CJaK's fOrEsT

We have moved...Again!!

2008-07-03T00:56:00.004+10:00

Announcing the commencement of TheocraticFaith.com. This will be the new hub dedicated to the discussion of Theocratic Faith (formerly Theocratic Christianity). At present, there is a blog/podcast site, along with a discussion forum, with public and private areas.

My desire for this site is that it be a refuge for those who are finding that their experience of Christianity is below Biblical standard, but are not satisfied with it being so. This will be a place to discuss with likeminded people, as well as read articles and listen to audio from people who get what you are going through.

It's okay to be frustrated, as long as you allow that frustration to lead you into truth, and ultimately, into God's rest. Make sure, when you stop in, that you check out the Watch This Space… and Watch This Space (Addendum) articles, as they serve a good introduction to what is all about.

See you there. =)

We are moving...

2008-04-27T02:00:00.008+10:00

CJaK's fOrEsT and CJaK's PoDcAsT are moving to a new home called Theocratic Christianity. It may take a little while to get everything configured properly, but I'm sure it will be worth it.

The new site will host both the Blog and Podcast elements in one place.

See you there. =)

Theocracy - Part 4 “Finding the Good Thing”

2008-04-12T21:25:00.002+10:00

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.
Prov 18:22

Previously we have seen the issue of obedience being raised, as man was assigned with tasks to do, and things to avoid. We also saw God’s generosity, ultimately expressed in His requirement to avoid the false “Light Source”, as inferior to Himself.

Now we’ll see God further demonstrate His ability to render earthy wisdom as foolishness, as He meets the problem of man’s solitude.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:18-20

“..It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

God points out that solitude was not good for the man. Based on this fact, He decides to make a suitable counterpart for him.

“..out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..”

The quest begins with God forming creatures from the same ground He used to form man. Compositionally similar, they were brought before man for his consideration. One could almost picture God enquiring about each one's suitability as Adam named them.

“..but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

What a tragic figure. God had expressed man's need for suitable companionship, and yet there was no one for him. Again God seems cruel, in that He has created a need within man that cannot be met. As we will see, God is leading man closer to walking by faith and not sight. The choice was there for man, in his solitude, to trust the God's plan, without being told what was to come, or eat of the "tree" to acquire the knowledge of good and evil.

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:21-23

“..God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam..”

And so man is brought into a deep sleep. Images of a general anaesthetic before surgery and children going to bed before waking to their birthday presents come to mind. Both would be equally valid, when we consider what is coming next.

“..the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

God had proven Himself faithful. He had identified a need in man, promised to meet that need, and then carried out His perfect way to meet it. God had already shown man the inadequacy of all the beasts of the field and the birds of the air to meet his need for companionship. The answer was within man all along.

The only suitable counterpart for man had to be formed from him. It was as if God had broken the mould when he formed man, and nothing else would do. Somehow man recognised the perfect suitability of his counterpart...

“..Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh..”

One could say that this was a perfect match. The woman was one who could be his peer. She was of the same substance as him, not only biologically, but she was also a living soul.

Next post : Theocracy - Part 5 "The Birth of Sin"

Theocracy - Part 3 “The Perfect Gift From Above”

2008-04-02T21:42:00.005+11:00

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
James 1:17

We've seen the introduction of man, as a being formed of that which was created, and containing something of the presence of God's Spirit with him. We've also been introduced to two trees, each serving as an alternative to the provision of God, as “Life-giver” and “Light-giver”.

Now we are shown man's duties, and obligations as we begin to ponder God's logic in His placement of the Trees in the middle of the garden.

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 2:15-17

“..God..put (man) into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it...”

Man's placement in the garden wasn't purely for the man's material benefit, but the garden gave man the opportunity to be obedient. Man was given the task of tending the garden. The task was twofold; he was to “dress” the garden and to “keep” it. Dressing carries with it the sense of bringing something under subjection. The garden wasn't to just do its own thing, but as man laboured over the trees, there was intention that they would yield food for the man to eat. Keeping, on the other hand, has implications of guarding and protecting. Man was to maintain the health of the garden, so that it could continue to thrive.

“..Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat..”

God's generosity is revealed in the multitude of trees that He allowed man to eat from.

“..the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat..”

Again, the issue of obedience is raised, only now it is a matter of a restriction. Earlier there was something that God would have man do, but now there was something to avoid. Of all the trees in the garden, there was one that was not to be eaten of. Of the two trees which were given prominence, one was to be specifically avoided, while no direction is given regarding the other.

Consider again the difference between the two trees. One offered “life” while the other offered “light”. As I mentioned earlier, it is of interest that, while the “light source” was not to be partaken of, no such direction was given regarding the “life source”.

It would seem that, although God had put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden Himself, He would have no other source of light but Himself. At first it appears to defy logic. Surely man could do his task of dressing and keeping the garden far better if he had access to the knowledge of the “good”, so he could utilise it, and the “evil” so he could avoid it. Isn't it cruel of God to withhold such information, leaving man to feel around to work it out on his own?

The thing is, God never intended for man to be “on his own”. The logic of man being left on his own to figure out life and fend for himself, should remind us of the testimony of the slothful servant in the parable of the talents, “Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.” (Mat 25:24-25) The servant displayed a distrust of his master, fearing punishment if he did something wrong with the wealth entrusted to him. This resulted in him living off of another's sustenance so that he could return his master's wealth, as received. How can I make such an assumption? The word which is translated as “servant” would be better translated “slave”, and slaves have no possessions of their own.

Just as God was able to breathe into man's nostrils the breath of life, causing to become a living soul, He is able to “breathe” light into his consciousness, causing him to become a “righteous soul”. Could it be that the reason that God never gave direction regarding the tree of life was that He had already given man His “life”, and so life from “the tree” would only fortify the life already given, where eating of the “other tree” would introduce a earthly logic, producing a carnal morality?

“..in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

With great sobriety we should read this. The fatality of choosing a “tree” to acquire the knowledge of good and evil rather than trusting God to provide the wisdom needed to obey, as required. The life freely given to man when He breathed into his nostrils would be revoked in the event of man's partaking of the forbidden tree. And yet the tree remained as an enduring reminder of the existence of a carnal light source, residing alongside the tree of life.

Next post : Theocracy - Part 4 “Finding the Good Thing”

Theocracy - Part 2 "Life, Death Good and Evil"

2008-03-24T22:49:00.004+11:00

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
Deut 30:15

In the last post we looked at the beginning of creation, and the introduction of light. We considered the possibility of the existence of a false and true light to be chosen between and the ramifications of this fact when considering the Scriptural exhortation to "look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen" (2 Cor 4:18). Now we move on to the introduction of man into God's creation.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:7-9

"..God formed man of the dust of the ground.."

Here marks an interesting twist to the creation account. Previously we had seen things coming into being, from nothing, at the word of God's mouth. Now we see God actually "forming" something from the matter that exists within His creation. God had taken the dust, which He had created, and used it to form man.

It is interesting to note that dust is an opaque substance, which by nature would restrict light, and yet we see an interesting turn around to come...

"..breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. and man became a living soul."

The event that caused the formed dust to become a living soul was that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life". In our English language we miss out on the depth of meaning attached to the word "breath". In both the Hebrew and Greek language one word is used to mean "breath", "wind" and "spirit". In fact Hebrew doesn't stop at just one word to express "breath", but each one crosses over the same English translations.

It could be said that when God breathed into man's nostrils, He invested part of Himself, as the "Spirit of God" that "moved upon the face of the waters", into man. In other words, the "neshamah" that God breathed in man's nostrils, transforming him into a "living soul", was the same "Ruach Ha Elohim" that was denied access to the material creation, subjecting Himself to hovering over the waters, with its face covered in darkness. The "Light source", which was without, had now come within, not only creation, but that which was formed out of creation, man.

Perhaps this is what John meant when he wrote of Jesus, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" and later, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1:4-9). After all, the "Ruach Ha Elohim" (Spirit of God) is also the "Ruach Ha Kodesh" (Holy Spirit), who is the "Ruach Ha Meshiach" (Spirit of Christ).

Suddenly a line is drawn in the sand. The stage is set, where we have the "true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world", who has invested Himself within the being which was formed by God out of the dust, and another "light", brought into the world at God's command. The players were in place, and now here is the scene...

"..the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

Eden didn't just appear at God's command. It is said that He "planted" it. Thoughts come to mind of the deliberateness of God's design. He created an environment for man where his every need could be met. It was a pocket within God's creation where there was food to eat and shelter from the elements. It was an organic habitation void of human intervention, because it was planted by God.

"..out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food.."

God's deliberate design continues to shine through as we see that out of the ground of the garden, which God had planted, He caused food bearing trees, which He made to be pleasant to the sight. Within the environment that God had created for man's habitation, He had placed everything they needed for their survival. Not only that, but He had the good sense to cause these trees to be "pleasing to the eye" so that regardless of the "light source" man would "see" by, their source of physical sustenance would be appealing to them. Such is God's mercy.

"..the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

Here we see two trees which are in the middle of the garden, thereby giving them a place of prominence. One of the trees is described as a source of life, while the other as a means of knowing what good and evil is.

Again we can see an allusion to John's description of Jesus, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). However we are discussing two trees here, and not a man. These two trees can be seen as alternative source of "life" and "light" (knowledge of good and evil) to Jesus, as God come in the flesh.

And so now the drama begins...

Next post : Theocracy - Part 3 "The Perfect Gift From Above"

Theocracy - Part 1 "The true light..."

2008-03-19T22:50:00.007+11:00

by Aaron Ireland

8 He was not that Light , but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light , which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
John 1:8-9

So far in this series we have both defined and applied Theocracy. Now, from the perspective of having a working knowledge of Theocracy, we will look at God's establishment of his rule at the beginning of His creation.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:1-4 (KJV)

"In the beginning.."

Beginnings mark a transition. Something that previously wasn't, now "is". In order to grasp something of this transition, we must look at what was already there and what event marked the actual beginning.

"..God created.."

God existed prior to the beginning, and continued to exist after that beginning had begun. What was He doing before the beginning? The passage doesn't say, and therefore it can be assumed that it isn't important for us to know. Elsewhere in Scripture we are given some cryptic statements, regarding "before the foundation of the world", but they mainly deal with God's intention for the future (Eph 1:4;1 Pet 1:18-20;Rev 13:8).

What we can see though, is that the event which marked the beginning was an act of "creation". God created something, and that "something" wasn't Him. His act of creation made there be something which was distinct from Himself. And so there we have it; God and creation.

"..the heaven and the earth."

This creation was divided into two components; the heaven and the earth. Here we see an increasing diversity. Firstly we have the Infinite and the finite, God and creation, and now finite is broken into ethereal and physical, heaven and earth. We have the place of God's abode, and the place that would soon be ours. An eternal place, and a temporal. Heaven is not further described here, while the earth is further defined...

"And the earth was without form, and void.."

The Hebrew word that is translated "was" here implies that it "became" as opposed to "always was" void and without form. The word implies the earth had a "form", which it lost. Whatever it was before, it was now desolate, a ruin which had become indistinguishable from what it had been. Perhaps this came about as a result of creation itself. That which was perfect Order, in the person of God, had now produced something which has an introduced disorder.

When one considers earth contrasting heaven, one can be reminded of Christ's words contained in the Lord's prayer, "...Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." (Matt 6:10) Christ highlights a need for "a will" to be replaced with His will, which is already existant and being done in heaven, and calls his disciples to plead with their "Father, which art in" that "heaven" to cause that "will" to be done, as a result of His kingdom being established in earth's realm in like manner to His reign being in heaven.

"..darkness was upon the face of the deep.."

Now we are introduced to darkness. The state of equilibrium in God's creation is darkness, except where light is added to it. We know that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 Jn 1:5). So where did this darkness come from? Considering that darkness cannot be introduced, how can it be possible. It would only be possible, in the sense that light can be removed or obstructed. So which was it?

"..And the Spirit of God moved upon the face.."

Although the earth was dark on the face of its deeps, God dwelt over the face of the earth in the person of the Holy Spirit. Therefore Divine light was present over the darkness which was upon the face of earth's void formless deeps. If light was simultaneously present alongside darkness, then something must have been obstructing that Light. It would appear that a form of opacity was introduced shortly after creation began which rendered God's Light as incomprehensible (Jn 1:5).

Although what was obstructing God's light is not directly mentioned, perhaps an allusion can be drawn from the veil of the Most Holy Place, in God's temple. The major difference being that here we have God's light being kept outside of the world, while there we have the world being kept outside of God's light. Perhaps the Most Holy Place can be seen to be a "pinhole" in the veil between the Spirit of God, and the darkness that was on the face of the deeps.

"..God said, Let there be light.."

And so light is introduced to darkness. It is interesting to note that at God's command "there was light", and yet the physical light source wasn't introduced until later (Gen 1:16-18). The question that must be asked is, "How can light be introduced without a light source?"

It is of interest to note the introduction to the Gospel of John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:1-5

Here we see that "life" is in Jesus (the Word), and that life is described as the "light of men". We also see in Revelation 22:16 Jesus describing himself as "the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star". The "morning star" marks the end of night and the dawning of the new day. Before Jesus came into the world there was another who was referred to as the morning star.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer (Heb: 'the morning star'), son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isaiah 14:14

This verse has been the basis of some contention. Without going into it too much, the passage surrounding this verse describes someone who bears remarkable similarity to one of the kings of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. His life, in turn, bears a similarity to that of the "god of this world", Satan. In light of this could it be that Satan was the "light bearer" who responded to God's command, "Let there be light"?

In essence, the question I pose is this, "Is it a coincidence that 'Lucifer' also means 'light bearer'?" (Note: I'm not suggesting that Lucifer is the light, or that Satan is good, merely that he has been utilised as the means of delivering light.)

"..God divided the light from the darkness."

By the apearance of "light" in the world, God divided what was utter darkness, into a separate light, and darkness. There appears to be two light sources: The Holy Spirit, who illuminates a "spiritual light", which has the potential to enable us to "walk by faith" and not sight; and physical light itself, as a principle which, as yet, has no physical source. We must note that physical light isn't evil, in itself, God called it "good" ("..And God saw the light, that it was good..").

The implication here is that Lucifer was originally intended to serve a purpose in the Kingdom of God, by presenting us with a choice, where we should choose to "walk by faith, and not by sight". Potentially, this "Luciferian light" can serve as a distraction from seeking "Divine light", which is "unseen" (2 Cor 4:18).

Next post : Part 2 - "Life, Death, Good and Evil"

Letter regarding the Theocracy Pod/Blog Simulcast

2008-02-21T21:14:00.004+11:00

Hi,

It has certainly been a while since I have made a post, so I thought I'd give a quick update, regarding the Pod/Blog Simulcast on Theocracy. Unfortunately, due to time restraints, I have been unable to do any recording.

In the coming weeks, I will begin posting the text content of the series, in hope that an opportunity will arise at a later date to produce the audio.

Thank you for you patience.

In His grip,

Aaron

Applied Theocracy

2007-11-05T22:34:00.000+11:00

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Matthew 6:24

I'll begin with a quick recap of the last post, by defining my working definition of Theocracy. Theocracy literally means the "rule of God". My use of the word describes the principle of an individual allowing God the right to rule one's life, in the present. For a further explanation of what I do and do not mean by Theocracy, refer to the last post.

Any discussion on Theocracy would be futile without considering the practical outworking of God's Sovereignty. If our understanding of God's rule doesn't bring us to the place of obedience, then our pondering reduces itself to mere trivia or entertainment. Woe unto us if we allow this to happen to such an important theme.

Before we begin, there is something we must consider.

God Cares For Us

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
1 Peter 5:6-7

He cares for us!!! It is absolutely vital that we see this, and that in the light of this fact, He not only can be trusted to have our cares cast upon Him, but He even invites us to do so. This is the major component of the basis of obedience, and a great source of humbling, that the Almighty God cares for us.

Consider the one whose hand penned these words. Peter was the one who, when Christ spoke of his imminent death at the hands of sinful men, rose up as a loyal subject, promising to defend his King (Matt 16:21-23). Even though it is normal for a king to cast his cares upon his subjects, and to put his needs and desires before theirs, Christ had shown Peter that God, not only cares for His subjects, but He actually desires to attend to their cares (see John 13:3-17).

Now, knowing this about God, let's move on to His rule.

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
Rom 11:36

The Westminster Shorter Catechism cites the above verse, while answering its first question with, "The chief end of all being is the glory of God, and to enjoy Him forever." This verse clearly states that "all things" have their origin, continuance and destination in God.

There is no room given for another source of anything. These facts are confirmed in statements such as "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.." (Heb 12:2) and "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev 1:8). It is the present tense statement that we are facing in this post. The question we are raising is, "How do we live in the light of the knowledge of 'all things' being 'through Him'?"

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Heb 11:6

There are two things which we must digest before we come to God. Firstly, "He is". He is a present reality, existing now and is active at this moment, just as He was and will be. The exhortation is given, "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." (Heb 3:12-13)

The ever present "is" of God testifies to His "living". Not only did He die for us "while we were yet sinners", but He "raised again for our justification". Which leads to the second fact about God that we must believe, in order to come to Him, "He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him". It is a promise made by the one "that cannot lie" (Tit 1:2;Heb 6:18), therefore we can be assured that He will do just as He has promised.

