trees just like the ones that they came from." Then, that is exactly what happened.

3 John

1 The Elder

To Gaius the loved.

2 Beloved, I pray that you have a good life and be healthy in every way, just like you have a good spirit life.

Review of a Heavily Misapplied Hermeneutic

2014-09-05T00:48:00.000-07:00

So many poor doctrines come from the oversimplification of and broad and indiscriminate application of an otherwise noble and sound hermeneutic, when the writers of the New Testament (the Spirit of God, really) did not adhere to the rule themselves. This is the hermeneutical rule that says that we should interpret a passage the way the original audience would have. This is particularly jeopardous when we are interpreting the OT passages and think, "Well, how would the Jews have understood it?" I am not here talking about cultural contexts where the meaning of a word or phrase was specific to that era. I am speaking of things that were specific to the Jews who were in a covenant with God and would interpret his word according to their experiences with Jehovah. What is wrong with their understanding? Why should we doubt it?
Several reasons. For one, we see new Testament usage of OT passages that are clearly alien to any OT Jewish understanding of the passage from when it was first received. What Jew would have thought that the "seed" of Abraham was referring, not to himself and his brethren, but to the Messiah?
Secondly, the Jews, like us all were limited by the flesh; sin's effect on our ability to think. They were also spoken of in terms that describe an obstinate mind--they are stiff -necked with heard hearts.
Thirdly, Jesus purposely hid the true meaning of his words from those who were not his true disciples. (See Matt 13) Romans 11:7-10 says of the OT Jews, "What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
    eyes that could not see
    and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”
And David says:

“May their table become a snare and a trap,
    a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
    and their backs be bent forever."
Which sets up the question, how many OT Jews were believers? The Bible does not give any indication that there were many or, necessarily more than a handful. Is this the description of people that we want interpreting God's declarations?
Given that Jesus hid the meaning of his own words from them and "God gave them a spirit of stupor,
    eyes that could not see
    and ears that could not hear,
to this very day", why should we not think that the meaning of OT passages has been hidden from them, as well? I think it is safe to assume that they were hidden but many were revealed in later canonical writings (the NT) to those who believe in Jesus.

Once Saved Always Saved, Eternal Security, Perseverance of the Saints, and the Devil

2014-07-11T12:57:00.004-07:00

There are innumerable questions that are posed in the minds of Christians daily. As a believer grows in maturity these questions usually grow in depth. More mature Christians can often get caught up trying to answer these technical, deep, and enigmatic questions and forget that there are people struggling with a lot of the more basic questions. A question after all, no matter how 'small' (a relative idea), still needs answered. So, in an attempt to answer these questions I will be starting a series of answers to basic questions here on this blog.

A Sprout Saved

2014-06-25T01:51:00.001-07:00

A Sprout Saved

Cassidy was wandering through the fields and meadows. She was looking here and there. Yet she did not know what she was looking for. She saw many beautiful flowers and grasses. After not too long she happened into an area that was starting to become sparse with vegetation; a patch of grass here and a splotch of field flowers there. This made Cassidy decide she might now want to go home. But as she was about to take her last step and pivot she stopped with her lead foot in mid air. Because under her foot was a teeny tiny green little sprout.

After rushing home to tell her uncle the news she realized the house was empty except for the pet parakeet which Cassidy and her uncle Jim had hatched with an incubator they bought from the internet. She wasn't worried; the house was often found this way. It was just her, uncle Jim and Softie, the bird, that lived there. However, she wasn't alone long. "Well, I'll tell you why they will win this season without an ounce of doubt!" Jim spoke as he ascended the front porch. "I wouldn't be so sure", said a man with a hat standing just below Cassidy's uncle. Jim welcomed the debate, "Well why don't you two come inside and we can hash this out over a drink or two?" Cassidy would have to wait to get her secret out.

Uncle Jim and his two friends, Gary and George, argued for hours. They debated about the same subject until, finally, Cassidy, because she didn't think they would ever end or because she just couldn't listen to one more word, interrupted. "Guess what I found!" she blurted. As, all three men shut up and turned slowly to see what she was about, she tucked her imaginary tail between her legs and stared back with puppy dog eyes. "Well," said Jim, "what is it?" "Ummm... a sprout", she replied. "A sprout of what?" asked George. "Nobody knows", said Cassidy. The men chuckled. "How many people did you interview?" asked Gary. "Let's go take a look", said Jim.

Cassidy led the way. As she went she warned the men not to step on the wild flowers. She was afraid that they would die. Gary mumbled, "It's not like they're roses." You must understand that in their city it was illegal to kill a rose--punishable by death! The reason for this was because it had been, for a long, long time, believed that roses were the ancestors of the people of that town; by means of evolution, of course. "Well, just don't step on my sprout", she retorted. "I bet it's a rose, uncle Jim", said Cassidy. But, he just replied, "I doubt it."

Just then they happened upon the patchy area where she had spotted the sprout. "We're here!" she shouted. "Be careful where you walk now, gentlemen. Let's be careful not to crush the poor thing", said Gary. "Oh, don't be so sensitive, Gary. It's just a plant", spoke George. Jim reminded them saying, "Let's not forget the consequences of smashing a rose." "Well we don't know what it is or if it even exists, so let's not worry about it", replied George. "There it is!" exclaimed Cassidy.

The three men and the one little girl all began to get down onto their hands and their knees to get a better look at the little sprout. After they had stared at it for quite some time, one man spoke: "Well, whatever it is, it certainly can't be a rose."

"And why not?" asked another man.
"Because it is clearly only a sprout, as we can all plainly see."
"Yes, a sprout, but what will the sprout become? That is how you know what kind of sprout it is."
"Well, it really does not matter. I mean, I could squash it flat right now and nobody in their right mind would say that I had done something wrong."
"But, if it is a rose then you would have clearly done wrong."
"And, since it is only a sprout, therefore it cannot be shown that it is a rose."

At that point in the debate another person of that city happened upon the group. The stranger overheard the conversation and interjected, "There is always science you know." In fact, the man was a scientist himself. "I have a very definitive way of determining whether a plant is a rose or not: a rodometer. And, it just so happens that I have one in my work case." All the men agreed it should be tested, though some said that it would not mean anything. So, the man opened up his case and put on his lab coat and his seeing glasses. Then he took a sampling cloth and gently rubbed the sprout. After putting the sample on a petri dish and placing the dish in his rodometer he pushed the button on the top right of the machine--the red one marked "Test".

All four men and one little girl stood there while the tester tested the sprout sample. "I so hope it is a rose", said Cassidy. However, the men were all too busy arguing to hear her. Jim didn't want Cassidy to be sad if the sprout was a rose because it would likely die. George was the only one there who did not have any children or nieces or nephews. So, by the law of the city he would have to adopt the sprout, if it was a rose. He did not want to spend all of his time and money taking care of a rose. Gary was good man who thought deeply and cared about all life. He just knew that if they weren't 100% sure it was a rose that they ought to still err on the side of caution.

"Ding!" That meant that the test was done. The scientist leaned over the machine to analyze the data. There it is. This sprout has, 100%, the DNA of a rose. "Wait, what is DNA?", asked Cassidy. Jim replied, "That's the genes--the stuff that makes our bodies into what they are." "That means it's a rose. Yipee!", she said with glee. " Gary commented, "Yep. It's conclusive proof." "Not so fast, you two," said George, "that's just one test. ...and that's just the DNA for what it will become." "You see," he continued, "a rose, like a human, is more than just its blueprint, that is what DNA is after all, a building plan. And a blueprint is not a building. It's just a plan for a building. A rose is a flower and a flower has petals and, as you can plainly see, this... thing does not have. Secondly, a rose has a sweet perfume; this grouping of plant cells has no odor at all. Thirdly, a rose is colorful; this new growth is just green like every other seedling." He paused to be sure everyone was understanding his argument. Then he continued, "As you can plainly see, the rose must have these three things in order to be a rose. This sprout has none of these things, therefore it is not a rose. It only is able to become a rose. And, because I don't have the ability to take care of a rose, we should kill it now, before it grows up into one, so that it does not wither away by malnutrition." "Nooooo!", shrieked Cassidy "You can't kill my rose." "Now, dear, stay out of these grown up matters. You are too
young to understand something so complex. I must do what is right and honorable", George said with pride.

George then raised his foot and placed it above the sprout to squash it to death. But, before he lowered it, there was a voice that cried out loud, "Stop!" "What do you think you are doing in my garden?", said the voice. It was a woman's voice. Then, all four men and the one little girl looked behind them and saw a lady walking toward them from her porch. "Don't kill my rose", she said. "I'm sorry ma'am, but what makes you think this is a rose? As I've just got done teaching these folks, this little piece of vegetation does not have any of the attributes which make a plant a rose. So, what makes you think you can actually call it a rose when it is obviously just a bit of chlorophyll coming up out of the ground?" "Well, that is simple", she said, "I went to the store and bought rose seeds and I planted one in a whole in a mound directly under your foot. I know it is a rose because I planted a rose there. And if you all will excuse me, I have some rose food that I bought to feed that little rose bush and I have about a hundred more in the back garden."

Cassidy shrieked again, but this time with delight. She was so happy that the little sprout was a rose for that meant that she would get to see it grow up. "Ma'am," she said, "would you teach me to take care of roses?" "I would enjoy that very much... If that is okay with your father", replied the woman. "Oh, I don't have any parents. I live with my uncle, Jim", said Cassidy. "Yes, ma'am. That would be very nice of you.", said Jim. "We are very sorry", he continued, "we didn't realize you had started a garden here." Then all four men left to go to their homes, but the one little girl stayed. And the two ladies sat and talked all about how to care for very young rose sprouts.

The End

Heaven Is A Future Reality For All Believers For Real

2014-04-17T18:20:00.000-07:00

Burpo claims that "heaven is for real." I have to disagree with wee Burpo. Heaven is not for real. Rather, heaven is a future reality for all believers. I know it sounds like we are saying the same thing. The problem, as I see it, is that if I agree with his conclusion and use his language I am implicitly agreeing with the context of his statement, which includes all of the premises of his argument.

What does this mean? Well, for starters, I would have to agree that he actually saw a relative of his in heaven. I cannot say whether he did or not, but I cannot just have faith in a child's anecdote. This is a foolhardy idea every other day of the week. Why not now? Another implicit agreement I would be making is that of the kind of heaven. The kind of heaven that Burpo says "is for real" is not the same as that which is described in God's revelation (scripture).