It is on these two facts, that "of him, and through him, and to him, are all things", and that God "is, and he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him", that can anchor our understanding of the means by which He governs our lives. This is the foundation of His Personhood, and the manner by which He expresses His love toward us, as it underpins even His death, burial and resurrection.

Having said all this, it is important not to ignore our role in this: "without faith it is impossible to please him..". In order to receive the benefit of that which He has "freely given", we must surrender our complete trust to His reliability and integrity. Otherwise our life will be spent in the terror of doubt, fearing that He will let us down, and falling short of the abundant life that Christ promised to give us.

And now a short aside in order to make a vital connection between the theory and the experience of God's rule over our life.

'Is' Not 'Has'

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
1 Cor 1:27-31

It should be of interest to note that the text states that Christ "is" wisdom, righteous, sanctification, and redemption. It doesn't say that he "has" these things, but that he "is" these things. While this may not seem like much at this point, it will soon become apparent why this is so important...

This will end our introduction, let's now look at the means by which God rules an individual's life.

Ordered Steps

23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.
Psalm 37:23-24

Matthew Henry's comments bring some interesting insight into these statements:

"By his grace and Holy Spirit, he directs the thoughts, affections, and designs of good men. By his providence he overrules events, so as to make their way plain. He does not always show them his way for a distance, but leads them step by step, as children are led. God will keep them from being ruined by their falls, either into sin or into trouble, though such as fall into sin will be sorely hurt."

The question that needs to be asked is "What is a 'good man'?" Jesus responded to the Rich Young Ruler, who called him "good teacher", by saying, "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God" (Luke 18:18-19). In light of Paul's statement that Christ is made unto us "righteousness", amongst other things, it must be understood that anyone that Scripture would dare call a "good man" must have been "made good" by God.

Therefore we can plainly see that David's words assure those that have been made good, or righteous, by God, that He orders their steps. Asaph bore witness to David's words:

23 Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand.
24 Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.
26 My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.
Psalm 73:23-26

In the light of his opening words, "Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart" (Ps 73:1), and we can see that the "clean heart" is the one that is upheld by God, rather than being "cleansed" by one's own self-exertion (Ps 73:13). Again Paul reveals the means:

For Christ is the end (ie. logical conclusion) of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Rom 10:4

...and how do we claim this free gift? Sometimes it’s easy to forget how easy it is meant to be:

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 John 1:8-10

"We" confess (ie, openly acknowledge) our sin and "God" does the cleansing. Bible teacher, Chuck Missler refers to 1 John 1:9 as the "Christians bar of soap". Diligently seeking Him, in this area, would be to lean our full weight on this promise, and the reward is righteousness. This means coming to God with an attitude that says, "If God didn't want to do this, then He shouldn't have made the promise." That is the faith that pleases Him, and the only prescribed means of being made righteous. "Gaining righteousness" is synonymous with "losing unrighteousness", just as one is "made clean" by being "cleansed of dirt".

We may fret about whether or not we are in His plan, but this verse clearly states that He keeps those who are His own in His will. Whether or not I am in His will should not be my primary concern, but whether or not I am a "good man". The issue is whether or not we have been made righteous in Him, because if we have then our steps will be ordered of Him.

It could be said that for a Christian to know where God would have them be, he need only look to his feet. There is a sense in which the whole of a disciple's life is ordered of God, from start to finish, even their life prior to being born again. Upon pondering my personal history, and my life of sin prior to yielding to Christ, I often wonder if it would have been possible for the Lord to bring me to the end of myself, had I not been a drug addict. In this way even the sinful history of the Christian is redeemed in Christ.

Now onto His actual means of leading His own...

Heeded Voice

26 ..ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:26-27

This statement was made to some Jews who demanded that Jesus told them plainly whether he was the Christ or not. In the third chapter of John's Gospel, Nichodemus began a discussion with Jesus stating that the Sanhedrin's standard of validating Christ as a "teachers sent from God" were his miracles (John 3:2). Here Jesus cited the same standard, by saying "I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me" (John 10:25) in response to the Pharisees' question, "If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly" (John 10:24).

So what has this to do with Theocracy? To the Jew, Meshiach (ie, Christ) was to be the coming king, the inheritor of the throne of David. If Christ simply said, "It is as you say" at that point, they probably would have begun to conspire to overthrow Herod, Pilate and the Romans and install Jesus as their king. The thing is, Christ was not only establishing his right to rule but was describing the means and manner of his rule.

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
John 10:11

In this statement, Christ established his Davidic inheritance and his intrinsic right to rule, based on his surrendering of his own life as a good shepherd would for his sheep. One's mind could recall David's account to Saul of his slaying the lion and the bear, as he offered to risk his life in battle against Goliath, just as he had risked his life for his sheep (1 Sam 17:34-37). This is the nature of a "good shepherd" and the only difference was that Christ not only risked his life, but he actually laid it down.

4 And when he (the good shepherd) putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
John 10:4-5

These words address a common issue in the Body of Christ. Just as we saw earlier, with the issue of being in the will of God, people tend to fret over hearing God's voice. We have Charismatics coming experiencing shame from failing to have an "experience" and Evangelicals allowing a "Book" to come in between them and God. Please understand that I am neither implying that God has ceased to speak, nor that Scripture is anything but authoritative and true. What I am saying is by and large, many have replaced the "Person" of God, with a concept of Him. As a result, obedience has been reduced to submitting to a means of "knowing what God would will", over being led by God, Himself.

There is a view that says that we need to learn to distinguish between the voice of God, Satan and self, and yet these words of Christ seem to imply that there is no need to fear. After all Jesus quantified his words, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" with, "And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers."

Following Him is the natural by product of being one of His sheep. Perhaps for those of us in western urban societies tending sheep is a foreign thing, so allow me to slightly alter the illustration:

Imagine a man taking his dog to a park. He lets the dog off the chain, and it plays in amongst all the people. There are children laughing, yelling and screaming, parents talking, and various other noises, including other dogs being called, but this dog is unmoved. But when it comes time to come home, the dog’s ears prick up because it has heard the voice of its master calling its name. However if another voice, that the dog doesn't know, called then the dog would either ignore it, or recognise it as suspicious.

Just as earlier when we saw that "the steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD", and found out that our primary concern should be whether or not we are good, so here we must ask ourselves, "Why aren't we His sheep?" Hearing Christ's voice is the least of your problems. If you are not His sheep, then you must to repent, and trust in the Saviour.

The Shepherd and the Stranger

Even though we need not fear the voice of the "stranger" if we belong to Christ, it is important note the mention of this competitor for our obedience. This is the real issue of obedience is that of the existence of two kingdoms, and the need to choose one, and reject another (Mat 6:24).

So there we have it. Two kingdoms and one choice. We start off as slaves to sin, and then we become new creations, and take on a new nature. Our "stony heart" is removed and replaced with a "heart of flesh" (Eze 11:14). Having been made righteous, God promises to order our steps. Having been redeemed by the "good shepherd", we will hear His voice and follow Him, ignoring the voice of the "stranger".

In other words, we are transformed from one thing into another. Herein is the perfection of God's ordering revealed. Rather than demanding reluctant obedience from His subjects, God invests the desire to obey into the core of our being (Ps 37:4), so that obedience is spontaneous (Mat 12:33-35).

Trusting in the Lord

So our obedience is firmly anchored on His faithfulness. This does not allow room for complacency, however. As we saw earlier, God cleanses us of unrighteousness in response to our acknowledgement of our sin. We can see more in the words of the Psalmist:

5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Psalm 3:5-7

In order to "lean not on our own understanding" so that we can "trust in the Lord", we need to have access to another opinion than our own, and to consult another with our decision-making. This is where prayer and Bible study come in. It is not a matter of these disciplines "saving us", but they serve as an expression of our trusting Him, as we believe that He "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Conclusion

The essence of obedience is based on us doing our part, trusting that He has done, and will continue do His part. And this is the foundation of Theocracy. May you hear His voice and follow Him, as He orders your steps and directs your paths.

Edit - This post is part of a PodBlog simulcast - http://cjakforest.podOmatic.com/entry/eg/2007-11-05T05_36_02-08_00

Theocracy

2007-08-19T20:24:00.000+10:00

Theocracy means literally ‘the rule of God’ and the term was invented by Josephus (ad 38-c. 100) to describe the ancient Hebrew constitution and the role of Mosaic law. However, if you do not literally believe that the law has been handed down by God on tablets of stone, it may be difficult to accept theocracies on their own terms.
— Lincoln Allison

I make this small post to introduce an idea. Allow me to introduce you to a word which has greatly captivated my imagination of late, THEOCRACY.

The word can take on a variety of implications. One need only think of Iran, or Taliban controlled Afghanistan to see a purported theocracy in action. But this is not my meaning, when using the word.

The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία (theokratia), meaning "the rule of God" (Josephus). This in turn derives from the Greek words θεος (theos, from an Indo-European root occurring in religious concepts), meaning “god,” and κρατειν (kratein), meaning “to rule.” Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was “rule by god(s)” or human incarnation(s) of god(s). (Wikipedia)

My usage of the word is to refer to the direct rule of God over man. Contrasted with "democracy (from Greek dēmokratiā : dēmos, people + -kratein, -to rule.), we can see two options: "God in charge", or "Man in charge". A.W. Tozer, in his sermon The Voice of Reform, mentioned the need to return to "the right human/Divine relationship", which he described simply as "God on the throne talking, and man on his face listening". This is the sense that I mean.

Essentially, by using the word "Theocracy", I mean "allowing God the right to rule over your life". In no way am I suggesting some kind of Dominionist or Kingdom Now theology (see my article The Pontification of the "Modern Church" for some of my early comments on those theologies). After all, any attempt at man establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, by means of political influence, is mere Democracy, which still has man on the throne, albeit claiming to be in proxy for God. Theoretically one could say that the more people actively submit their lives to God, the more He will rule, in a secular sense, however history seems to suggest that the more secular power the Church wields, the more corruption infiltrates Christendom.

Scripture is clear about God's Kingdom not being established, on Earth, until Christ's Millennial Reign begins, upon his return. However, my reason for raising this theme is to suggest that we can obey Him, who is at present, invisible in preparation for His bodily return. Christ made many statements regarding those who will be be about his Father's business when he returns, even implying that faithfulness in mundane things will establish an ability to be trusted with spiritual things.

So there you have it, Theocracy. Feel free to make any comments, as they will be brought into consideration. I am currently working on a piece which explores this theme, dealing with the Creation and Fall of man. At present I'm looking at posting it as a "simulcast" of sorts, both in text form, here at Blogspot, and in audio at Podomatic. Lord willing, I should be able to start posting in the coming weeks.

In His grip,

Aaron

Edit - This post is part of a PodBlog simulcast - http://cjakforest.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2007-09-17T06_53_41-07_00

Church as Community

2007-07-31T16:54:00.000+10:00

by Art Katz (1929-2007)

The magnitude of the end-time demands upon the Church are going to be of such a kind that a quality of character beyond mere conventional Christianity, as we know it, will be absolutely essential. This again raises the issue of intensive life together as a mode of present living. Community living is not an end in itself, but rather a means to a larger end, namely, "To Him be glory in the church." Paul lets that statement stand. He gives no explanation as to the meaning of the word "church," nor does he even try to explain by what means that glory is going to be induced. Instead, he has us search out the meaning.

In my opinion, the word ‘community’ is synonymous with church or true fellowship. Through years of intensive community experience, I have gained a view of Church that has revised my understanding of the meaning of that word. Church has become a misnomer, not just in fundamental and evangelical Christianity, but even in the finest forms of Pentecostal and Charismatic life. If our church experience is confined essentially to a Sunday service and Wednesday evening bible study, then it is a caricature and distortion of God’s original intention. Church has come to center itself in ‘services,’ and we measure the success of a fellowship by the quality of its service, namely, whether we liked it, whether it was pleasant, whether the music was good, or whether the preaching was good. However much we may applaud any of these aspects of the service, we need to understand that that very standard of measure is the indication of how far we have departed from the Lord’s understanding of the glory of the Church. We can conduct superb styles of Christian services, but we cannot practice and demonstrate the Kingdom of God on the basis of accommodating the desires and tastes of our congregations.

Community suggests a band of souls sharing a common pattern and spirit, seeking as their first motive the manifestation of God’s glory in the earth through the relationships established in intense opportunity together. Community is not some kind of sophomoric attempt to prove anything. When we started, we hardly knew what the word community meant. But in the anguish, the horror, the enormous humiliation of it, the terrible defeat and failure of all of our pet Charismatic and Pentecostal convictions, which burst like a bubble in the reality of the demands of an intensive life, something then began to dawn on us here. Though we did not understand at first, we became, over a process of time, something that could be tentatively called an expression of the Kingdom of God.

I am an enemy of any kind of social experimentation. The Kingdom is too glorious an eternal thing to be marred by men as some kind of a socializing project that they can perform. That is the reason many communities dissolve. Church, or true fellowship, is an organic expression of His life, unfolded in patient waiting by those who are joined together. When we come in complete ignorance of how to do it, that ignorance will be our saving virtue.

If God will not do anything outside His Body, then we need to understand that the Body is not an organization, but an organism, built on relationship by the Spirit, with Him and with each other. Christianity has become so systematized that it has come to be looked upon as an institution rather than as an apostolic organism. The Kingdom of God, however, is the expression of His Life organically administered, through the saints, by His Spirit, and to each other. Fellowship is the organism given of God by which the saints are made perfect, through daily relationship, through encouragement, and often through confrontation:

But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called ‘Today,’ lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13).

In other words, tomorrow is too late.

What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3).

But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7).

True fellowship, which is to say, authentic fellowship, both with God and man, is eminently a resurrection phenomenon. It takes power to forgive; it takes power to be patient, and it takes power to be compassionate. In fact, community would be impossible except as a resurrection phenomenon. Anything else is religious, pious, fraudulent and imaginary, and in saying that, I am going out on a limb and likely disenfranchising ninety-five percent of Christianity in the world.

Community is the most radical, demanding, excruciating, and yet glorious possibility for this kind of existential fellowship with the saints. We do not have to be on the same property, although that should be preferred, but we do need to be in an intensive, daily, or frequent, honest, open-hearted and committed relationship with God’s people. It will be excruciating before it is blessed, and painful before it is glorious. It is, however, the test of our supposed love for God, and I praise Him for the genius of that, because it saves us from some kind of exclusive, euphoric and separatistic relationship, which is wholly a dream and something imagined. It is because of that joining, and because God is joined with us in that kind of covenant relationship that we see the daily unfolding of His life. This kind living will likely be messy, slow, painful, clumsy, time-consuming and often wasteful, but the end thereof is a glory.

The Revelation of our Hearts

There is nothing more important than destroying romantic illusions and fantasies about community. The idea of entering community lends itself to either total rejection, for fear of becoming a heretical sect that finally leads a whole people to their Jonestown doom, or some kind of romantic illusions of tripping off into fairyland, or out into the rustic wilds. These are terrible distortions, and if there is any romantic idealization of what community is going to confer, or mean for us, we are already in deception. A much more realistic view of community is rather the enjoyment and appreciating of Christian fellowship with all of its failures, inconveniences, wastefulness and disorders, while we are in the process of growing up together.

You cannot believe what is in God’s people, including ourselves, until we live with one another on a daily basis! Tensions are guaranteed to arise through misunderstandings, individual subjectivities, struggles and differences of opinion because of this issue or that. Disrespect, rebelliousness, selfishness and self-justification are all revealed, and it is a revelation that is painful, but nevertheless true and necessary. We have to pass through a veil of disillusionment and romantic notions of what we think fellowship is, what God’s people are, and not the least, who we ourselves are. The most painful revelation we need to face is the truth of our own condition. True fellowship is the courage and the willingness to be with, and bear with, one another in all of the above conditions.

There is an ideal and there is a reality, and poison is injected when someone comes to community on the basis of ideal rather than on the basis of reality. If we seek anything more than Christian fellowship and that ‘more’ is a projection of our own imagining and romantic hopes, then we introduce a poison into the whole corporate lump, and the seeds of destruction have been sown. We are all dreamers and idealists to one degree or another. We elaborate out of our own imagining something as we think it ought to be, rather than see things in the reality of what God intends. We bring some wishful fantasy into what we think it ought to be, and if it does not become that, then we are disillusioned with others and ultimately with ourselves.

We will, however, have our illusions quickly shattered. But disillusionment is a grace, and the only way to be disillusioned is unhappily a painful way, but far more painful and far more disastrous is to continue in an illusion that is unreal and which one day must be revealed as false. The disillusionment is not just with others; it is recognizing things about yourself and in yourself that you could not have otherwise been forced to experience or to see. When it does reveal itself, can we then bear the pain of watching the unraveling of the illusions of another, knowing that we are not to falsely comfort them or intervene, thus interrupting the process of God? Can we let it have its full work and bear the stink of it while we are alongside the suffering member?