So, for at least two reasons, I don't think it is a good idea to support or agree with Burpo or join with him in saying, "heaven is for real."
1) We have a far more reliable witness than a young child. Scripture speaks reliably about the reality and surety of the physical resurrection of Jesus and therefore the resurrection of those who remain in him and he in them. Hundreds of people saw Jesus walking, talking, eating and drinking after a three day stay in the grave. We need no witness of a little boy. 2) Heaven is not yet as it will be after the resurrection of the dead. Does heaven exist now? Yes! That is where the Almighty reigns on his throne. After the resurrection of the saints there will be a new heaven and a new earth--a physical heaven. This is not what the young lad saw. The heaven the boy saw is not for real.

The fact that the movie is coming out so close to Easter should be rather concerning. Easter is a day celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul says that, as Christians, our hope is to be found in the historical fact of that resurrection. If we are putting our hope in the reliability of a boy then we are relegating scripture to the same (or lower) level of authority as a child's story. For these reasons I do not think we should support this movie. Stay at home and study the reliability of the historical account of the resurrection and why our hope lies within.

John 1:1c--A Contextual Argument

2014-03-31T10:30:00.002-07:00

1. John is monotheistic and believed the Shemah.
2. The three clauses in John 1:1 are to be taken as a whole sentence/thought.
3. Theos has a semantic range of possible definitions (e.g., divinely (1), God (1267), god (6), God's (27), God-fearing (1), godly (2), godly* (1), gods (8), Lord (1). in the NASB).
4. Theos with the article is normally, commonly, and usually to be taken as God--the Father.
5. Ho theos (ὁ θεος) in John 1:1b is the Father.
6. Because 1:1c is to be taken in the same sentence/thought as John 1:1a and b that narrows the semantic range of the θεος of clause c. It is predicating that the word was what the θεος of 1:1b was (the Word was God).
7. Since, 1:1b states that the Word and God were together (face to face) and because θεος lacks the article in 1:1c, then 1:1c cannot be saying that ὁ θεος and the Word are identical but are of the same substance, being, quality, or nature.
8. Therefore, The Word is God, but since John believed in the Shemah the Word was not God the Father. One God; two persons. John was at least a binitarian.

Living by Grace Apart From the Law… Practically

2014-02-01T18:48:00.004-07:00

In what way are we free from the "law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2); the law of Moses? Positionally only? Or is it also practically? One way to tell is to look at its relation to grace. If we are "under grace" in position only then we are "not under law" in position only. However, if we are "under grace" practically then we are also "not under law" practically. We must look at how grace and law are used in specific passages which contrast the two.

Going through the epistle to the Romans we first need to look at Chapter 3. Here it seems that what is contrasted is the works of the law and justification by grace (vv. 19-31 and 4:13-16). Then we get to Chapter 5. There really isn't much of a contrast here. Grace is first mentioned in verse 2 and is described as the grace that we have been standing in but is not contrasted with the law. However, when we finally get to v. 13 law is there introduced. In vv. 12-20 we see a definite contrast between sin and grace which is introduced and concluded by a brief talk of law. Paul speaks of a time before law (v. 13) and a time in which law came. He says that the law came in order to increase trespasses grace might reign more than death (v. 20). The only contrast of law and grace is that law produces sin and sin reigns in death while grace reigns through righteousness and those who receive grace reign in life (v. 17; 21). This seems to be a usage of law and grace for daily living. If we continue under the law then sin will increase but there is nothing to worry about for grace aboundeth.

Then there is the artificial chapter break of 6:1 where we are asked rhetorically whether we should then continue in sin. Paul answers emphatically, “May it never be!” He then asks another often overlooked (maybe overshadowed) rhetorical question, “How can we still live in sin since we died to it?” Paul continues on in Romans 6:12 compelling us to not let sin reign or to obey its passions. In verses 6-7 we are told the answer to the question “How can we still live in sin?” The answer is we can’t. He tells us that our old body was killed so that we would not be a slave of sin; but set free. Verse 14 tells us that the reason that we must not let sin reign is because sin does not rule us if we are under grace and not under law. So, the answer to the rhetorical question is again that we can’t. Here is a clear contrast where law and grace are both referring to daily living. Understanding that we are not under law but under grace compels us to live lives free from sin. We see the same thing in vv. 15-23. We are not going to continue in sin because we are under grace and not under the law, but this in no way makes us act lawlessly. Instead it makes us act righteously for we are now slaves to God and his righteousness (vv. 15-19).

Moving right along we come to the 7th chapter of Romans. Paul assures us here in v. 7 that we ought not equate the law with sin. Quickly, though, he moves to tell us that the law is the vehicle which sin uses to produce sin and death in us (vv. 8-11). In verse 13 Paul reassures us that the law did not bring death and that it is good in itself, but that sin again uses the law to become even more sinful (sinful beyond measure ESV) and the reason for this is because the law is spiritual but we are of flesh (v. 14). While Paul desires to keep the law and do good—which shows the law is good—he does not keep the law—which shows that it is his flesh or his indwelling sin which wants to break the law. So, again we see that the sinful nature of man works together with the law to produce lawless behavior (18-23).

However, if we continue on to chapter 8 we find the solution to the sin law problem. It is not being without law—lawlessness—but without a certain law. In v. 2 we are shown that we have been set free from the law of sin and death which creates this vicious circle of sin-law-flesh-sin-death-sin by a better law—the law of the Spirit which is about life. Further, in vv. 3-4 we are told that God finally ended this circle—which the law could not do—by condemning sin in that flesh, which so weakened the law, in order that we could fulfill all the righteousness that the law demanded. This is done by walking according to the Spirit and living under the law of the Spirit. Verses 7-8 assure us that the fleshly minded person, who does not walk and live by the Spirit does not and cannot submit to God’s law and cannot please God. This chapter makes it clear that Paul is speaking about daily living.

It seems in light of these passages that we really are to consider ourselves free from law practically and positionally. In only one of the above passages is Paul referring to only positional justification. The idea he puts forth is that the law causes us to sin—albeit not because of itself but because of our flesh, but the law is part of the equation. Since we are free from the law we are commended to live by the Spirit and by grace.

This in no way makes us lawless. Paul corrects that idea. In chapter 8 we saw that we are to live by another law: the law of the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 9:21 and Galatians 6:2 Paul uses the term Law of Christ. Both the Spirit and Christ are key landmarks (signs) of the New Covenant. When Paul speaks of the law of Christ or of the Spirit he is speaking of the law of a new covenant. In Hebrews we read that since we have a better covenant and a better high priest we need a new law. “For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.” (Hebrews 7:12)

Frozen: Disney in a Post-Christian World

2014-01-24T10:31:00.001-07:00

Disney's latest animation Frozen is a great example of how post-Christian America really is.

Parents build fear into the girl. Love drives out fear for a believer. Legalistic parents often drive their children to rebel. Rebellion has dire consequences. Rebellion is sin. The wages of sin is death--to self, soul, casualties and in the end the cosmos.

Hans Christian Andersen

Four Loves

Goodwyn: Without giving too much away, what does the movie say about love?

Henn: Well, it says a lot of things about love. It's hard to boil it down to one particular sentence, because you see different types and different levels of love that are culturally prevalent throughout. You've got the very shallow instant gratification kind of love that Anna feels. You've got the element of sacrifice. You've got the innocent childlike love that Olaf brings to the film. So it really paints a very broad picture of different aspects of love and maybe what's true love versus what's really kind of a pretend or a false love. It appeals on a lot of different levels. https://www.cbn.com/entertainment/screen/frozen-disney-mark-henn-interview-goodwyn.aspx

Goodwyn: The evolution of female characters in Disney animated features from Cinderella up until now is clear. What does Frozen say to young girls?

Henn: Part of the big evolution in terms of the role of our leading ladies and our princesses, for lack of a better term, have "undergone" is that early on a lot of times the girls tended to be more reactionary to things that would happen to them. They needed somebody to come alongside and save the day, so to speak. And that may have been true years ago, but nowadays, the stories are a little more complicated. The characters are more proactive. It's not things necessarily happening to them alone, but it's their decisions, their wants and dreams and desires that propel them forward, that propel the story. They make decisions and there are consequences good and bad that move the story along. That's been a big jump in the way we've told our stories and the types of stories that we've told, starting with The Little Mermaid, which was kind of the prototype of that new type of story, or new type or heroine where she's making decisions. The world isn't just happening to her and she's just like, "Oh, help! Somebody help me!" She's saying, "I'm not happy with this and I'm going to do something about it." Then she's going to deal with the consequences good and bad of those decisions. That's probably been the biggest swing that I've seen over the course of our films.

Mulan is another great example of that. Her story is she's making a decision because she loves her family. She loves her father so much, but she makes this decision to essentially defy him to protect him. So, those are very deep dilemmas, and very real for some people. We all, boys and girls, men and women, we all have to face those kind of decisions. So I think that kind of storytelling, it's just enriching the films that we're doing these days.

For young girls today, I hope that they look at them as the same way little girls and little boys looked at the characters from the past, as good, positive role models with decisions. There may be consequences good and bad, but that there's a strength there. There's a desire to follow your dreams and follow your heart. Again, you may have to suffer consequences good and bad depending on what those decisions are, but those are very applicable types of role models for kids today, and particularly young girls.

Goodwyn: What in Frozen do you think will appeal to Christians?

Henn: Oh, well, there are a lot of things. It's not always very obvious in the stories, but I think whether it's obvious or not, I think one of the aspects is the whole notion of the different types of love that are demonstrated, are portrayed in the film. You have a variety of types of love shown from Olaf, very naïve, childlike love and affection, to Anna's very reactionary, very seemingly true love, but it's a bit shallow when she meets Hans.

Christian families can use [Frozen] to talk to their kids ultimately [about] honest, sacrificial love. We all understand that. The love of Christ is sacrificing His life because He loved us so much. God so loved the world through Christ. That's sacrificial love. Those are elements that, while not so blatantly, "here's a Christian message", but they're there. For Christian families in particular, they can just peel back the layers a little bit and then be willing to, as parents, talk to their kids and just have conversations about that.

Those things are always prevalent in our films, more in some and less in others. But certainly love is a big part of that, and trust, and the risks involved with love, and within a family structure, and all those things can be talked about.

Pagan Temples and You

2014-01-24T07:27:00.000-07:00

We hear a lot about the Bible and its relevance to people today. This is understandable given the huge contrast inherent in the relation between the first and twenty-first centuries. Historical context is sometimes hard to relate to. However, sometimes we are presented with opportunities to see a Biblical historical context in a present-day context, in order to better understand Biblical concepts. In Arizona we have such and opportunity.

In 1 Corinthians 8 we read about something quite odd that we would never expect to see in twenty-first century America. All of chapter 8 is written "with regard to food sacrificed to idols" (v. 1). Unless you are an American (this applies to those in almost all Westernized countries) who has traveled to India you have likely never seen a food that has been sacrificed to... anything. In this chapter Paul goes on to give instructions about "eating food sacrificed to idols" (v. 4). Further, if you read the entire chapter you will see that Paul is also making a point about how our interaction with food sacrificed to idols could be a 'stumbling block; to the 'weak' and we might cause them to be 'destroyed'.