The Church is the "ground and pillar of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), and if it is not that, then it is not the Church. Truth has got to be unsparing and total. We cannot allow the latitude of any illusion, any romanticism, or any idealism. Idealism is the last hiding place of humanism; to have an ideal is yet to be humanistic. God has so ordered it that the one place with the most potential for putting those things to death is community. If community served no other purpose than that, it would be purpose enough. More than one community has been dissolved because the people could not survive the disillusionment. They were unprepared for it, and when it came, it took them by surprise and became the end for them. They had wanted to hold on to their illusions.

Perhaps community should be looked upon more as a ‘battleground’ than a playground! If we come apart at the seams among ourselves, and cannot endure a look of indifference, or a seeming rejection, how then are we going to be overcomers in the trauma of the Last Days? If we have protective little egotisms underlying an outward appearance of spirituality, we will find ourselves constantly hurt. And if we think we are being ignored and find ourselves reacting in a touchy and hypersensitive manner, then how are we going to make it when the wrath of the powers of darkness, who know that their time is short, is ventilated against the saints? Community is God’s end-time provision. It is not that we are malicious, but even in our well-meaning intentions, inadvertently and often in the heat of the moment, we are to each other a pain!

We Simply Come

We cannot come into community with our own game plan or agenda. We simply come in obedience. It was the same call to Abraham, "Follow me to the land that I will show you." We come as the broken people of God, who have no strength in themselves, and look to Him for the unfolding of the life, day by day, as it pleases Him to mete it out. The things that have their origin in God must have their outworking by the impartation of His life, given to the people who are called together, and who respond in obedience to the direction of God in the daily outworking of their life together

The issue of privacy and the violation of it will test us to the depths of our being. In community our privacy will be invaded; we never know when someone is going to come to the door for some requirement. One of the great tensions is in discerning how much time belongs to the family and how much to the community. How much do we enjoy ourselves apart from the community and how much do we give ourselves to the purposes of the community? It is not stated as some written credo, but something that needs to be worked out in the wash. We should profoundly desire the autonomy of families with the father at the head and the integrity of the family, but "family" can become an enclave of selfishness. The deepest forms of selfishness have been hidden under the supposed sanctity of family and children, for example, "Well, I cannot come to the meeting because of the children." How much has that been used as an excuse for people who really do not want to assemble together, and are employing the sanctity of family, as well as other values, as a cover behind which to hide?

Let God make community in His own image¾not what we think it should be. It may well be that His image for each of us is unique to ourselves, and the thing that most deters it from fulfillment is our insistence on our image. May God give us such a heart for truth and authenticity, and to be made corporately in His image¾for that is the thing that glorifies Him.

Community as Organism

The worst thing that we could do is establish community as a system¾pre-packaged, i.e. this is how you do it: "step one, step two, step three." In that, we will have contradicted the very spirit of community. The whole world, in the sense of a world system, is predicated upon business, pleasure, gratification and lust, and therefore, as a system, it is antithetical to God in every point and particular. The word "system" suggests something man makes in his own wisdom, mentality and organizational ability, based on his own values for the purposes of his own efficiency and success. In antithesis to this, God has a purpose for the Church that completely eclipses this mindset. He totally ignores the wisdom of the world, considering it foolish, and establishes a set of values, which in the eyes of mankind seem totally threatening, offensive, and will likely rub them raw.

The world values efficiency and utility, but in the Kingdom, as it is expressed through community, the values are not expediency, but the obtainment of godly character by whatever the cost. If you want someone efficient, then hire someone, but do not have God’s people come and live with you! God’s purpose is character growth, corporate life, the relationship by the Spirit, bearing the sufferings of one another and the instructions that comes through all of this. There is nothing ‘messier’ than community. It is naive to think, or expect, that everyone walks fully in the Spirit. If you want efficiency you will need rules and regulations to enforce it, thereby making it a legal system of telling people what to do and how. There is a tension of needing to have some measure of order and coherence, and yet not enforcing or requiring it, or else we would have robots. It is that terrible tension of suffering the inconvenience while patiently waiting for the saints to grow up to a place of maturity and responsibility, while yet resisting the temptation to try to have that measure of order by imposition.

The world’s mindset wants efficiency because efficiency is what makes for profit. That mentality is visibly demonstrated even in the "best" expressions of Christianity, for example, as denominationalism, which is religion as "system." It operates through a hierarchy of men and officers who have charge over this and that. There are also secular and utopian models of community. But in the community of God’s people, Christ is the Lord and center of all. It is He who mediates the life. He is King, and His Lordship is pervasive over all. His Lordship is not a body of rules that He sets down; but rather, we learn in the walking out of the life of faith. Needless to say, we will experience many times of missing His mind and failing Him.

Optimum efficiency is not something that concerns God. He is after optimum character, which cannot be compelled, defined or structured. Structure in that way negates character. What men will do freely before God, unobserved by man, is where the real foundations of character are laid. God is interested in what is wrought in the interaction with the saints when selfishness, vanity and pride surface in the working out of issues that come up. We have a God who is interested in our going beyond convenience and comfort, namely, the character that we shall wear throughout all eternity. This can only be established, formed and shaped in this lifetime, not just in our conflict with the world, but especially through the abrasive dealings that we have with each other as saints.

"Sunday Church" can easily become a mere convenience, but community is profoundly inconvenient. This is the going from "house to house daily breaking bread" and working through issues, tensions, difficulties and misunderstandings, and it is amazing how easily they pop up and how quickly they can bring to nothing a relationship that has been years in the making. It requires, therefore, daily vigilance, investment of time, prayer and dependency upon God.

We begin where we are, and when the commitment is made, and there are souls who are earnest about being joined, the life begins to unfold, and this is the thing that needs to be mediated from Heaven by the Holy Spirit. That is why the one commandment by which the Church began was the word of Jesus,

And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city [Jerusalem] until you are clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49).

The Spirit was never given for us to do great, individual, Pentecostal acts that would distinguish us. He is rather the power and the enablement for the life together out of which those acts flow, for example, Peter "rising with the eleven" on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). In coming into community, it takes only a few weeks before you realize that you are not the nice guy you thought you were. We need that revelation. We are going to make it only on the basis of His life, which is His power, and yet there are so few who are actually desire or who are living in that realm. There is presently no requirement to do so, because our present Christianity¾however well meaning and disciplined¾rarely requires us to cross over into the realm and dimension of actual resurrection life. Our lives are too conventional, and we are not required to come to the end of ourselves. But as soon as we come into a demanding relationship with each other, we will find that, unless we existentially know His life, we are as good as dead!

What we are describing is the difference between an organizational system and the organic, Spirit-work of God; it is the realm of Spirit in contrast to man-made systems¾two different forms of wisdom. One is foolishness in the eyes of the world and much more painful and difficult to obtain, while the other is predicated on efficiency. We will be tempted continually to systematize our church life and bring it under human arrangement. And though it began rightly, it can harden and stiffen in its forms and become an institution with a life unto itself, and thereafter, the whole issue becomes the perpetuation of the institution. It takes on its own identity, its own being as "such-and-such" a ministry, "such-and-such" a denomination, and the necessity now is to preserve what has been raised up as being the thing in itself.

The Cleansing of the Sanctuary

2007-04-30T20:01:00.000+10:00

Disclaimer:

I have been holding onto this for a few months now, waiting for the right time to put it forward. What I present here began as a response to an accusation of anti-Semitism, directed against myself. The person that I wrote it to has not only consented to my posting this, but also actually suggested that I do so (my only censorship of the original letter has been for the purpose of maintaining his anonymity). The data presented was literally stumbled across, through a series of coincidences. Much of it can be confirmed at Wikipedia or the like, and I welcome any attempts to verify the data contained, within.

This is in no way an attempt at prognosticating the future, but merely some observations that I have made, as to Israel and the church, in light of prophetic Scripture. I welcome your scrutiny, however I only ask that you consider the observations in light of the evidence. It is very rough around the edges. The reason being that it was written over a period of four or so months, with many interruptions.

Interestingly, my first observations regarding Seventh Day Adventist doctrine came to my attention immediately prior to what has become one of the most arduous times in the life of my family. The letter you are about to read was written mostly under the anguish of the strains associated with having your family hurled into such disarray. As a result, the suffering spoken of, has been tasted, at least in finite form.

The catalyst for posting this at this time has been a wave of discussion about the Book of Revelation, on a forum that I frequent. As much as this is not an attempt at being "prophetic", the fact that it deals with prophetic themes causes me to ponder whether or not to consider this to be a "prophetic paper" (between that and the means in which the material came, as it was required, for entry into the letter). Anyway, I'll leave you to decide.

Enjoy...

_________________

Dear Friend,

I was going to send you a copy of Art Katz' 'Holocaust Book', but I considered your point that it was a big ask to expect you to read a whole book, when you had only asked of me was to watch a short video. I've decided instead to respond in my own words. Allow me to establish my viewpoint based on Scripture, so that you can work out whether or not you want to read the book.

Before I do, firstly I wish to point out a flaw in your observations of Israel. You stated that your dealings with Israel have been pleasant, and I can understand why. You see, you came to them out of concern for their soul, and helped them to see the fact that God hadn't rejected them as a people (something that Paul firmly established in the Book of Romans). It is not loving the one that comes in peace that is impressive, that is just normal human nature.

Cultural Distinctions

When I mentioned Israel's arrogance, I was referring to a global perception based on cultural behavioural stereotypes. Similar to how English people tend to appear to be serious, private and prudish, Australians tend to be easy going and lazy, Greeks passionate and quick tempered, and Vietnamese angry and impatient. The odd thing is that people from each of these cultures can display these traits amongst their own people, and still convey a message of love and appreciation to each other, while outsiders can feel uncomfortable and even rejected around them (I sometimes consider that these behavioural variations could be symptomatic of the confounding of speech after Babel, as they seem to convey things that others misunderstand, and can be far more divisive than mere words).

Granted these cultural distinctions are mere tendencies, and there are exceptions to the rule, but unless deliberate attempts are made to change them, they tend to be the norm. And note that these traits have good sides and bad, and cultural acceptance requires that the 'bad' be taken with the good, in spite of the irritation that can result from being around these differences.

In light of this, what is so bad about the Jews being seen as arrogant? It would seem that almost every Jew excels in their chosen field. They seem to ooze confidence and superior intellect. They have been responsible for discovering the Theory of Relativity and Nuclear Fission (Incidentally, Oppenheimer lamented over the "A bomb's" destructive purpose, and expressed this by quoting a passage out of the Baghata Vita during the Trinity Test. The passage he quoted referred to the personification of death being ushered into the world). They are the 'Steven Spielberg's and the 'Aaron Spelling's.

Consider even the stand out Christian speakers of today, who have brought to our attention long neglected truths. Names like Art Katz, James Jacob Prasch and of course, one who is always being accused of arrogance by his opponents, Ray Comfort, are definitely amongst those who come to mind, all of whom are Jews. As a side, I have heard both Katz and Prasch refer to themselves as "dumb jerks", acknowledging an arrogant tendency that they are constantly tempted to yield to, and acknowledging it as a cultural inheritance).

Jewish Cause For Offence

Sure, you can see this arrogance as "national pride", which to some degree, is an admirable quality, but surely you can see how their heathen enemies can be chafed by this, even if it is at times out of pure jealousy? And surely you could appreciate the plausibility of this being exasperated by means of "God's chosen people" responding to this jealousy with a cynical arrogance? To be honest, that is what I heard in that "Open letter to the world" video. If was like, "Okay, say what ever you want about what we have done, but you started it." Doesn't that seem tragically immature to you? If you don't think so, then how would you feel if the Arabs did likewise in the same circumstance? Essentially they could say that Israel was pre-emptive, by invading the Canaanite lands and having the audacity to blame their "genocidal conquest" [sic] on God (more on this later) (see the Book of Joshua).

God in Scripture clearly pointed out what would cause persecution to break out against them. Deuteronomy is where it was plainly laid out before Israel, as they were about to enter the promised land (Deut 27-30), and in Joshua Israel went on to "ratify to proposal" (Josh 24:19-25) that God put forth, thereby consenting to the conditions and means of their chastening.

Mandate To Flee From Idolatry

Judges cc1-2 summarises the situation, and the beginning of the chastening. Essentially, God mandated that the entire peoples of the Promised Land, who had prospered from placating idols, were to be wiped out from the face of the earth. This mandate was required lest Israel would be tempted to follow their example. Harsh penalties were given for failure in this area. A warning was given that only the virgin girls would be spared for marriage. Perhaps the reasoning for this was that because sexuality was such a significant part of their worship, and logic would say that, as a race of people, they would be experts in giving maximum pleasure, and therefore could cause the Israelites to direct their gratitude to the gods that taught their spouses such skills.

When Israel ignored this directive against intermarriage, which occurred in the third generation after entry into the Promised Land, God finally made good on His threat. The summary of the Book of Judges is basically a cyclic tale of Israel's idolatry, God causing a nation to rise up against them, Israel crying out to God for mercy, God sending a Judge to liberate them, peace in the land, Israel's return to idolatry, etc... The historical tale has been the same, with an interesting twist that occurred in the middle of the 19th century. But before this, allow me a little side regarding idolatry...

True Nature Of Idolatry - Self-Worship

As you may know, the main two gods that were worshipped by the inhabitants of Canaan were Ashtoreth (fertility goddess, worshipped sexually in sacred groves around 'Ashtoreth Poles') and Baal (ruling spirit over a territory who needed to be placated in order to receive his favour, sacrificed to on altars erected in 'High places'). The other lesser-mentioned god was Moloch (promised power and prestige to those who would 'pass their son through the fire', ie. throw him into a white hot furnace as a sacrifice). These gods have been manifest through various other names through history. Ashtoreth, for example, as Diana of Ephesus, Aphrodite of the Grecians, and Venus of the Romans. Paris Reidhead, in his sermon "The Dangers of Third Generation Religion", has expounded on this, by comparing these gods with the 'lust of the eyes', 'lust of the flesh' and the 'pride of life' (1 Jn 2:15-16). It goes like this:

Ashtoreth - temptation to sexually sin (lust of the flesh)
Baal - temptation to be "morally inventive" in order to achieve one's goals (lust of the eyes)
Moloch - temptation to claim "ascendancy over one's fellow's" (pride of life)

Note that John cites these three things by referring to them as "all that is in the world". It's like this, God has set the standard of the Ten Commandments, and Satan agrees with the standard but offer's three exceptions to the rule. My two children (currently oldest is 6) refer to these as the Devil's three tricks, to get us to break God's Commandments. This principle that John referred to as "all that is in the world" operates like an "exception to the rule". It is as if they to us, "The Commandments are good, but this is more important." Everything in the world screams at us that this is the case, even today. It was these three things that tempted Eve with the "forbidden fruit":

"...when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (lust of flesh), and that it was pleasant to the eyes (lust of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one wise (pride of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat..." (Gen 3:6)

... in spite of the fact that God commanded them not to eat of "that tree".

Paul made mention of the fact that an idol has no power in itself, but that its power is in our devotion to it (1 Cor 8). The real sin of the idolater is that, in defining his own god, he has become creator of his own god, and therefore a god in himself. So the act of worshipping an idol is ultimately 'self-adulation' because in worshiping a god of your own imagination, you in fact worship yourself.

Appeasing The Conscience

Considering that "temptation is the proposition presented to the intellect to fulfil a God given good appetite in a forbidden way" (Reidhead), then the purpose of the idol is to appease the conscience, giving license so that we can act upon the temptation without disturbing it. For example, in order to maintain your farm, you'll need family members to help with the work. Ashtoreth will resist your fertility unless you appease her by participate in sexual acts with her priests/priestesses. Therefore not only is promiscuity not actually wrong, but it is a necessary 'evil' in order to survive. The farm needs rain, but Baal withholds rain until a sacrifice is offered to him, because he controls the rain (call it a 'rain tax'). You see, because man could not shake the fact that he would, one day have to answer to God, he invented 'gods' who would require of us 'sinful behaviour'. This way, he can blame the idol for making him do it (ie, the "devil made me do it"). This is why John and James both told us that "friendship with the world is enmity with God".

One can note, at this point, the stark difference between the Kingdom of God, and the world. The world demands activity in order for it to yield what is required (Gen 3:17-20), where God is one who sends "rain on the just and the unjust" (Mat 5:45). In other words, the world withholds from all but those that comply with its terms, while God freely gives regardless (1 Cor 2:12).

The Second Advent Awakening

This went along fine up until the nineteenth century. A man named William Miller, a farmer in the US, came to faith in Christ after studying the Bible. He became particularly interested in eschatology and, by applying the 'year/day theory' to Daniel's prophecy, calculated the timing of Christ's return to be October 22, 1844. History will remember the 23rd of October as the 'Great Day of Disappointment', because Jesus obviously didn't return.

Out of what was refereed to as the "Second Advent Awakening" came various sects that tried to vindicate Miller for his mistakes, and amongst these are the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Watchtower Society (ie, Jehovah's Witnesses). Regardless of these people's attempts at redefining Miller's conclusions, before he died in 1879, Miller himself declared, "we expected the personal coming of Christ at that time; and now to contend that we were not mistaken is dishonest. We should never be ashamed frankly to confess our errors. I have no confidence in any of the theories that grew out of the movement." Even critics of the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses concede that, "Miller was a sincere, godly Christian to the end of his life."