So, what is going on here? The best way to understand these kinds of imperatives that Paul gives to the local churches and to see if and how they apply to us today is to put ourselves into their shoes. Sometimes this is an easy task. However, when we are dealing with commands about antiquated--seemingly barbaric practices-- such as eating the meat of animals that have been ceremonially slaughtered to a God of... let's say harvest, while seated in a temple of that God, we will quickly find ourselves clueless as to how we could possibly relate to these first century believers. If only we had a pagan temple with food sacrificed to idols.

Where have all the pagans gone? Well, you may not have to look too far if you live in Arizona. While we may not have any pagans as the word is used in the Bible; and while we may not have any temples where we might eat food sacrificed to idols, on Sunday, March 2nd you will have the 'opportunity' (you will be able to decide after reading this if it really is an opportunity) to experience something very close. On that day the general public who are not members of the LDS organization will be allowed to enter something that looks very much like a 'pagan temple'. The LDS org. has built something that is visually impressive and in my opinion is an abomination (spiritually and architecturally!): the Gilbert Arizona LDS Temple.

You may be wondering how on earth this is relevant to 1 Corinthians 8. Well, I will now tell you.

Dedication
The Gilbert Arizona Temple will be dedicated in three sessions at 9:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 3:00 p.m. on Sunday, March 2, 2014. Sessions will be broadcast to all stakes and districts in Arizona, and Sunday block meetings will be cancelled for those units. Members ages 8 and older who have been issued a recommend may view the broadcast. Specific instructions for attendance will be made available through local priesthood leaders.

Angel Moroni Raising
On May 15, 2012, hundreds of spectators gathered to the Gilbert Arizona Temple to witness the raising of the gold-leafed angel Moroni statue atop the single central spire. Numerous students, who attend a grade school across the street from the temple, gathered in the school parking lot that day with their families. As Moroni began his flight, a large group of middle school students created a spiritually poignant moment as they broke into song, singing the Primary favorite I Love to See the Temple.

The Gila Valley LDS Temple quote:

"There is a difference in just attending the temple and having a rich spiritual experience. The real blessings of the temple come as we enhance our temple experience. To do so, we must feel a spirit of reverence for the temple and a spirit of worship."
—L. Lionel Kendrick

Acts 19:21-41 Zeal for the Temple of Artemis

About sixteen stories tall.
About 915,000 sq ft. property

About one hundred feet tall.
About 68,000 sq ft. building.

2014-01-13T14:01:00.001-07:00

2 23 ὃς ἐν νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι, διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως τοῦ νόμου τὸν θεὸν ἀτιμάζεις; 24 τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι’ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, καθὼς γέγραπται.
25 Περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἐὰν νόμον πράσσῃς· ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόμου ᾖς, ἡ περιτομή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν.26 ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ,οὐχ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται; 27 καὶ κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόμου. 28 οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν, οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή· 29 ἀλλ’ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι, οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.

9 3 ηὐχόμην γὰρ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα, 4 οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, 5 ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν.

6 Οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ. οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ· 7 οὐδ’ ὅτι εἰσὶν σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, πάντες τέκνα, ἀλλ’· Ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα. 8 τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, οὐ τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκὸς ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας λογίζεται εἰς σπέρμα· 9 ἐπαγγελίας γὰρ ὁ λόγος οὗτος· Κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός. 10 οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ῥεβέκκα ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην ἔχουσα, Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν· 11 μήπω γὰρ γεννηθέντων μηδὲ πραξάντων τι ἀγαθὸν ἢ φαῦλον, ἵνα ἡ κατ’ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ θεοῦ μένῃ, 12 οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος, ἐρρέθη αὐτῇ ὅτι Ὁ μείζων δουλεύσει τῷ ἐλάσσονι· 13 καθὼς γέγραπται· Τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα.

Things You Must Know About Your Bible

2013-12-22T09:11:00.000-07:00

Greek :
Certain preposition meanings.
Causal statements and words. Since, because, through, by.
Words you must learn.

Manuscripts:
When are variants important.

Bible Versions:
When to look at another translation.
Which versions are not for learning about God.
When should anyone ever read the KJV.

Hermeneutics:
Immediate Context may go beyond the artificial paragraph or chapter break.
Artificial punctuation.
Not all commands are commands.

Ten Tips: How to Make Christmas Other-Person Centered

2013-12-17T16:34:00.000-07:00

Christmas is by far the biggest of all American Christian celebrations. Throughout the year's holidays we spend the most time and effort on this holiday. If we are truly Christians and we are involved in the largest of all Christian holidays we should be most focused on portraying our Christian distinctives. We ought to be paying extra-special attention to how we think about God and how we treat one another. Here is a list, of no specific order, containing some guidelines for being other-person centered.
(Be sure to read the Bible passages.)