Why do I mention this? It is because something did happen in October of 1844 that is more consistent with the actual prophecy that Daniel gave.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. 15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. 16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. 17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. 18 Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. 19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. (Dan 8:13-19)

Now, Miller concluded that the 2300 years before the "sanctuary (would) be cleansed" (applying the year/day theory), would begin when the Temple at Jerusalem was decreed to be rebuilt by Artaxerxes (Ezra 6:14). Since historians placed this event in 457BC, that would mean its completion would be 1844AD (bearing in mind that there was no such year as 0AD). Considering that the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was the event in the Hebraic calendar where the cleansing of the temple occurred, and that Artaxerxes' decree was in autumn, Miller concluded that the event that he was expecting would occur on that day. In 1844, the tenth day of the seventh month in the Jewish calendar, fell on October 22nd.

Cleansing Of The Sanctuary, Not Christ's Return

Miller concluded that this event would be Christ's return, because it was common for the earth to be referred to as God's sanctuary, and since the earth wouldn't be truly cleansed until Christ returned. This interpretation would be fine if the Bible had no other references to the cleansing of God's sanctuary, but there are others. Ezekiel saw a vision of six men with destroying weapons in their hands, who were sent into the midst of Israel to smite all but "the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst (of Israel)". One of the six men also had an inkhorn, in order to mark the foreheads of these "sighers" and "criers", in order to identify them (Ezek 9). Logic would suggest that seeing as they were commanded to "begin in (God's) sanctuary" and go out from there, then prophetically speaking, the sanctuary could not be the whole earth. It must be something more specific.

Before I mention a possible alternative event that could be considered to be a catalyst to produce a "cleansing of the sanctuary", let me return your attention to the main points of this article.

Israel chose to intermarry two generations after entering the Promised Land.
The three main gods that were worshipped co-relate to how the Apostle John described, "all that is in the world", in his first epistle.
Idolatry's ultimate purpose is to give justification to the conscience, so that we can act upon our temptation without our conscience being disturbed.

Forsaking the Lord

In Judges, God told the Israelites that he would leave the inhabitants of Canaan so that "through them (He) may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not." (Judg 2:22) After their first captivity, they returned to eventually worship their "means of worship", over the One who was meant to be the "object of their worship" (Matt 23:23). This ultimately led to God allowing the destruction of His Temple at the hands of Rome, in 70AD.

No temple meant no place for sacrifice, so a rabbi named Yochan Ben Zakkai redefined Judaism's means of forgiveness in terms of repentance (Teshuvah), prayer (Tefillah) and good deeds (Tzadakah). I have heard a messianic Jew say that if you went outside a synagogue after they finished their Yom Kippur ceremonies, and asked them if they were forgiven and they would reply, "I don't know, but I've done all that I can do." This is what most of Judaism has consisted of up until today.

You may know that Israel had no nation of their own, until 1946, but did you realise that Israel had a tendency to view Germany as their "messianic alternative" (this will be explained later) to having their own land? This is why there was such a concentration of Jews in Germany prior to World War 2. Consider that 80% of the world's Jewish population is of Ashkenazi origin, and recognise Yiddish, which is of Germanic origin, as their "mother tongue" (Hebrew being the "father tongue") and you can see some clues to substantiate this fact (Art Katz has spoken much on this, from extensive research, so again I recommend you read his book "The Holocaust: Where Was God").

Germany offered much to be desired, considering its long reputation of being the epicentre of excellence. It had spawned Luther, Beethoven, Handel, Freud, Boehme and Einstein. Its military might was second to none, and their innovativeness was, and still is, likewise unparalleled. What better place for such a nation as Israel to dwell. There was one other significant mind that Germany had spawned.

Self-Worship Unveiled

On October 15th 1844, a child was born to a Lutheran pastor and his wife, in the small village of Röcken. After the death of his father at the age of five, younger brother at six and his grandmother at twelve, his mother raised him on her own with his sister, Elizabeth who was two years younger. The young man attended a boys school and later a private school, and in 1864 went on to study theology and philology at university. After one semester, the young man stopped his theological studies and left his faith behind. Over time he wrote many works, primarily of a philosophical nature. The man's name was Friedrich Nietzsche.

Nietzsche was one of the first to establish the principles of Atheism in a way that made sense. He proposed the importance of humanity establishing its own morality, without the need for an "imaginary judge" that we need to face one day. He presented a theory that portrayed the type of relationship between God and man, as a "master/slave" relationship, and then exhorted man to become their own God (Übermensch, lit. "over man” or "god man"). This in effect gave humanity the first opportunity to openly yield to temptation without the need to be plagued by their conscience, because they had now been given the right to establish their own moral code, based on their own values. Nietzsche is best know for penning the words "God is dead" in his book titled "The Gay Science".

Idolatry of Modern Israel

The veil of idolatry had finally been lifted, and men were now free to be their own God, unashamedly. In other words, the new "idol" was to become "raw selfish humanism". If you've heard Paris Reidhead's "Ten Shekels and a Shirt", you'd be keenly aware of humanism's affect on Christianity, but Judaism was also deeply affected. Room was made for the concept of "Meshiach" to be about a new social order, because sacrifices had been replaced with good works, a legalistic arrogance began to fester once again. "Salvation by works" silently carries with it the notion man is "good enough in himself", thereby not requiring God's intervention in order to "make him good". Monotheism and the Scriptures began to be thought of as a Jewish invention (after all their people gave the world Moses, David, and the prophets), and therefore, in their minds, these things confirmed their "greatness".

The Jewish culture was kept, while the God that was such an integral part of their culture, was all but ignored. The Jews had, for the most part "outgrown God". Theism was replaced by Deism, and ultimately God was tossed aside. A Jewish friend of mine, who has recently come to faith in Christ, stated that he believed that "while many (Jews) would say that they believe in God, well over 50% would live and believe essentially the same things as an atheist... Well over 50%."

You see, in the time of the Judges, it wasn't that the Israelites stopped worshipping Yahweh, so much as that they supplemented their worship with sacrifices to gods that would 'get the job done', when God wasn't answering their prayers quick enough. They honoured Yahweh with their lips, but feared and worshipped the gods of the land.

One can see this in the closing stories in the Book of Judges, where we see, for example, Micah building his own temple, filling it with idols, and then claiming that "the Lord (Yahweh) will do him right", because he acquired a Levite to serve him in his idolatry (Judg 17). God referred to this, in His Word, as "forsaking the Lord". So, here we are. Israel had chosen to go "a whoring after" their own "messianic alternative", which allows them the luxury of a self perception of greatness, in place of their Meshiach who came in brokenness, shame and humility, calling them follow in his footsteps. They chose a self-vindictive stance against their oppressors, rather than recognising them as God's promised vehicle of chastening for forsaking the Lord, to pursue their "gods".

The Sanctification of the Prophet of Atheism and Anti-Semitism

Now, considering that seven days is allotted time that is waited before a Jewish male is circumcised, and that Nietzsche was born seven days before October 22nd 1844, could it be possible that the birth of this man, who lifted the veil on idol worship, like no other, could have been the event that Daniel was pointing us to? Note that Miller would have had no reason to know about this fulfilment, because Nietzsche was relatively unknown until the twentieth century.

To add another twist to Nietzsche's role in the "cleansing of the sanctuary", his sister, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche married a known anti-Semite. Nietzsche wrote his sister a letter, which strongly objected to her choice of suitor, on the grounds of the Förster's anti-Semitism. This wouldn't mean much, except that on January 3rd 1889, Nietzsche suffered a severe mental collapse, which led to Elisabeth becoming executor of Nietzsche's literary estate. After Nietzsche's death in August 25 1900, Elizabeth published the book entitled "The Will to Power", by compiling Nietzsche's unpublished notebooks into one anthology.

Although the name of the book wasn't mentioned, in the sermon "Ten Shekels and a Shirt", Paris Reidhead referred to "The Will to Power" as the work that influenced Hitler to believe that the "chief end of all being" is to "gain ascendancy over one's fellows". Historians have used this book as the cornerstone of charging Nietzsche with accusations of fascism and anti-Semitism. In light of the above mentioned letter that he had sent to his sister, other historians believe that Elisabeth had selectively included material and gave the excerpts from Frederich's notebook an order different to that of his own. This led to the current opinion that her manuscript as a revisionist corruption bringing her brother's text in line with her own anti-Semitic beliefs, which he had vehemently opposed.

It would seem that, like most true atheists that I have had dealings with, of late, Nietzsche was of exceptional moral character in regard to pragmatism. His life apparently had, as a practical outworking, a consideration of others that would shame all but the most pious Christian, in spite of penning the slogan "God is dead" and ranking one's own life as its sole consideration when evaluating how one should act. Racism would have been intolerable because it is not self-serving, outside of a biased superstition based on fear and/or self-delusion. Therefore, Hitler's notions of the Jews being the "enemy of mankind" Nietzsche would have considered them to be based on paranoid delusions, as there would have been no individual element to them.

Jewish Self-Sufficiency

On the heels of the Nazi holocaust, Israel adopted the slogan of "Never again!!" and resolved to resist aggression against itself at all costs. The "Open Letter To The World" video that you showed me perfectly illustrates this. Now, before you condone or excuse away this attitude as justified, consider that Yahweh has been portrayed as a "tribal war god", in books like "The DaVinci Code", who issued orders to commit genocide and the hands of his people, Israel. In a world that is becoming increasingly atheistic, and therefore believes that gods are figments of the imagination, used by superstitious people to justify cruel behaviour, one would logically hold the nation of Israel accountable for the ruthless barbarity depicted in the Book of Joshua, for example. The issue at hand here is not one of excusing wrong, due to exceptional circumstances, but acknowledging the prophetic "cause and effect" of God's decrees and interpreting history in light of this, rather than based on mere human sympathy.

Compare Israel's arrogant response to their unjust persecution, to the description of the returning remnant, having endured seeing two out of every three of their people perish (the tragedy of the Nazi holocaust only saw one third die):

23 Behold, the whirlwind of the LORD goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked. 24 The fierce anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it. 31:1 At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. 2 Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest. 3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. 4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry. 5 Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things. 6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God. 6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God. 7 For thus saith the LORD ; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel. 8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither. 9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. (Jer 30:23-31:9)

The remnant shall return with "weeping" and be led by "supplications", while the holocaust survivors returned with "defiance", led by "resolve". The remnant shall cause the world to beat their swords into ploughshares and live in peace, while the survivors have fortified themselves and turned their back on the world with such indignation that even the peaceful are increasingly beating their "ploughshares into swords".

Modern day Zionist Israel is creating a rod for its own back. It has allowed itself to return to a land, thereby surrounding itself with avowed mortal enemies. All prophetic indications seem to suggest that the prophesied "Time of Jacob's Trouble" will commence in Jerusalem. If this is the case, then herding all the Jews into their land, is equivalent to the Nazis sending the Jews to the concentration camps. It is only a matter of time before the United Nations will recognise Palestine to be its own nation, and with such autonomy, the right to legally build its own army. This in turn will enable the Islamic League of Nations to import arms and support, in its resistance against Palestine's current "tyrant" [sic].

Mindsets Can Change Quickly

I say this not to endorse a Jihad against Israel, but to map out a plausible scenario. Consider world opinion as people's oil dependence, for example, leads them to conclude that Israel is the cause of all their woes. After all, if they weren't there, the Muslim world wouldn't have an enemy. Consider also how commentators and experts in warfare refer to terrorism as the only weapon available to the oppressed. If only Israel would "give Palestine its land back", then there would be no reason for them to set off suicide bombs, and therefore no need for it to spill out into the western world.

With all the great push of Islam trying present itself as a "religion of peace, with some rogue fanatical elements", this kind of philosophy could be prevalent within a decade. After all, Hitler came to power in January 1933 and World War 2 finished when he committed suicide April 30 1945. Within his twelve year reign, he had convinced German Christendom to reject the Old Testament and with it all Jewish references in Christianity, and to introduce "Hitler Youth" programs into their churches. He also convinced the nation that the Germanic people were the master race and that their genetic integrity had to be preserved, to the extreme of sterilising and euthanasing the disabled.

Change can come that quickly. I have spoken to some elderly Germans who, although they didn't agree with Hitler's "Final Solution", they figured that there must have be a point to the claim that the Jews were the source of all Germany's woes. On hindsight, however they could see how wrong they were.

Light In The Darkness

During this time there were some that resisted the Nazi's influence on the German church. These were known as the Confessional Church. Names like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth were amongst those who were pivotal in this modern reformation. The following are exerts out of the first article of their united theological declaration (for the full document, Google "Theological Declaration of Barmen"):

"The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church met in Barmen, ... from all the German Confessional Churches met with one accord .... In fidelity to their Confession of Faith, members ... sought a common message for the need and temptation of the Church in our day... (T)hey are convinced that they have been given a common word to utter. It was not their intention to found a new Church or to form a union..., rather, to withstand in faith and unanimity the destruction of the Confession of Faith, and thus of the Evangelical Church in Germany. In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed...

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions...

We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well...

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church... should and could appropriate the characteristics,... becoming an organ of the State."

History has proven the validity of their objections. Bonhoeffer for one was highly vocal with his protests, from his parish in London. During the peak of the Nazi regime, he returned, claiming that he would have no right to be a part in the rebuilding of post-Nazi Germany, if he didn't share in their suffering alongside them. He was executed three weeks before Hitler's suicide, and the prison camp that he was in was liberated just days after his death.

This Confessional Church was pivotal amongst those who aided the Jewish people, during the Holocaust. They understood clearly that when Jesus spoke of the "least of his brethren" that first and foremost, his brethren were the descendants of Israel. Many who aided the Jews ended up in concentration camps alongside those that they tried to protect. There are those amongst eschatological commentators who cite this historical fact when claiming that the "Time of Jacob's Trouble" of the Old Testament and the "Great Tribulation" of the New Testament are interlinked, describing Jewish and Christian perspectives of the same ultimate event. Art Katz has often described dreams that some have had where men with balaclavas drag people out of their houses because they are amongst those who love the Jewish people. Consider a scenario where Israelites will suffer extreme persecution, based purely on their ethnicity. How much more will the suffering be for those who associate themselves with such a people, by choice?

True Love

Now, also consider this scenario in light of my earlier comments regarding the arrogance of Israel. Consider also how God's love is commended to us in the way that Christ died for us, not only while, but even before we had yet begun sinning, as His enemies (Rom 5:8-10;Mat 5:43-45). As the old saying goes, "You can choose your friends but you can't choose your relatives." We are adopted into God's family. In a sense, God chose us, but at the same time, our response is to choose God. Paul compared Israel to a cultivated olive tree, and warned that we Gentles, were grafted in from a wild olive tree, and therefore it would be easier for us to be removed so that cultivated branches could be grafted back in, than the other way around (Rom 11:13-25).

Similar comparisons are made to regarding our betrothal to God, replacing Israel who had given herself to harlotry. The fact is, to give ourselves to such a husband, would require that we love all that He loves, as He loves them. To truly love someone, one must be willing to accept them warts and all; otherwise we set ourselves up to be disillusioned. Having observed many marriages, mine own included, I have noticed that only after the "honeymoon period" is over, does the marriage truly begin. Often jokes are made about how everything changes after marriage. Scott Peck, in his book "The Road Less Travelled", wrote, "The myth of romantic love is a dreadful lie. Perhaps it is a necessary lie that it ensures the survival of the species by its encouragement and seeming validation of the falling-in-love experience that traps us into marriage." Basically it goes like this:

Boy meets girl.
Boy thinks girl is pretty.
Boy puts his "best act on" to impress her.
Boy marries girl.
Boy now relaxes and shows his true colours.

If they have reached this point, and you can be assured that the girl has been doing the same thing, there is a disillusionment that occurs, at which point "true" love can begin. Bonhoeffer wrote of this "crisis of disillusionment" in his epic work on Christian community, "Life Together". Until this point is reached, it cannot be known whether or not a relationship can withstand a significant offence occurring.

Anti-Semitism

In recent years, the church has become enamoured with the Jewish people, particularly the prophetic significance of the establishment of the Zionist state of Israel. Some eschatological commentators claim that Christ will return within a generation of Israel's return to their promised land. Great efforts have been made to assist Israelites in such a relocation. Amongst Messianic commentators are some who claim that the common opinion amongst Jews is that Christian interest in their people is purely utilitarian, because Israel's return will hasten the second coming of "their Jesus".