1. Write a Christmas list.
While you may not want much (or even anything) in the way of gifts this year, people will still be buying you gifts. Believers want to, by nature, love you. Make it easy for them to do so.
(Philip. 2:1-5; Philem. 1:7; Heb. 10:24-25)

2. Make Christmas Christ centered.
Yes, Jesus is the reason for the season; but Jesus is the reason for everything we do--every season of life. When we are told in the NT what we ought to do it is always (almost) in light of what He has done for us.
(Eph. 5:2, 25; Titus 3:4-8; 1 Jn. 3:16)

3. Un-isolate the family/ies
Though the general sentiment around the holidays is one of joining the families together, there seems to be a temptation to keep as much time alone (as a domestic family unit or an individual) as is conceivable. It is quite hard to love people, as I'm sure all would agree, when you are not near them. Try to keep yourselves from being isolated from your larger physical family and especially your spiritual family. If your plan is to love "one another" then isolation is a bad idea.
(Heb. 10:24-25)

4. Don't buy anything for yourself during this time.
It is hard for people to think of something you would actually like--especially if you are an adult making a decent living. I don't know how many times I've bought something (or was planning to) that I thought a person I love would really like where they ended up buying it for themselves. This is an easy way to stay focused on other people. Make the givers the ones who are more important than you.
(Acts 20:35; Philip. 2:3)

5. Unload your schedule to equip yourself.
Our desire ought to be that we would be used as an instrument in the Lord's hands. Another practical tip for the Christmas season is to be able to spend more physical and mental energy and resources on others you must regulate and balance your time and responsibilities. Free yourselves up to be used by Him to love others.
(2 Cor. 6:4; Rom. 6:13, 7:5, 12:1; 1 Pet. 4:2)

6. Christmas is not a birthday party.
My daughter, who is five, seems to equate Christmas with a celebration of Jesus' birthday. There is very good reason for her to hold this view: most Evangelicals act like they believe this. When we neglect to focus on why Jesus came but rather focus on that he came we will neglect to focus on our Christian duties.
(1 Jn. 3:5; 1 Tim 1:15)

7. The greatest gift you can receive is grace.
Spending too much attention on the material gifts will draw attention away from the superior gift; that we have received forgiveness of sins. If we have been forgiven much we should forgive and love much. Remembering the real reason Christ came and the gift we have received will help us to show grace to those around us this time of year.
(Luke 7:47; John 15:12-13, 17:23-26)

8. Christmas isn't just for family.
Let us remember to extend our time and money, as love, to not only our immediate family; not only to our extended family; not only to our friends; but to those who are strangers to us and enemies of us. Keep an eye out for opportunities to care for people that you would not normally care for.
(Matt. 5:44, 22:39; Luke 6:27, 6:35; Jam. 2:8; Rom. 13:10; Gal. 5:14)

9. Be a minimalist.
Take a practical approach. Keep it simple. Be flexible. Don't buy a lot of gifts. Let the important things stand out. Love one another.

10. Be content in all things.
(Philip. 4:11)

Thomas Watson's Art of Divine Contentment

2013-12-17T09:01:00.000-07:00

I will be modernizing Chapter 14 of

Rule 1. Advance faith. All our disquiets issue immediately from unbelief. It is this that raises the storm of discontent in the heart. O set faith to work! It is the jurisdiction of faith to silence our doubting, to scatter our fears, to still the heart when the passions are roused. Faith moves the heart to a sweet, serene composure; it is not having food and raiment, but having faith, which will make us content. Faith censures passion—when reason begins to sink, let faith swim. How does faith work contentment? 1. Faith shows the soul that whatever its trials are, still it is from the hand of a father. It is indeed a bitter cup, but “shall I not drink the cup which my father hath given me to drink?” It is in love toward my soul: God corrects me with the same love with which he crowns me. God is now training me up for heaven; he carves me, to make me a polished shaft. These sufferings bring forth patience, humility, even the peaceful fruits of righteousness. (Hebrews 12:11) And if God can bring such sweet fruit out of our stock, let him graft me in wherever he pleases. In this way, faith brings the heart to holy contentment. 2. Faith sucks the honey of contentment out of the hive of the promise. Christ is the vine, the promises are the clusters of grapes that grow upon this vine, and faith presses the sweet wine of contentment out of these spiritual clusters of the promises. I will show you merely one cluster, “the Lord will give grace and glory;” (Ps. 84. 11) this is enough for faith to live upon. The promise is the flower out of which faith distills the spirits and “pure essence” of divine contentment. In a word, faith carries the soul up and makes it strive after more generous and noble delights than the earth can afford and to live in the world above the world. Do you desire to live contented lives? Live up to the height of your faith.

Frozen: Disney in a Post-Christian World

2013-11-30T11:36:00.001-07:00

Remembrance

2013-11-20T16:15:00.004-07:00

I live and wander in the cracks of your hand; the sun sets on your fingers and rises on your wrist.
My faucet taps your veins; water springs from your capillaries.
Yet I cannot see your face. Familiarity has bred contentation; but not with you.

Greatly do you stoop and pour down your countenance;
Deeply do you plunge and condescend to me.
At once and suddenly I see the plains as your palm and foothills as you fingers.
I thank you for the recollection of the mosaic of truth.

Do We Really Need More Atheism?

2013-10-20T17:08:00.001-07:00

Pic of Rembrandt one of the greatest Paointers.
Pic of Michelangelo one of the greatest Sculptors.
Link to Bach one of the greatest musicians.
Link to wiki of Newton one of the greatest scientists.

Pic of the Kamer Rouge one of the greatest atrocites.
Pic of the Holocaust one of the greatest atrocities.
Pic of Stalinic russia one of the greatest atrocities.
Pic of

The worldviews of these people caused them to do what they did--not their religion; but can you really seperate the two?

Three Major Problems with Dispensational Hermeneutics

2013-10-20T16:55:00.002-07:00

They wrongly use the idea that the correct interpretation is the interpretation of the original audience.