Sadly I feel that there is some truth to this claim. Until the church can see beyond the romantic image of Israel as God's "holy people" and realise that there are some ugly spots that need to be acknowledged and embraced, without minimising this "ugliness". Art Katz has referred to a latent anti-Semitism that exists within every Gentile. Perhaps this can be traced back to Noah's prophetic decree toward his three sons:

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan (son of Ham); a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Gen 9:25-27)

Here we have three sons, who would grow into races. In fact, every human being or the planet can trace their lineage back to one or more of these brethren. One would be cursed, one would be blessed, and one would be great. Japheth (father of the Western nations) would be enlarged, and yet would require Shem (father of the Eastern nations) to provide his dwelling. Ham's descendants (the African peoples) had a curse placed on them that resulted in their servitude of their brothers, and yet because of Shem's blessing, this service would be received by God as if it was to Him. Canaan's curse was to be the expression of blessing to Shem and his "house guest". A similar curse could be seen upon the Levites, where they would receive no inheritance in the land itself, but in place of this, the Lord Himself would be their inheritance (Gen 49:5-7). Often what would initially appear to be a curse in the eyes of man is in reality the ultimate blessing in the eyes of God.

Tents of Shem

Looking at recent political scenarios, and we have a world that is being dominated by Western nations (Japheth), with these nations being dependant on oil and manufacturing from Eastern nations (Shem), with African nations (Ham) being relegated to the background, all but ignored as they wipe themselves out by civil war. Looking at this ideologically we have Western nations (Japheth) dominated by an Atheistic mindset, which is Capitalistic in nature, having to placate to the Islamic Arabs and Communistic Chinese (Ham) in order to keep their economy and power afloat. Note that Africa (Ham) has been becoming more and more Muslim and Communist as time goes on.

Both Islam and Communism are, in their purist expressions, Semite creations. The Quran being written by the Arabic Mohammed, and the Communist Manifesto by the Hebrew Karl Marx. These two ideologies could be considered to be like a great "tent" that has been spread over the world that is becoming increasingly inescapable and, despite all the military might of the Western World, they are more and more "dwelling in the tents of Shem".

Here we have the Monotheism of the Muslim, and the Atheism of the Communist, both of which are a misrepresentation of reality in relation to the truth of God. Monotheism limits God to one nonrelational entity, which is not a participant with humanity and therefore cannot save us, while retaining His integrity at the same time. Atheism, on the other hand, denies not only God's very existence, but also the need for God's existence, as discussed earlier. Both of these deny God's right to rule, in a practical sense. Islam gets around this by painting God out to be a controlling dictator who demands obedience or "appeasement via ritual" if He is not obeyed. Communism, on the other hand, goes down the road of deifying humanity as an entity, and requiring blind devotion to the human race, over the individual. We can see these philosophies prevailing more and more within society. God is seen as the distant "man upstairs", who is ignored while things are going well and blamed when things go wrong. As we have seen earlier, all idolatry, which is a false representation of God are based on self-deification, and therefore Atheism is, in essence, idolatry in its undiluted form.

False Shaming the False

The other thing about these philosophies is that they bring shame to both Jews and Christians. Jews claim to be monotheistic and yet act atheistic, because they deny God's right to rule in their day-to-day lives. Muslims on the other hand are strict adherents and guardians of "true monotheism". Christians are supposed to be defined by their love for one another, but for the most part, there is nothing but sectarianism and control of congregations by ministers who justify their behaviour by citing the amount of benevolent deeds that they perform. Communists on the other hand, function as ants in a hill, refusing to consider themselves higher than another, and pledging undying and unquestioning loyalty to their superiors. Ironically, it is the Bible that exhorts "the sluggard" to "look to the ant", and exhorts the rebellious to "obey them that have the rule over (them), and submit (themselves)".

Paris Reidhead had spoken of going to the Communist headquarters in Minnesota, as a young Bible College student, to ask about "communist teaching methods in America". The man he spoke to commented on how their greatest source of inspiration was the Bible. All they had to do was ignore the references to God. The rationale was that if Jesus' disciples were able to transform their world within a generation or two, what better historical source book could there be for a budding young revolutionary?

Instruments of Judgement

Could it be that God has allowed these two ideologies to arise in order to become instruments of judgement to both Israel and the church, due to their rejection of God's right to rule? Images of 9/11 provoke imaginings of religious zealots who were so incensed over the decadence and immorality of western nations and prepared to do something about it. While their methods appear to work against God's, one can see that this as in keeping with historical examples of God's judgement, as given in Scripture. Take the repentance of the Assyrians after hearing Jonah's preaching in Nineveh. This led to the sparing of that cruel nation who would later invade and conquer Israel as judgement for their consistent idolatry. This could also be taken into consideration when viewing Nazi Germany in light my earlier comments regarding Nietzsche's influence on atheism and anti-Semitism.

13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: (Is 29:13)

One eschatological commentator has made the observation that 9/11 was an attack on the economic and military centres of a purported Christian nation, that places the words "In God We Trust" on their currency, and has scantily clad rock and movie stars starting their acceptance speeches with the words "I'd like to thank God", while they daily display an ignorance and avoidance of God, at best, and a betrayal and dishonouring of Him at worst. Often their songs and movies are full of blasphemous statements and glorification of adultery, fornication, murder and deception. Is it little wonder that one who is zealous for the reputation of God, albeit misguided, would feel the need to act, when they see God being associated with such immorality? Historically, both Islam and Communism have served horrific persecution to both Jew and Christian alike. While I'll leave further mention of Communist influence for another time, due to current attention toward Islam and ignorance toward Marxism.

Loving God's 'Chosen People' In Their Time of Distress

If we consider all that I have presented here, we can see a melting pot, with great potential to produce the Time of Jacob's Trouble as described in Scripture. The question that we as Christians need to ask is, "What has this to do with us?" I have touched upon the answer to this question earlier, and it is found in these verses:

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. ... 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Mat 25:37-40,45-46)

Whilst I realise that this has been often used to encourage general benevolence, and this is a good usage, could it be that Jesus is also stating that a significant part of being righteous, is to be practically loving toward "his brethren", the Jews? And not just loving them while in good times, but through the distress of hunger, thirst, isolation, nakedness, poverty, illness, and imprisonment. In other words, this love will be required at the times when they will be hardest to love, when the most extreme of the above mentioned negative characteristics will be revealed.

Sharing In Israel's Suffering

The consequences of such a choice to love these persecuted ones could be catastrophic. Leonard Ravenhill was quoted to say, "The prophet is a tragic figure. He suffers for the people, with the people and by the people." Imagine the frustration that Christians will face, as they are trying to protect these Jews, who have rejected their Messiah and are distrustful of anything to do with Jesus (After all, Germany was a "Christian nation", and the Muslims have repackaged Jesus as a prophet who came as a sign against them). The love that will be required will attract contempt from the Jewish people, misunderstanding from other professing believers, and victimisation from Israel's persecutors.

Earlier I had mentioned stories told of people who had nightmares of being dragged out of their homes for associating themselves with the Jewish people. This may sound farfetched, but don’t forget that it only took Germany's Nazi party twelve years for it to rise and fall. As I mentioned earlier, in referring to the German Confessional Church, this Time of Jacob’s Trouble could be the catalyst for the great tribulation that is mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Now, realise that I am not attempting to be pontifical in my statements here, and I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong about all this, but either way, we need to be mindful of such things. The data that I have presented is factual, and can be easily verified on Wikipedia or like, whether my interpretations of the facts are correct or not. Having said all that I am persuaded that this is an accurate assessment, and could come to pass very soon. If Australia, for one is not either under Sharia Law, or in the midst of a Communist style revolution within the next five years, I will be surprised.

The Liberating Effect of Truth

My reason for writing this to you is to alert you to the need to love Israel as they are in actuality, recognising their failures as well as their strengths. Love that is based on anything but truth is a sham, and therefore mere delusion, for it is not "true love". We were commanded by Christ to love our enemies, citing as an example how God "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Mat 5:44-45). Note that God doesn't call his enemies "friends", but loves them in spite of their enmity. Vance Havner wisely said, "If we loved the world the way that God loved the world, then we would need to worry about loving the world the way that we shouldn't." (referring to Jn 3:16 and 1 Jn 2:15).

I have seen many pass into disillusionment over the years, and have noted that this period tends to "make or break" believers. When I consider these ones, I can easily imagine a Christendom that instantaneously turns against Israel, almost universally. The only thing that can spare us in that situation is truth. For Christ himself said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." I believe that there are many now who will state that they are of the "seed" of Wesley, Whitfield, Edwards, Finney, Spurgeon, Tozer, Ravenhill, Comfort, etc.., in the face of such words. Perhaps Christ would respond to many of these as to those who pleaded their ancestry in Abraham, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (Jn 8:31-36).

When we look at events that are going on in the world, few would doubt that there is definitely "something afoot", prophetically speaking. There are many who would put their head in the proverbial sand, rather than, turn aside like Moses, to see when they encounter such a "burning bush". There are even more is who would entertain fanciful tales of escape from such a drama, rather than ready themselves for endurance. This I won't elaborate on now, but I am sure you know what I am referring to.

Conclusion

So the point of all this is to say that we are to love Israel as God's chosen people, and our love for them must be based on who they are in reality, rather than on romantic notion of who we think they should be. There are times of global distress coming, of which Israel and he Church will be principle victims. Their role as "victims" is not so much one of being innocent, but rather this is the result of their national involvement in idolatry.

In spite of all this, it must be remembered that God has foretold all of this in His Word. He is aware of the plight of His people, and has promised that those who repent and endure until the end will not only survive but will be rewarded for their endurance. God's chastening is a sign of His love (Heb 12:5-7). Often it is only though God's chastening that we will come to the point of "godly sorrow", which is what "works repentance" in us (2 Co 7:10).

May our heart for Israel and comprehension of salvation be as Paul described in Rom 10:

1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom 10:1-4)

In His grip,

Aaron Ireland

Inerrancy of the Bible

2007-04-30T17:41:00.000+10:00

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

A. That’s easy to answer: Yes! But there is this recurring problem of definition or more detailed explanation. That is why I don’t really like to get involved in these leading questions which are not framed in biblical terms. We so easily slip into the words and phrases, distractions which Paul several times warned Timothy to avoid. But having been asked the question, here is the answer.

Yes, but the only final inerrancy can be in the Scriptures originally given. And of course we don’t have them. We depend on translations or copies. This may give an excuse, if any want one, to raise questions about inerrancy. I don’t because I seek to be “existentialist.” In other words: Let’s be practical and down-to-earth.

Now I had to come down to earth to the very last word myself, because I had the privilege of spending the Twenties in the Congo, translating the New Testament into the market language of that area of north-eastern Congo, called Bangala. My brother-in-law, Alfred Buxton, had produced the first primer and made a partial translation of New Testament passages. I had time available and gave myself to producing the complete translations (as well as some parts of the Old Testament and Psalms). To do this I used my King James Version and my knowledge of Greek. Because of my years of study at public school and at Cambridge I could take back each phrase to the Greek. By these means I found completely all I needed to produce this translation. (To my joy, since the Congo became independent and adopted the name Zaire, this Bangala dialect, now called Lingala, is the official language of the whole nation, and the translation of the whole Bible has long been completed.)

But my point is that there is certainly sufficient “inerrancy” in our versions for all practical purposes, and in no place is any vital truth in doubt. Certainly there are variant readings and some few passages in question as to their real meaning, but except for linguists or theologians called to explore the most detailed accuracy, we can and do boldly say, “Yes, our Scriptures are inerrant.” And we are wise to concentrate our undivided attention on what the Spirit is saying through the Word, not on questions about the possible accuracy of one word or another. Let the Scriptures be what we hold them to be in our Union Life fellowship, and what Jesus said they are: “spirit and life.” And let us avoid those who remain in the “letter that kills.” Thank God for a totally reliable Scripture, revealing to us a totally reliable Lord Jesus Christ with the Father and Spirit.

www.NormanGrubb.com

Pantheist

2007-04-27T01:25:00.000+10:00

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Are you a Pantheist?

A. Again the answer depends on how we define pantheism. From the Greek I had in my English schooling, I remember that “pan” is the neuter case in Greek for “everything,” and of course theism relates to “Theo” (God).

In that sense it is ridiculous that any reader of a Union Life article could think that we who so totally center all in the Living Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we know the Father by the Spirit, could conceive of God as a thing, or as “everything!” Surely we give no grounds for any such suspicion. Rather we would actually say that by this definition of pantheism, every human not born again is a pantheist. Before we enter into a living relationship with the Father through the Son, our “god” is some kind of “thing,” whether that “thing” is our own fallen selves, or some earthly god, or possibly even our “religion.” All the unredeemed are pantheists, for some thing is god to them, some form of the “everything.”

But some people get nervous and even call us “pantheists” because we do believe in God as Spirit (John 11:24) as the Invisible One manifested by His visible forms (Rom. 1:20), as He who “fills heaven and earth” (Jer. 23:24), and as finally known by His universe as “All in all” (and thus known now by faith in His eternal changelessness). These are the terms commonly used of Him: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He is love, light, power, and thus He must be everywhere. So in those realities we see Him and speak about Him as manifested in all His forms: the “Beyond in the midst,” the transcendent in the Immanent, the Vine expressed through the branches, the Head expressed through the body. The “whole human race lives and moves and has its being in God” (Acts 17:28). The pantheists would see Him as the forms; we see Him in them. We therefore come under the category of being “panentheists,” the all-important little Greek preposition en in that phrase meaning in. He in everything, not He everything.

A simple illustration is our human selves. We as persons are “spirits” contained in our bodies. No one mistakes us for our bodies! But because of our strong emphasis on God being manifested in all His creation, and because we call ourselves “see-throughers” rather than “see-aters,” it is inevitable that some non-understanding people will falsely label us as pantheists. Indeed we are in such union with Him that we are called by Jesus “the light of the world.” But He is that light in our form.

www.NormanGrubb.com

Neo-Orthodox?

2007-04-16T01:03:00.000+10:00

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union life Magazine

Q. Are you Neo-Orthodox?

A. It almost makes me laugh to think that such a question could be asked of us ardent Bible-believers! But again I think I know why, though this may have a more personal source.

The term neo-orthodox was coined by the liberal theologians and preachers of Germany when one of their supposed liberal ministers produced his famous Romerbrief. That was Karl Barth’s “Epistle to the Romans.” Because of the shocks of World War I and the unrest in what had been a comparatively peaceful world, and under the strong influence of Kierkegaard, Barth radically changed his liberal position and produced this commentary on Romans, verse by verse. It not only adhered faithfully to the letter as written, but gave to his liberal colleagues an explosive new interpretation of the “wholly other God” (a favourite term of Barth’s). It proclaimed the total revealed gospel of our redemption through his Son, incarnate, crucified, risen and ascended, and so sent hundreds of ministers, with little gospel in their understanding or messages, back to the Christ of the Bible. For Barth, the God of Romans was only approachable through the atoning sacrifice of His Son and the inner witness of the Spirit in response to faith. I have personally received such benefit and insights through Barth’s Romerbrief that I have read it many times. I delight in it, and said so in my autobiography, Once Caught, No Escape.

But is it also a fact that, though I never found it in his Romerbrief, Barth did not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures in the same total sense that we do? He admitted the possibility of Scripture containing elements of human thought. And it was this which brought out the new term “neo-orthodoxy.” For this reason, we of the evangelical world have always disassociated ourselves from neo-orthodoxy. Through neo-orthodoxy some liberals came some way back to Scripture truth and to the preaching of Christ in His atoning sacrifice as the only Savior, but they doubted the validity of certain passages of Scripture. As they grew in strength and numbers, it was necessary that we evangelicals make our disagreement known. Strong books were written, such as Van Til’s, exposing the dangers to us Bible-believers of neo-orthodoxy, and that meant naming Barth as the originator. Therefore, I presume the only reason we in Union Life have ever had the new-orthodox label attached to us is that I approve of Barth’s Romerbrief. I have always received great benefits from rescuing valuable babies from soapy bathwater, though I find no soap in that Romans book!

www.NormanGrubb.com

Existentialism

2007-03-25T00:02:00.000+11:00

Norman P. Grubb

From the May June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Does Union life Embrace Existentialism?

A. That depends on what we understand by “existentialism”. My understanding comes from Kierkegaard, who was fiercely combating Hegel’s theories of self-improvement as the ultimate goal of the individual. Kierkegaard called him down to earth by saying, “Let’s talk in terms of practical existence, not vague idealism.” And then he proceeded to shock Denmark awake with his two books Either-Or, which exposed not only the basic rottenness of the hedonistic life, but also the so-called morality of the “ethical” life. His conclusion is that “Before God we are all wrong.” He then shows that there can be no human bridge over the gulf of our wrongness which separates us from God, and he introduces the rational “absurdity” of the Infinite God taking finite form in His Son, who makes a sufficient atonement for us. Here is where Kierkegaard made famous the phrase “the leap of faith” (which he borrowed from the philosopher Lessing). For Kierkegaard it is a leap of faith beyond reason, on the authority of God’s word, into our acceptance by God and justification by grace through Jesus Christ. And to this basic “existential” leap of faith, which he would even call the “absurdity of faith” (because it is beyond reason) I thoroughly align myself. Yes, on Kierkegaard’s terms, I am an existentialist.