Don't believe in the Analogy of Faith.

Inconsistently hyper-literal.

The Original Manuscripts of the New Testament

2013-10-12T07:11:00.002-07:00

We do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testament. What we have today are copies of the copies of the copies of the autographs. Why?

Συντετέλεσται δῆτα καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἅπαντα, ὁπηνίκα τῶν μὲν προσευκτηρίων τοὺς οἴκους ἐξ ὕψους εἰς ἔδαφος αὐτοῖς θεμελίοις καταρριπτουμένους, τὰς δ᾿ ἐνθέους καὶ ἱερὰς γραφὰς κατὰ μέσας ἀγορὰς πυρὶ παραδιδομένας αὐτοῖς ἐπείδομεν ὀφθαλμοῖς τούς τε τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ποιμένας αἰσχρῶς ὧδε κἀκεῖσε κρυπταζομένους, τοὺς δὲ ἀσχημόνως ἁλισκομένους καὶ πρὸς τῶν ἐχθρῶν καταπαιζομένους,

All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book 8, Chapter 2)

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

In other instances stiffer resistance is offered when believers were asked to give up their Christian books. In the account of the martyrdom of Agape, Irene, and Chione, at successive hearings the three women were interrogated by the prefect Dulcitius of Thessalonica, who inquired, ‘Do you have in your possession any writings, parchments, or books (ὑπομνήματα ἢ διφθέραι ἢ βιβλία) of the impious Christians?’ Chione replied, ‘We do not, Sir. Our present emperors have taken these from us’. On the next day Irene was once again brought before the court, the prefect asked, ‘Who was it that advised you to retain these parchments and writings (τὰς διφθέρας ταύτας καὶ τὰς γραφάς) up to the present time?’ ‘It was almighty God’, Irene replied, ‘who bade us love him unto death. For this reason we did not dare to be traitors, but we chose to be burned alive or suffer anything else that might happen to us rather than betray them’ (προδοῦναι αὐτάς, i.e. the writings).

After sentencing the young woman to be placed naked in the public brothel, the prefect gave orders that the writings (τὰ γραμματεῖα) in the cabinets and chests belonging to her were to be burned publicly. The account concludes by describing how, in March and April of the year 304, the three became martyrs for their faith by being burned at the stake. (The Canon of the New Testament, Bruce M. Metzger, page 108)

Jesus Sinks or Jesus Floats: Two views of Jesus' baptism

2013-10-11T12:21:00.000-07:00

Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν· Mark 1:9-19

A Baptist translation: “And it happened in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was submerged into the Jordan by John. And immediately, while coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens being ripped open and the spirit as a dove coming down to him.”

A literal Baptist translation: “And it became in those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was submerged into the Jordan by John. And immediately while ascending out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the spirit as a dove descending into him.”

A Presbyterian translation: “And it happened in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and received the “rite of baptism” in the Jordan by John. And immediately, while coming back out of the water, he saw the heavens being ripped open and the spirit as a dove coming down on him.”

A literal Presbyterian translation: “And it became in those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was ceremonially cleansed in the Jordan by John. And immediately while ascending out from the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the spirit as a dove descending into him.”

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

βαπτισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἠνεῴχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδεν πνεῦμα θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν ἐρχόμενον ἐπ’ αὐτόν· Matthew 3:16

A Baptist translation: “And having been submerged, immediately Jesus ascended from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove going upon him.”

A literal Baptist translation: “And having been submerged, immediately Jesus ascended from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the spirit of god descending like a dove coming upon him.”

A Presbyterian translation: “And having received the “rite of baptism”, immediately Jesus returned from the water and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove going upon him.”

A literal Presbyterian translation: “And having been ceremonially cleansed, immediately Jesus ascended from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the spirit of god descending like a dove coming upon him.”

Finding the Middle: Part 4 What's wrong with Household Theology?

2013-10-08T12:15:00.001-07:00

Abraham's Four Seeds
by John G. Reisinger
(New Covenant Theology)

Appendix Number Four
An Exposition of Acts 2:39 and Infant Baptism.

     "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Acts 2:39

     Consider a few very obvious objections to using Acts 2:39 as a "proof text" for infant baptism:

1. Peter is speaking to unbelievers and not to Christian parents. He is telling convicted sinners how to be saved, not giving believing parents the assurance that their children are "in the covenant." The "you" in the phrase "the promise is unto you" are unbelievers asking what they must do to be saved. In the very next verse (40), Peter exhorts these unsaved people to "save yourselves from this untoward generation." How can an exhortation to lost sinners to trust Christ be turned into a promise to Christian parents that their children are in a special covenantal relationship with God?

2. The "promise" in Joel that Peter is quoting is "whosoever shall call on the Lord shall be saved" and it can in no way be connected to infant baptism. (Cf. Romans 10:13 where Paul also quotes Joel 2:32 and shows that "the promise" spoken of in Joel, and quoted by Peter, is the promise of the gospel to all unbelievers whether they are Gentiles or Jews.) Here is a classic illustration of what I said earlier concerning Biblical terminology versus phrases like "covenant of grace." Peter declaring the promise of the gospel of grace to unbelievers cannot be turned into "God making a covenant of grace with Christian parents," and yet this is exactly what covenant theologians do with this text.

3. The children of believers have no more unique promise in this text than do those who "are afar off" (the heathen). Peter understood the gospel promise of whosoever in Joel to include three distinct groups. The promise that "whosoever shall call on the Lord shall be saved" is given to the following persons:

     A. To "you," unconverted and convicted sinners; and the same promise is to

     B. "Your children," if they will repent and believe; and likewise the same promise is to

     C. "All who are afar off" in heathen Gentile lands, if they will also repent and believe the same gospel.

     Let us look again at the comparison of Joel's prophecy and Peter's interpretation:

     Joel 2:32 Acts 2:39

     that WHOSOEVER shall call upon the Lord YOU, and to your CHILDREN, and to ALL that are AFAR OFF,

     shall be delivered... [...shall receive Spirit...vs 38][...shall be saved...vs 40]

     and in the REMNANT whom the lord shall call. even AS MANY as the Lord our God shall CALL.

     And it shall come to pass, The promise is unto

     Notice how clearly Peter interprets the words whosoever and as many. What Peter is declaring is this: Just as all men without exception ("covenant" children included) are guilty lost sinners who need to be saved, so all men without exception ("covenant" children included and no "non-covenant" children excluded) are freely invited in the one gospel of grace to believe and be saved. Peter is showing that the gospel message is now to all men without exception and not just for the Jews. There is now only one category of lost people before God. No one is physically either inside or outside of a special covenantal category by birth. There is only one gospel message, and that one message is for all men without distinction or exception. You do not have unregenerate "pagan" children and unregenerate "covenant" children with different promises for each group. There is one gospel for all lost sinners.

4. The last phrase "even as many as the Lord our God shall call" must be applied to all three categories mentioned in the text. Peter is saying, "as many as God shall call from among you, shall call from among your children, and shall call from among the heathen afar off." It is the sovereign effectual call of God in all three categories that determines the true objects of the promise. The one and only thing that determines whether a person is either "in" or "under" grace is the eternal election of God, and the only thing that proves it in time is the effectual call of the Holy Spirit. Being "under a covenant of grace" has nothing at all to do with physical birth. We must not destroy the universal offer of the gospel of God's free grace by turning it into a supposed "covenant of grace" given exclusively to Christian parents and "their seed." We also must not overthrow the doctrine of sovereign election by making the physical children of believers to be in a special spiritual category before God through physical birth and baptism.

    A birth certificate proving you were born in the right home does not make you a covenant child. I repeat, this text of Scripture promises just as much to a "pagan" child who is "afar off" as it does to a so called "covenant child" born in a Christian home. The "promise" in Acts 2:39 is given equally to the pagans, to the hearers, and to their children.

5. The people addressed in Acts 2:39 are still unbelievers in vs. 40, and they themselves get converted and baptized in vs. 41. It is exegetically impossible to make Acts 2:39 refer to Christian parents. Such a gross misuse of a text of Scripture is only possible by totally misunderstanding the "promise made to Abraham and his seed."

     It is not accidental that hyper-Calvinism and a strong "covenant seed" concept go hand in hand. It is impossible to think and speak in terms of "covenant children" and "non-covenant children" and not wind up with two different "gospels," one for the "covenant child" that includes "God loves you" for sure, and one for the "pagan child" that cannot include "God loves you" until we are first sure that they are one of the elect.

     I think it can be proven historically that one of the major problems created by using Acts 2:39 as a proof text for infant baptism is that it confuses the message of the gospel of grace to all men. The "Seed" in Acts 2 is neither natural Jews nor children of believing parents. The Seed in this whole chapter is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He is the true Seed to whom the promises were made, and the message of this chapter, and especially verse 39, is that the promise to the seed has been fulfilled — the Messiah Redeemer has come — believe in Him and be saved whoever you are.

     The gospel of grace is to be preached to "whosoever believeth," not just one nationality or group and their physical children. There is no such thing as a "covenant community" inclusive of all "physical" children now that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled. No one group any longer has any special claim or privilege because of birth. There is only ONE status before God — GUILTY, regardless of who your parents are, and there is only ONE gospel message to every guilty sinner — REPENT and BELIEVE. This is the one message we must preach to the children of believers as well as the children of unbelievers.

     This is what Peter is declaring in Acts 2:39! Do not destroy the universal offer of the gospel by twisting these words into a "promise to Christian parents."

TRUTH in CHRIST

Love Only for Some--The Hypocrisy of The Naked Pastor

How Are Women Saved By Childbearing? (1 Tim 2:15)

1 Timothy 2 English Standard Version (ESV)

The Resurrection--Are You Fool?

Are You Doubting Enough?

What Is The Perfect Law of Liberty? (James 1:25)

The Beginning and End: Light from Genesis, John, 1 John and Revelation for Kids

Review of a Heavily Misapplied Hermeneutic

Once Saved Always Saved, Eternal Security, Perseverance of the Saints, and the Devil

A Sprout Saved

Heaven Is A Future Reality For All Believers For Real

John 1:1c--A Contextual Argument

Living by Grace Apart From the Law… Practically

Frozen: Disney in a Post-Christian World

Pagan Temples and You

Things You Must Know About Your Bible

Ten Tips: How to Make Christmas Other-Person Centered

Thomas Watson's Art of Divine Contentment

Art of Divine Contentment: An Exposition of Philippians 4:11

Frozen: Disney in a Post-Christian World

Remembrance

Do We Really Need More Atheism?

Three Major Problems with Dispensational Hermeneutics

The Original Manuscripts of the New Testament

Jesus Sinks or Jesus Floats: Two views of Jesus' baptism

Finding the Middle: Part 4 What's wrong with Household Theology?