But since Kierkegaard’s days, other unbelieving philosophers, led by Heidegger and consummated we may say in Jean Paul Sartre, have prostituted the meaning of the leap, saying that it is a leap into anything which we will name as our belief (or Unbelief) and attach ourselves to. Thus Sartre pitifully dies with his leap boldly declared as into death as the end of all. Curiously the present Christian world seems to have caught on to that interpretation of the leap as true existentialism, and thus made it a dirty word to Christians, and some even accuse Kierkegaard of misusing the term. They had best re-read that magnificent interpreter of evangelical faith. I am proud to remain an existentialist of the original brand!

www.NormanGrubb.com

The Exchanged Life - Norman P. Grubb

2007-03-20T00:18:00.000+11:00

Norman P. Grubb

Many Victorious Life teachers give a good dishful of Gal.2:20, and many are blessed, but I always knew from the first ‘revelation’ in Congo in 1924 that there was something radical about the “I am crucified” part of our great Gal. 2:20, and I saw but couldn’t put it in clear form, and almost spoke as if we are Christ! So my earlier writings had not got it FULLY CLEAR THAT THE “exchanged life” is not exchanging Christ for self, which is the ‘normal’ teaching, but exchanging Christ for SATAN, and this beautiful created self BUT ONLY AS CONTAINER AND CHOOSER (John 7:17), and then ALL THE REST IS HE, HE, HE, but starting with the false “He” - that VAST, VAST LIE which has “drowned” still most of even the redeemed!

www.NormanGrubb.com

Conqueror Plus One

2006-08-15T02:08:00.000+10:00

by Aaron Ireland

Rom 8:31-39

"...in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us..."

More than a conqueror

No matter how great the conquest, the greatest title given to the victor is "conqueror". To conqueror implies that the war is over, and the enemy is defeated. In other words, successive "battles" are won until there emerges a final victor who is known as the "conqueror".

When the conqueror emerges from the war there is no more fighting to be done. There is nothing more to be added to the conquest. To attain greater conquest, would mean starting the war again, which would mean that we cease being the conqueror until the war is won again, at which point we go back to being the conqueror.

In other words, the only way for us to taste something "more" would be to taste defeat. Then we would cease to be the conqueror (ie, become "less" than a conqueror). In warfare, there will always be a winner and a loser ("conqueror" and "conquered"), at the end. The only exception would be in the event that diplomatic resolution leaves both sides equally victorious, in which case there is neither "conqueror" nor "conquered".

Victory through Christ's defeat

So what could it mean to add to conquest? Could it possibly be "conquest through defeat"? Although this seems contradictory, consider the cross, where Christ is "conquered" by the ruling religious and secular leaders of his day, and based on his 'defeatedness', he obtains Victory over sin and death.

In the same way that Caiphas, Herod, and Pilate (and all that they represented) were enemies of Christ, so too are we. We would have been crying out for his crucifixion also, as Jesus had displayed a blatant disregard of human morality (Matt 26:63-65; Mark 14:61-64; Luke 22:67-71; John 18:19-23; religion), democratic choice (John 19:10-11; politics) and curious enquiry (Luke 23:89; science). These attitudes are among the chief causes of indignation when they are directed at us, as they imply that we are corrupt and incompetent, while denying analysis of the evidence, in order to the "de-vilify" our reputation.

Not only that, but Christ's words, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" rub salt in the wounds of his "taunts", as they not only confirm our wrong doing and ignorance but imply that he is both smarter and holier than us. "How dare he claim this? Doesn't he know that 'all men are created equal'?" we cry from every pore of our consciousness. "Even though I'm not perfect, no one is greater than I!!!" This is the war cry of selfishness and it is implied when we object to having of faults revealed. Selfishness is our crime. And this selfishness is what we are charged of and because of this "selfish nature" we share in the guilty of Christ's murder, as accessories. It's charge that shares equal responsibility with the one whose hand took the life of the victim, for without us; there would be no reason for Christ to have died.

Our Conqueror becomes our Advocate

Consider now the contradiction between Christ being both our "condemner" and "intercessor" (v34) in our murder trial where he is also the "victim". Literally, Christ is both "prosecutor" and "defence" in this trial. How can he be both "for" and "against" us at the same time? Wouldn't this create a conflict of interest? Verses 35-37 give us a clue by presenting a woeful situation of us being counted as "lambs for the slaughter, killed all the day long for (His) sake", and then while looking at this lamentable situation, declaring us to be "more than conquerors" with the qualification of this being that we are "in all these things", and all this in response to the question of "Who can separate us from the love Christ?" Even this "answer" raises enough questions to drive one to the brink of insanity. This perplexity shows that are yet to realise the "mind of Christ" that has been "freely given" to us (1 Cor 2:16).

We have to realise that true victory is attained through our own defeat. Christ "condemns" our "selfish nature". Christ also "intercedes" in order to liberate us from that same "selfish nature". Essentially we are being liberated from our own selves. When we begin to grasp this, we can see how "neither death, nor life"...etc can "separate us from the love of God", because all these are God's salvific agents in delivering us from ourselves. In this we can see that it is we who are conquered in Christ's victory, which he has bestowed upon us as a gift. In other words the basis of our victory is in that we have been in our "defeatedness".

Conclusion

To summarise, when my enemy is myself, my defeat becomes my victory, and I am "more than a conqueror" but when self wins, my victory becomes my defeat and I become "more than vanquished".

Mat 16:24-25 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

For further information on the themes discussed feel free to email the author at cjakforest@hotmail.com

The Pontification of the "Modern Church"

2006-08-15T02:06:00.000+10:00

By Aaron Ireland

A Search Begins

Over the past year and a bit, God has been systematically pulling down every falsity in my life, and establishing truth. I'm by no means "there yet", but I'm now on the road that leads to life. I was already a Christian and a leader in the church, already understood the "doctrines of the Faith" and principles of revival, yet there was still something in my understanding of God that was a little "off". My "pilgrimage" all began with a deep seated knowledge that the Body of Christ, in general, is living a lie (myself included), and unless we come into the truth, in it's naked form, we may find ourselves utterly condemned on Judgment Day (John 3:16-21).

A year and a half ago, I would have been deeply offended by anyone who would in any way imply that there is anything wrong with the church. I would have risen up in "righteous indignation" toward all who would "disrespect" Christ's bride. Now I understand that most of those, who joint out these "faults" are like the "friends of the bride" who have noticed that she has unwittingly tucked her dress into her undergarment after finishing on the toilet. They simply want to spare her the shame of having her nakedness displayed to all as she walks down the aisle. Not only would her Groom respect this "rebuke" from her friends, but would also appreciate their intervention, as would she. It is with this heart that I write this.

The Death of the Pontiff

Allow me to present a little background, before stating the issue I hope to address. On Sunday the 3rd of April 2005, I awoke to the news the Pope John Paul II had passed away. Ordinarily this would have passed over my mind as any other world leader's departure, like that of Princess Diana, Ronald Reagan, or someone like that, but I had just completed an ankle deep exploration of the history of the church, in which I learned the meaning of the "Throne of St Peter", Pontiff, and Papal Infallibility. Combine this with a recent learning of the Polish participation into the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews, and you have a significant lump of clay awaiting Divine digits to mould into revelation.

Among the titles of the head of Church of Rome (for clarity, I'll refer to as the Roman Catholic Church) are Holy Father, Pope, Vicar^ⁱ of St Peter, and The Pontiff. Historically, the connotations of each of these titles have been major catalysts of the Protestant Reformations, which led to formation of what is now known as the Evangelical (or Born Again Christian) Church. Reformers, such as Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, and Calvin all took particular issue to the idea of "Papal Infallibility", and this was the major contributor their reforms.

Papal Infallibility

Papal Infallibility is the idea that God will not allow the Pope to be wrong in his decrees made from the Throne of St Peter. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Jesus assigned the power to "bind and loose" in "heaven and earth" and gave the "keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" to Simon Peter directly, who He called the "rock" on which He would "build His church" (Mat 17:15-19). If this is true then St Peter is like a "liaison officer" in heaven, and a point of contact for earth, representing God. The Vicar of St Peter is therefore St Peter's equivalent on earth, sharing his thoughts and feelings. If Peter can bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth, so can the Pope, from his office. This makes papal decrees as good as God's words, just as an ambassador has the ability to make presidential decrees in foreign nations.

This authority is also implied in the title "Pontiff" inherited from the Roman Imperial title "Pontiffus Maximus^ⁱⁱ". Emperor Augustus claimed this title of the supreme priest of the ancient Roman religion. It was a logical progression, that if there were a "god^ⁱⁱⁱ" walking on earth, he would be the most, suitable choice for high priest. Once christianity became the Roman state religion, and the emperors considered the reasoning behind this title, it was handed over to the Vicar of St Peter (Pope), for after all, He "is" the "bridge maker" between God and man, through his association with St. Peter.

Please consider the ramifications of this line of thinking. If the Pope is the Pontiff, then he is God's appointed means of interaction with man. All our attempts of communication with God require the Pope as a go between. He would be the only qualified world ruler. If he said that you weren't going to heaven, then you're going to hell, period. The main point of issue that transcends all of this is this, if scripture and the Pope contradict each other, then the Pope is right!

Pontification

In this day and age, we are experiencing a time, which is a prequel to either a great apostasy or a great revival. As David Wilkerson teaches, every time God is about to do something, the devil hurried sets up a counterfeit. This counterfeit seems to be taking the form of the pontification of the church. To pontificate is to speak as if your word is dogma (dogma being the Roman Catholic term for undisputable doctrine). We've all, no doubt been in a situation where some opinionated person corrects everything you say as if they're always right and you never are. This is what it is to pontificate. Essentially, to pontificate is to be dogmatic. The idea of pontification comes from the idea of papal infallibility. One who pontificates is one who, like the pope, seems to believe that his opinions are infallible.

Truth, Lie or Fad

The issue of pontification is that of truth. We cannot create truth; it simply is, as God Himself is, because God is truth. There is a word for truth that is created and that word is LIE. As I've already stated, truth cannot be created. It can only be discovered and described. The discovery of truth is called revelation and the description this revealed truth is called prophecy or preaching. Note that the truth was always there, only now it is understood, to a degree. This is why Christians are to base all of their understanding of truth on God's Word, as revealed in scripture (Rom 10:14-17, 2 Tim 3:16). Just as something that is "not known" is "unknown", and something that cannot be explained by a "precedent" is "unprecedented", something that is not found in "scripture" is defined as "unscriptural".

A high proportion of the Body of Christ has succumbed to a cancerous deceit that says, "Just because it's not in the Bible, doesn't make it unscriptural". This mentality has led to a humanistic Christianity being preached, where man's happiness becomes more important than God's glory. The only logical end of this train of thought is a life that is governed by whimsical fads as the last "next best thing" stops working (Eph 4:14). The "five fold ministry" (apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher) are meant to be God's appointed method to protect us from being "tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine" until "we all come to the unity off the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God" unto the "stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:11-14). Ironically, the same people who bring these "new truths" (ie, lies) to the church, use these "revelations" as the basis of their claim to be "five fold ministers". We seem to constantly hear the claim that "God is doing a new thing"; meaning the truth has changed, while the expression of that truth (ie, the methods used) continue to stay the same, in spite of claims to the contrary. This is opposite to the nature of God, who is truth, and is the same "yesterday, today and forever", but changes the way His truth is expressed from generation to generation.

The Timelessness of God

The nature of God is timeless, and any description of Him needs to be consistent from before the beginning of time, till after the end. This is the reasoning behind the wickedness of idolatry. It is impossible to accurately represent God as an image. Any attempt will require us to minimalise Him, rendering it grossly inaccurate (Acts 17:24-25,29-30). The only thing that we can do, is illustrate an attribute of His nature, by comparing it with something tangible. This is one of the reasons that Jesus spoke in parables.

The Lord of heaven and Earth: The Judge of All the World

While this may seem a little confusing so far, allow me to illustrate from scripture. When Israel was in their desert wanderings, God revealed Himself as someone who would lead them, care and provide for them, and protect and fight for them. Their came a point where they began to take Him for granted, and forgot that He was worthy the respect due to the "Lord of heaven and earth". They expressed this by grumbling and complaining about the way in which He provided for them, thereby claiming the right to rule over Him.

God could not allow them to think this acceptable for them to do, as it would mean that other nations would consider the "Judge of all the earth" to be a pushover. The ramifications of this misunderstanding would be countless souls going to hell, due to complacency on God's part. So rather than simply waiting for Judgement Day to display to the world that He neither can, nor will tolerate insubordination, He mercifully displayed His attribute of justice by releasing judgement upon the camp. The Bible simply says, "much people of Israel died" from bites inflicted by the fiery serpents that the Lord sent among them.

The Brazen Serpent: Illustration of God's Judgement and Mercy

When the Israelites confessed their sin and cried out for mercy, God commissioned Moses to form an image of a serpent made of brass, and lift it up on a pole, for everyone to look at so they wouldn't die. The purpose of this was for them to understand that the source of the judgement was God, and in order to receive mercy they had to look to recognise Him as judge. The brass serpent was made to illustrate an attribute of God. It was not an image, because neither He nor Moses claimed that God had the form of a serpent, but pointed toward the image as a symbol of an attribute of His nature. The serpents were God's instruments of judgement, and in order to be exempted from the consequences of this judgement, the Israelites were instructed to look toward a symbol of God, in the form of His instrument of judgement. Jesus himself made this connection in referring to this event as a type of his coming crucifixion, as his bearing their punishment in order to display the instrument of God's judgement by taking on is form (John 3:14-15).

The Symbol Becomes an Idol

Centuries later, the Israelites began burning incense to this serpent, considering it to be their Deliverer, rather than the means of their deliverance. Now the tool that God has commissioned to illustrate an attribute of His nature, was considered to be an image of His being. Rather than God being understood as a one Who "in judgement remembers mercy", He was considered to have the appearance and form of a serpent, which is a type of satan. This misrepresentation led to Hezekiah considering this divinely inspired artefact to be nothing but a "piece of brass" and break into pieces.

Misconceptions About God

This illustration shows us how easy it would be for our narrow understanding of God's character to distort our knowledge of who He actually is. Sadly, many christians become satisfied with knowing about God rather that knowing Him in Himself. Sadder still, many christians claim to have a knowledge of God, while at the same time knowing little or nothing about Him. The two are inseparable and just because we have understood one part of His character, doesn't guarantee that we understand or have even considered another.

Ignorance of the Past

We live in a time that is commonly referred to as the post-modern era. This is an era that is ruled and dictated by a mentality of "modern is good, old is outdated". To paraphrase J. Edwin Orr, "Most people think that history is a bore. I, however consider those who think that 'history is a bore' to be a bore." As I earlier stated, the Protestant Reformation sought to rectify the errors of papal infallibility. Over time, reform theology took on an air of complacency, which assumed that every one who attended a church was a christian. This led to the Revival Era, of Wesley, Whitfield, Edwards, Finney, etc who attempted to correct these errors, highlighting the need for the recognition of sin for salvation. Over time, revival theology led to the belief that anyone who said the "sinner's prayer" was a christian. Which is where we are now. My point is to say that no matter how correct you think your doctrine is, it's only a heartbeat from being heretical.

Birth, Death and Rebirth of a Lie

Catholicism led to a distinction between clergy and laity, which seemed to imply that the priest alone had direct communion with God. Protestant christianity led to the understanding that every believer has access to the throne room of God, clergy and laity alike. Revived christianity led to the understanding of the Holy Spirit's involvement in salvation. Catholicism threw out the Word of God. Protestant Christianity returned to the Word of God. Revived Christianity returned to the Holy Spirit of God.

Understand this, Roman Catholics do acknowledge the Bible with their lips, yet in action, consider papal decrees as authoritative. In the same way, many Pentecostal/Charismatic christians of today acknowledge the Bible in theory, but ignore it in favour of one who comes with a "revelation from the Holy Spirit". The proof is in the living.

The Remnant

On a positive note, throughout every church age, God has kept a remnant pure. Centuries before Wesley was converted, while listening to Moravian preaching on a transatlantic ship, Martin Luther was penning the sermon they were reading from. Half a century before Luther was born, John Hus, who's writings inspired him, was hanged as a heretic. And the list goes on and on right back to Jesus.

Bible? What Bible?

The gross error of the "modern church" is one of scripture neglect. This resulted in two tragic things. In the pew, a lack of discernment, resulting in their acceptance of anything delivered from "recognised ministry". In the pulpit, a distortion of truth which has allowed humanism to rule in the church. The way this all manifests is that, rather than preaching "scriptural sermons" that risk being offensive because of their uncompromising adherence to truth, we preach "soothing sermons" that are "rationalised using scripture". The distinction between being "scriptural" and being "explained by scripture" is extremely subtle, and that's what makes it so dangerous. The former is a presentation of what God has been revealing to the preacher as he "studies to show himself approved". As God deals with his heart, he becomes a vessel, which not only preaches the sermon with words, but actually personifies the message. The later, on the other hand, is the preacher attempting to "trouble shoot" an issue that "he" thinks needs addressing, which leads to him searching the Bible for verses to refer to. Perhaps the preacher is seeking to have people attend meetings, get "revved up", or some other motive that will lead to his self-satisfaction. On the other hand, the scriptural preacher's sole motive is that God will be glorified, regardless of the sermon's affect on him personally. Better to have the congregation run from him, and to run to God, than for him to win their heart away from God. This is his constant fear.

It is entirely possible for a "scriptural sermon" to have little, or even no actual reading from a "Bible", as the preacher expresses the heart of God. He may even present some things that aren't entirely "correct" and yet truth is presented, because the hearer is directed to scripture to judge the words of the sermon. However, it is also possible for an unscriptural sermon to be riddled with Biblical quotations, which are taken out of context, therefore rendering the sermon a lie.

So What is a Lie Anyway?

Satan demonstrated this fact in both his temptation of Eve and Jesus. In both situations, the statements were factual (with Jesus, he even quoted scripture), yet the things that he said were to be considered lies, due to glaring omissions. As I've already stated, any statement claiming to be "truth" needs to be timeless. If there is a statement in scripture that appears to contradict another, then that shows that you have interpreted one of these statements wrong. God is utterly consistent, and if His Bible begins with "In the beginning. God...", without explanation, then any opinion to the contrary must be wrong, and therefore is a lie. This may seem rudimentary, but tell that to an atheist. In the same way that an atheist weeds out of the Bible references to God, leaving nothing but an excellent moral guide, the modern christian weeds out the statements that contradict his "humanistic gospel", by calling them "hard sayings" and ignoring them. This in effect is the same as what the Popes do, when they encounter scriptures that contradict their doctrines. If something doesn't change soon, we'll find ourselves at the point (if we're not there yet), where every believer will be his or her own "pontiff".

Too Judge...Or Not To Judge?

Consider the widely believed doctrine that says that Christians are not permitted to judge. This is often justified by referring to Jesus' words "Judge not". However, Jesus didn't stop there. He said, "Judge not, that ye may be not judged, and with whatever measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matt 7:1-2) This could be understood as an incentive not to judge. Why then did he command us to "Judge not by appearance, but judge righteous judgements"? (John 7:24) Also, Paul wrote, "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged" (1 Cor 11:31), but then, "..I judge not mine own self" (1 Cor 4:3). Now Paul seems to be contradictory. Either the Bible has an inconsistency or I do, in my opinion of what it says. I need to ask God to show me where I missed it, so He can change my mind, because He won't change His. The answer is in 1 Cor 11:32 - "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world".

Sweet Merciful Judgment

Now we see something of a principle of judgement. Judgement in this lifetime is really an expression of mercy, because His judgement leads to His chastening, which in turn leads to our repentance. It's our repentance that is God's only condition of forgiveness. We will not be judged, unless we judge. In order to keep us from becoming prideful, in our judgement, He warns that He will use the same measure that we used on our brethren, when His "merciful judgement" comes on us. Therefore, to prohibit christians from judging others is to use a measure that says, "I have no need to repent". Any christian that refuses to "judge righteous judgements", according to Christ's command, is as negligent as a christian who claims to love the lost, yet fails to warn them of hell. They are denying another the right to repent, while at the same time denying their need to do the same (see Rom 1:32). To quote David Wilkerson, "Any man that has sin in his life will not talk about in the camp." (Reproach of the Solemn Assembly - available for free download from http://www.sermonindex.net/).

The Kingdom of God ... Or Utopian Counterfeit?

This issue of the doctrine of judgement is but one example of this pontification. The major issue of deception in the church right now is the present teaching on the Kingdom of God. This teaching isn't new, in fact it was a major catalyst for the introduction of the humanist mindset into the Body of Christ, around the turn of the 20th century, and in the 1960s and 70s it was called "Kingdom Now" theology. The teaching goes like this, the church is called to establish the Kingdom of God, on earth as it is in heaven. We are to influence the world with christian values, so that business and government become godly in their practices. We'll do this by raising up believers into positions of influence, so that we can make the world "christian".

This teaching is sinister in the subtlety of its error, and history has revealed instances when these things have happened and in turn hindered the work of God. Constantine was the first to "legislate christianity" and the progression that followed this led to the whole "papal fiasco" in the Church of Rome. A thorough study of Jesus' discourse with Nichodemus, in John 3 will reveal that God is not concerned with "society being converted" but with "people being converted". The Bible teaches that the "sinner" is lost, and the only way to save him is to alert him to the fact. Paul wrote, "our righteousness is as filthy rags".

Christianising vs Conversion

It would do more damage to a sinner to "teach him to be good" than to let him continue in defiance until God was to stop him. Consider how hard it is to see a "good man" converted, when compared to a "dirty sinner" who's hit rock bottom. What "favours" do you think would you do by "cleaning up" the sinner at the point where he is ready to receive forgiveness from God? Like the Pharisees, you'd "stop up the way of salvation" to them. To quote Art Katz "There is more hope for a man in error, who's been persuaded of his rectitude, but is in error, but is going some place in his error, ... in his well meaning intention & zeal, however wrong, .... than some starchy stick in the mud pew sitter, who has the technical qualification and can recite its credo, as a phraseological saint, but is not in motion." Sin is meant to be ugly. What an insult to God to attempt to "beautify" this sinful world, by creating a "utopian society" and calling it the "Kingdom of God"?

Kingdom Sought vs Kingdom Built

Am I claiming that God doesn't want to influence society, or that there is no place for moral laws? Am I saying that christians should be prohibited from public office or management positions? Of course not. Am I claiming that we shouldn't be "seeking the Kingdom of God"? Ahh... Here's where we get to the point. Jesus said, "Seek ye first the kingdom Of God, and all of His righteousness", he preceded this statement by saying that we aren't to worry our food, clothing and shelter, and followed it by saying that the food, clothing and shelter will all be sorted out if we did it. Rather than agreeing with the words of Jesus, the teachers of this "false Kingdom" teach that we are to attain wealth so we can earn respect from the world, in order to influence them, and by doing so, we'll "build the Kingdom". Jesus said, "seek", where they say, "establish". "Who cares?", you say, "What difference does it make?" Well, christian, let me ask you this. Did you "find" God, or did you "establish" Him? You "found" Him when you "sought" Him, because He was already there, waiting for you to seek Him (Acts 17:27). In the same way, we can't establish the Kingdom of God, because it's already there.

We tend to think of kingdoms as geographical boundaries. In reality, a kingdom is a realm of influence. To have a kingdom, requires there to be a king and subjects. Not only that, but the king expects obedience to his laws, disregarding those of surrounding kingdoms. The key to this idea, is Jesus tying together the seeking of "His righteousness", with His Kingdom, and Paul separating the "righteousness off God" from Israel's perception of what they merely assumed it to be, all the while having a "zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom 10:1-3). The validity of a kingdom is only as good as the allegiance of the subjects. History is riddled with rebellions that were either quashed, or established the next regime, to illustrate this point. Therefore, His Kingdom coming "on earth, as it is in heaven", is about us, as God's subjects obeying Him, as the angels do in heaven. This obedience is entirely dependant on our considering our life as dead and yielding to the Spirit of God to "guide our paths in righteousness for His name's sake" (Gal 2:20). This kind obedience would require us to disregard the laws of the kingdom of the world (where we are but transient, and sojourners) when they contradict God's commands, even when they appear to be "righteous" in nature. Therefore we pay taxes, but we don't pay homage to idols. We do all that our earthly masters request, but we stop short at lying, cheating, stealing, etc, even for "noble reasons". If every christian obeyed God, in this way, then the Kingdom of God would come on earth as it is in heaven, because we would be living Jesus' life on earth, by the direct leading of God, in the person of the Holy Spirit. The people would request laws that reflect God's values. There wouldn't need the values to be forced on them by a "christian president", because God's values are now their values. If employers saw this silent witness from employees who are sold out to God, they would be forced to see that God has "set them in slippery places...utterly consumed by terrors" (Ps 73:18-19) and have to "choose this day whom (they) will serve" (Josh 24:15). This is why both John the Baptist, and Jesus hit the ground running with, "Repent! For the Kingdom of God is at hand." It has an air of, "God's officially in charge again! Choose to bow your knee now before the choice will be made for you! Don't say I didn't warn you!" not, "Please be good, or God will get you." As Leonard Ravenhill put it, "Jesus didn't come to make bad men good, bat to make dead men live."

Godliness or Comfort

The other test is, what's in it for us Christians? Are we seeking comfort so we can be at "ease in Zion"? The apostle Paul, rather than running for emperor, to quash the Roman persecution of the church, ran around warning the christians that "all who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". Is it possible that the fact that we aren't suffering for our faith means that we aren't living godly? Why then do we seek to improve our conditions, by electing godly government? Whether the ruler is godly or ungodly, God will lead the nation through him. In fact, an ungodly ruler forces us to resist our flesh, that wants us to play along with ungodly practices, where a godly one presents a temptation to be complacent toward God. I only say this to bring out the old christian cliché, "just because it's good, doesn't mean it's God".

The Seed of the Deception

How could we fall for such a lie? Simply because what God asks seems to be "too hard". We say, "Yeah, I know I have to submit my life to God, but surely He understands me holding onto this part of it. After all it is really important? He would know that I couldn't live without it." By permitting this thinking, we display either a belief that God is a liar, or that He is a "hard taskmaster" who expects too much, and that there must be another way. "But, isn't it much better to delegate the role of authority figure to someone on earth? After all, everyone always says, 'I wish God would just step down from heaven and Speak audibly.' And anyway, doesn't yielding one's life to the leading of the Holy Spirit show an immaturity that says, 'I can't do what God asks?' And isn't this a shifting of the blame for my disobedience?" Although this appears to be a noble assertion, and highly proactive, it ignores the fact that the cross is all about the fact that we are selfishly immature and need to shift the blame for our sins onto Jesus, to rectify the problem.

As Paris Reidhead put it in his sermon, Ten Shekels and a Shirt, "If you've ever seen yourself, you'll know that you're never going to be anything else than you were, because in me and my flesh there is no good thing." We need the Spirit of God to take the steering wheel of our life in order to obey Him. There is no other way. Christ's own prescription for the church is, "Take up your cross and follow me." Follow him where? Up the proverbial hill to the place of the skull, that we "might KNOW HIM, in the fellowship of his SUFFERINGS". There is no other way!

Conclusion

In conclusion, the present "fad teaching" on the Kingdom of God, is a subtle satanic counterfeit to God's Kingdom coming upon earth as a result of a massive end-time harvest of souls, which is being spread by well-intending preachers and businessmen alike. The effect of this teaching is a great rush to accumulate wealth, rather than to save souls. To teach people to be good, in order to make the world a better place, rather than to teach people that the world is doomed, and they need to flee to Christ, while he will still take them.

I am not claiming that money is evil, only that it shouldn't be the priority of our affection. As Jesus said, "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also". It you're spending more time scheming to win a buck, than to win the lost, then that says more about you're heart than any words can. We still need to be "good stewards" of what we have and we do have needs, but Jesus promised that if we faithfully seek God's Kingdom, and all of His righteousness as our number one priority, He'd sort all that out for us.

The overall point is, let the Bible lead you into truth and obedience, and beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

This article has been copyrighted to prevent misuse. It should not be reprinted or translated without written permission from the author.

Permission is however given for this article to be downloaded, printed or electronically transmitted provided it is for FREE distribution, provided NO ALTERATIONS are made, provided the AUTHOR'S NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS are mentioned, and provided this copyright notice is included in each printout.

Any question or criticisms concerning any issue that has been raised or any implied themes associated with this article may be forwarded to the author personally at cjakforest@hotmail.com. Please allow up to a month for any responses, which will be sent at the earliest opportunity.

i From adj. vicarious, which has connotations of sharing imaginations and feelings of another person.

ii In Latin, Pontiff meaning "bridge maker", and Maximus meaning "supreme". Therefore "the supreme bridge builder between god and man"

iii Roman emperors were worshiped as gods

Righteous Sumission vs Zealous Obedience to Principle

2006-08-15T01:53:00.000+10:00

The following thoughts came to me after meditating upon Rom 10, particularly v1-4:

1 Brethren, my heart desire and prayer to God for Israel, is that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knoweldge 3 For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For, Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, unto every body that believeth.

To set the scene for my train of thought, I'll include a number of assumptions that can be made.

Paul, being a pharisee, knew what Isreal considered to be righteous.

Paul had not given up on Israel.

Israel, as a people, were particularly zealous for God.

Rather than trying to find the heart of God, they distilled all the statements of Moses and the Prophets into a detailed list of "dos and don'ts".

Christ's purpose is that people would cease to follow these letter of the Law, and being to operate out of a heart for God.

This is really, baby christian stuff, however, it seems to me that often times, this truth is agreed to with mental assent, but not with lifestyles.

Let me explain. As finite beings, life seems impossible without knowing what we are doing at anytime. We need to know that our deeds are in agreement with a prescribed principle, rather than acting out of the nature that God has placed within us, being cultivated through perpetual communion with God, emanating from regular and consistant quiet times with God.

This "nessesity for principle" can appear to one to be righteousness, while to another, the absense of this "safety net" can appear to be a licence to commit any kind of immoral behaviour. Please understand that I am in no way trying to promote a kind of "until God 'convicts' you of a specific sin, you can disobey scripture". What I am essentially saying is that "obedience" that is spawned from a bregudged heart, is in fact disobedience.

A pass over the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5-7), particularly the beatitudes (Mat 5:3-12), will reveal the priority of the heart attitude over the action. This is not to say that actions are irrelevant, but that internal agreement with God is of higher importance.

Consider Jesus explaining obedience of heart (particularly Mat 5:17,21-22,27-28). We can see this as a "raising of the bar" - It's not enough to control your actions, but you need to control your thoughts. Could it be, that like Israel listening to Moses, in coming to this assumption we are "establishing our own righteousness", rather than coming to a greater dimension of the knowledge of God?

I believe that Christ is saying to us, "The problem isn't that your killing and adultering, but that you want to be a murderer and adulterer." After all, you're not going to do something you really don't want to do. How many are fighting an urge to go out and buy drug and get high while reading this? The next question would be, how many of those that answered "No" to the last question, have ever had a desire to do drugs? Hopefully, the people who answer an ashamed "Yes" to the second question, answer an indignant "No!!"to the first.

For me, being a reformed addict, drugs are no longer an issue, and not their temptation is even on the proverbial menu of sins for my flesh to select. Sure it appears periodically as a "special of the day", but not with the regularity of things like lying, lustful thoughts, anger, and laziness, which are "specialties of the house". To be honest, the only struggle I have with drugs is fighting the urge to look down on addicts as second class citizens.

Does this mean that I desire to be angry, lustfull...etc? Of course not, but reality is, is have not quite developed the desgust with my behaviour that will lead to complusive obedience in these areas. Does that give me licence to fulfill these lust? Of course not. Am I ashamed of my "ever present sin"? Of course. Then why is it there? Mmmmm...can I answer that honestly. Probably not. Is it I don't pray enough? Is it that I don't spend enough time in the Word? These are "real life" issues to be confronted. Do I have the answers? To be honest, not really. I may be able to present alot of hypotheticals, but answers...if I had them, I wouldn't have the problems.

Before people accuse me of absolving people from their God given responsability, let me point toward Eph 2:8-10.

8 For by grace are we saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

From this, we can see a progression:

Salvation is by grace alone.
The mechanism for receiving this grace is trusting God (faith) as the only one "rich enough" (Rom 10:12) offer this saving grace.
Even the actual faith isn't our doing, as it can only be given to us, as God Himself reveals His truth to us (Rom 10:17).
Becuse of all this, we can take no credit for our salvation as coming about by our own doing.
Once the salvation issue is settled, we display our salvation, by fulfilling His righteous requirements, and obeying His directions.

While this can sound like a "I have faith, you have works" kind of thing, the truth of the matter is, that "good works" are the only logical option for a person. After all, a man who has been made aware of the seriousness of his rebellion against God, by the convicting light of the Holy Spirit, could not in good conscience wilfully rebel against Him again (Mat 18:23-35). Surely it would break his heart at the very thought of dispointing his Saviour that "...loved (him) and gave himself for (him)" (Gal 2:20b).

My one and only point is that there is little point splitting hairs over details of our rebellion against Deity. In the end, it is all disobedience from dishonesty to genocide. Albeit, we commit our sins one at a time, so therefore we must confess them likewise. My heart in explaining the whole obedience to "Principle" vs "Deity", is that splitting hairs over the principles, will inevitably lead to excusing sin.

If we consider ourselves to be "spiritually and morally bankrupt", and that leading to our "mourning" over our personal lack, we will begin to comprehend "meekness", and develope a true "hunger and thirst for righteousness". If after all that, we are not "merciful" toward others, then perhaps the love of God isn't in us. This mercifulness that eminates from an earnest desire for righteousness, is true "purity of heart". Who else would be qualified to be a pure motived "peacemaker", between God and man? Who else will be able to "rejoice and be glad" in the midst of "persecution", but them that have "seen God"?

Am I declaring a "cheap grace" or "legalistic" message here? I'll leave that for you to decide.

Appropriate Affection Toward the Enemy of God

2006-08-15T00:39:00.001+10:00

(Note: This article was written in 2006. Perhaps if it was written today, it would be slightly different. Having said that, this would have to be the most comprehensive statement that I have made regarding evangelism, thus far. - AI - 2008)

A consideration of the existence of proper 'Methods' and 'Motivation' in Evangelism, written for the Truly Converted.

by Aaron Ireland

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Mat 7:13-14 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

"Then said Evangelist pointing with his finger over a very wide field, Do you see yonder Wicket-Gate? The man said, No..." - John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress)

Most Christians suffer conflicting emotions when it comes to sinners. We are torn between compassionate longing for our loved ones to be saved, and a vengeful desire to see the 'hideously wicked' come to justice before God. We cannot grasp that God can reserve the 'Lake of Fire' for those who have done something as trivial as 'lying', while at the same time extending mercy to paedophiles and murders. How do we reconcile this? The purpose of this essay is to answer this question as clearly as possible, so that the reader may know how to express the appropriate affection toward sinners.

"If we loved the world the way God does, we'd never have to worry about loving it the way we shouldn't." - Vance Havner (The Christian in the World)

We require here an understanding of God's love, in contrast with worldly affection. Worldly affection says, "I want to be with you and do good things for you because there is something about you that I like." This is the definition of the Greek word 'phileo'. Phileo is not a bad thing. When we direct this 'phileo' affection to another it is often one of the greatest compliments that can be given, as it implies that there is something worth loving in the receiver of the affection. Phileo could be well translated as 'friendship'.

God's love on the other hand is unconditional. It seeks the good of all, whether ally or enemy. The Greek word for this kind of love is 'agape'. In the King James Version, this word is often translated as 'charity'. Charity in modern usage is to extend a gift with the expectation that nothing whatsoever shall be given in return. Its sole focus is the benefit of the receiver, at the expense of the giver. It is the kind of love expressed to the beggarly, and implies a degree of poverty in the recipient. This is the kind of love that God loves the world with. Agape is the hardest expression of love to give, because it costs us all and the most humiliating to receive because it refuses repayment. So in other words, where phileo affection is geared towards the self esteem of the receiver, agape charity would be considered insulting toward all but the truly humble (John 15:13; Rom 5:8; 1 Cor 1:23; James 4:6).

Mat 5:43-46 "Ye have heard that it hath been Said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?"

Literally, Christ is saying here that we are to love our neighbours and love our enemies equally and that we are to follow God's example as he "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust". This kind of love does not stop short of extending crumbs to starving dogs at the expense of seeing our own children go hungry, in spite of it being "not meet" to do so (Mat 15:22-28; Mark 7:25-29).

Psalm 73:12-14 "Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency. For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning."

I have heard many claim that "things happen when we pray", but I once heard a Baptist minister say, "When we don't pray things happen". When as Christians, we are obedient, things just tick along harmoniously, and we are almost ignorant that things could possibly be another way, but when we disobey, whether by commission of evil or omission of good, then things start to fall apart. Bear in mind that at times the 'harmony of God' will appear chaotic to us and the 'erosive' will appear stable, because the long term effects may not be evident. It is like this, God punishes His own children for being naughty (Heb 12:4-7) and not only leaves those that are not His children unpunished (Heb 12:8) but gives them over to their sin (Rom 1:21-25).

Asaph put it this way, "Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches" while contrasting himself, as a godly man, by saying, "all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning" (Ps 73:12-14). It is hard to consider this principle of prosperity for the wicked and chastening of the righteousness while at the same time maintaining a view of God as 'good'. The reality is that this consideration is absolutely essential and without it, His goodness can never truly be seen (Ps 73:1). We can even go as far as saying that it is impossible to actually "see God" without being chastened by Him (Heb 10:12-14). This is what is known as "seeing him who is invisible" (Heb 11:27) as opposed to ignoring that which "clearly seen" (Rom 1:20-21). The question that begs to be asked is that if only the 'chastened' can actually 'see God', would that mean that the 'god' that the 'given over' acknowledge is realy an idol?

"How many are hearing me now whose minds are either a battlefield or a playground for all kinds of things. And I'll tell you that if you've graduated from Playboy and Sports Illustrated and other kinds of worldly things that our minds love to fasten upon, they will, if you give them no other alternative, even fasten upon things spiritual and religious so long as they can be occupied." - Arthur Katz (And They Crucified Him)

Thus the basis of idolatry is the natural principle that says, "Nature abhors a vacuum". Like the Israelites in the desert, we create a god after our own image to replace the One who took too long on the mount (Ex 31:2). Like Saul we invent alternative plans when our Samuel stretches our patience (2 Sam 13:8-13). Note that in both these examples the idolaters considered what they were doing to be valid expressions of worship to Jehovah. Man cannot tolerate his own ignorance and would rather believe a lie than not know something.

Therefore, the real crime of the sinner is not the actions of his behaviour, as much as the setting up of his own god to serve. Whether this god is 'named' or not, or even if they call him Jesus or Jehovah for example, by ignoring the plain revelation of Christ in scripture they are effectively putting their own words in His mouth. So in other words idolatry could be defined as an attempt to make the 'invisible' characteristics of God 'visible' by the device of man (Acts 17:29), rather than seeing Him by the revelation of His Son (Luke 10:22). Unfortunately for the idolater, in prior "... times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness ..." (Acts 17:30-31)

Job 42:3-6 "Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

As we have already seen, purity of heart is conditional on enduring suffering (Heb 10:12-14; Mat 5:12; Ps 73:1). In fact earthly suffering, put into context of eternity, is temporary punishment with the view to avoiding permanent suffering. This principle exposes the darkness of "loving the world" (1 John 2:15). In light of this, we can see that any attempt to express our love toward sinners by shielding them from the suffering that comes from realising the truth of their "enmity with God" (James 4:4) is actually removing the possibility of them having the opportunity to "see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed" (Is 6:10). In other words, our idea of 'loving them' is effectively signing their death sentence.

Jesus is the answer to every need. The only problem is that that most sinners are unaware of the existence of their need of him, after all they are not so bad. They conform to the requirement of 'their god'. And why would they want to go against someone who changes the standard of morality based on their own hearts desire. Something may be 'sinful' today, but tomorrow it is good because, "I want to do it!" The benefits of being their own boss far outweighs any desire to submit to Someone that they consider to be a "hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed" (Mat 25:24) who actually requires something of them.

Mat 15:15-17 "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

If sinners are ever to see their need of Christ, then we are going to have to 'show it to them'. It is not enough to 'tell them'; they must be 'persuaded'. How can we persuade a sinner of his sinfulness when he is convinced of his own righteousness (Prov 16:2)? It is a woeful thing to call evil 'good', light "dark" and truth 'lies', as it insures the wrath of God, not only for the action, but also for those of the people inspired to do likewise (Is 5:20-24, Mat 5:19).

The tragedy is that sinners will never know their state unless they are confronted with the Holy Standard of righteousness (Rom 3:20;7:7). Our testimony to the world must be consistent with that of the Holy Ghost, who reproves "... the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: ... because they believe not on (Christ); ... because ... ye see (Christ) no more; (and) ... because the prince of this world is judged" (John 16:8-11). In other words, our message must convince them that they will stand in judgement for submitting to the "principles of this world", rather than "trusting in Christ", who they can't see. The problem is that "flesh and blood" cannot reveal this to us (Mat 15:17) because the "gospel be ... hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor 4:3-4).

Gal 3:22-24 "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

So what is the answer? We need to use the only prescribed means "to bring us unto Christ". That is the Law (Gal 3:24). After all, we know that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8), but that would make no sense to those who have not the "knowledge of sin" which comes to us "by the law" (Rom 3:20), due to the fact that "where no law is, there is no transgression" (Rom 4:15). The sinner needs to be brought to the realisation that 'his sin' is actually 'sinful' (Rom 7:13).

Paul's personal experience of this principle at work is seen in his words, "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" (Rom 7:7). For Paul it was, a matter of realising that what he thought to be a healthy desire for recognition and success in his 'patriotism', God considered to be 'lustful covetousness'. He knew of the 'existence of sin' but was ignorant of his own 'participation in sin'. He could point out the 'misdeeds of the publican', while at the same time boast of his 'consistency of fasting and tithing' (Luke 18:10-13). He could justify his persecution of the church by citing his "zeal for God" (Phil 3:6) but he had to face the fact that his zeal was "not according to knowledge" (Rom 10:2). Once he was confronted with the question, "Why persecutest thou me?" he could come to no other realisation than that "... it is hard ... to kick against the pricks" (Acts 9:3-6), for he "being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish (his) own righteousness, (had) not submitted (himself) unto the righteousness of God" (Rom 10:3).

In other words, he had to realise that when he was presented with vacuum of his own ignorance "of God's righteousness", like the good Pharisee that he was, he had 'chosen' his own Talmudic substitute and 'allowed' it to persuade him that his actions were justifiable and even profitable for the furtherance of his beloved Judaism. He could even claim that his behaviour was evidence of his own (dare I say it) 'righteousness'. Until he could count this replacement, and every benefit that he had received from his submission to it, "as dung" he could not "win Christ" (Phil 3:7-8), who came not "to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Mat 9:13). Thankfully, that is exactly what he did.

James 4:2-5 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

We must never forget that sinners have deliberately chosen to be the enemies of God (John 3:18), and therefore we need to choose sides: For God and against them, or for them and against God (Ex 32:26-27; 1 Kings 18:21). The enemy of God is our enemy also. James relates "friendship with the world" to adultery (James 4:4). John tells us clearly, "all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1 John 2:16). These two statements make up the clearest definition of what it is to "love the world".

A lot of evangelism is based on the benefit of people. For example: receiving family members and loved ones to fellowship with (lust of the eyes); desire to not be 'unequally yoked' to a prospective marriage partner (lust of the flesh); and then there's the 'numbers game', with the associated prestige of being known as a successful evangelist (pride of life). When we consider this in the light of 1 John 2:16, we have to face the fact that our motivation is often "not of the Father, but is of the world". If this is the case, then we also have to face the fact that, for the most part, our evangelism is as adultery in the eyes of God and that we are setting ourselves up as His enemy.

Col 3:1-2 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.

When I first came to the place where I could honestly say that this mindset went from being a 'titillating concept' to a becoming a deep 'revelation of God's truth' that had invaded the very DNA of my being, I could cry with Asaph, "When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me" (Ps 73:16). I had just been witnessing to someone who was 'open to spiritual things' but was 'resistant to the truth of Jesus Christ'. In response to him asking why God would send someone to hell, I laid out a flawless exposition of the Ten Commandments in order to show him that, he not only shared the same values as God and had to admit that they were the perfect expression of fairness, but that he had violated every one of them making him a hypocrite. To this he could only reply, "I see where you are coming from, but I still don't think it's right." As I left the encounter, I clearly made it known to him that he had just deliberately rejected God's right to rule over his life, and that unless he repent he would perish (Luke 13:3).

Driving away with tears streaming down my face I sobbed in prayer, "Father, if the sole reason that you want me to preach the gospel is so that sinners won't be able to plead ignorance on the Day of Judgement, then fine. I'll do it. Just don't expect me to like it." All of a sudden I had a deep sense of the loving sorrow of my Jealous Saviour, as He seemed to say to me, "How do you think I felt when I was on the cross?" The intention of my witness is that the hearer be saved. However, more often than not, the effects were that the sinner succumbed to the temptation to deliberately reject the gospel and choose to follow their imaginary god (John 3:18-20).

Then the rest of Asaph's words became clear, "Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction ... For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish: thou hast destroyed all them that go a whoring from thee." (Ps 73:17-18,27) Since then I have had a sense of "holy empathy" toward the victims of sin and a "righteous indignation" toward the proponents of it, always mindful of the fact that the number one victim of sin is God (Ps 51:4).

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

It is not about comforting God by punishing the sinner, but comforting God via providing comfort to the mortal victims of sin, and comforting God by meekly "instructing those that oppose themselves" (2 Tim 2:21) with their own sin of the opportunity to be reunited with God through "repentance from dead works, ... toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ ... and (doing) works meet for repentance." (Heb 6:1; Acts 20:21; 26:20). In other words, we love God through people because loving our neighbours is "like unto" loving God with our whole being.

Matt 22:37-39 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

We must get the idea out of our heads that evangelism is about 'protecting good people from a bad God', who wants to send them to hell. As we have seen, if we use a 'method' for evangelism that seeks to comfort the sinner rather than alert him of impending judgement, we are displaying our hatred of them by hiding them from the God who not only wants to save them (John 3:17) but is the only means of salvation from that judgement (John 14:6). And if our 'motivation' is based on personal affection or gain, then we are displaying contempt for God that is comparable to adultery.

Rom 5:6-10 "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

We are not to be motivated by a desire to spare sinners from hell, but that God would have his "many sons" gloriously reconciled unto Him (Heb 2:10). I recently walked through shopping center when I heard a lady cry out, "Oh no!! Somebody's taken her!!" She had turned around to find her daughter missing in a crowded walkway. Everyone turned to see if they could find her, when another lady said, "It's okay. She'd just wandered off." The two year old was 'disobedient' in exploring out of sight of her mother in a crowded shopping complex. There would be no need to punish her if someone had taken her during her 'rebellious adventure', as the consequences could be potentially life shattering. Note that "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pet 5:8) in like manner to predators of children awaiting their separation from their parents.

Isaiah 6:5-7 "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged."

The sinner is lost and hell is too good for them. They have chosen not only to be the enemy of God (John 3:18), but by implication, they are our enemy also (2 Cor 6:14-15). In spite of this, we are to love them, as we are to love our other enemies (Mat 5:43-46), even being prepared to be "accursed" in their place (Rom 9:1-3). It is God's business as to whether or not He extends mercy to them. Like that frantic mother, our Father in Heaven is seeking one whom He can send to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Is 6:8; Luke 19:10). Once we've seen the holiness of the Lord (Is 6:1-3), realising the impurity of the world and our participation in it (Is 6:5) and have been purged of it (Is 6:6-7), how could our response be anything but, "Here [am] I; send me." (Is 6:8) Ours is to plough, plant and water the seed of truth (1 Cor 3:5-7), and the basis of our motivation is that "the Lamb that was slain may receive the reward of his suffering".

Our message needs to be clear and succinct, as does their response:

Josh 24:15-16 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;

After all, our message is not really our message, it is 'His'. And their response must be our response, or we have fooled ourselves into believing that we are not one of them (Rom 7:18).

For further information on the themes discussed feel free to email the author at cjakforest@hotmail.com

The Sin of Speculation

2006-08-14T22:39:00.000+10:00

by Aaron Ireland

Mat 6:25-34

v34 - "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Perhaps calling speculation "sin" is a slight overkill. It is not my intention to paint every kind of hypothetical thinking as sinful, but to highlight the notion of the existence of a sinfulness that exhibits itself as distrustful speculation and consider the ramifications of our entertainment of it. These are my own thoughts that I desire to have placed on record in order to open them up to the scrutiny and discernment of the Body of Christ in light of 1 Cor 14:32. I believe that they are both based in scripture and shared by others. In light of this I bring this offering and from here we will begin.

The tendency of fallen man is to lust for knowledge and the center of this lust is the speculation of how things "might be" at the expense of how they "are". It is a kind of fantasy realm of thought which has the potential to elevate boredom while at the same time create a sense of safety as we plan for unseen and potentially dangerous instances as well as dream of preferred futures that may or may not happen. While this may seen innocent, in extreme cases speculation this can lead us to question everything to the point of inducing paranoia. These questions can be crippling to a Christian as they can create doubts in the goodness and mercy of God and can also lead us to lazy from of philosophical entertainment (Acts 17:21).

Questions in themselves are not bad, however it would be wise to be careful of ones that start off with "What if..." and "Why..." Also, we should always be prepared to receive an answer that we won't like and beware of the compulsion to demand an answer for our questions. Often times "silence" will be your answer, although experience says that few can truly appreciate "silent answers". The ability to ask questions are a gift from God, and His tool for leading us into truth.

"The true Christian insists upon stripping things down to the hard core of reality. He wants to know truth as it is: About life. About sin: Whether it is; What it is; How to get rid of his. About his relation to God: both possible and actual. Where he stands with respect to judgement to come. About heaven and about hell" - A.W. Tozer (The Voice of Reason)

Regarding eternal matters, beware of questions that are not answered in scripture.

"If you tell me 'why' 100% of all the people before the Fall sinned, and I'll tell you why 100% of the people after the fall have sinned. And the scripture doesn't tell us 'why', it tells us 'that'. And how much time is wasted on trying to produce 'why's that the scriptures don't give answers to? If the scripture doesn't tell us why, let's not discuss it. Let's stick with what it says." - Paris Reidhead, commenting on St Augustine's doctrine of "Original Sin" (The Right Use of the Law

As we consider our text, we find that we are exhorted to "seek ... first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness", with the promise that "all these things shall be added unto (us)" (Mat 6:33). What are "all these things"? Provision of necessities, viz. Food, Drink and Clothes (v31). Notice also that we are to "behold the fowls of the air" and notice that our "heavenly Father feedeth them" in spite of the fact that they "sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns" (v26). As an extended interpretation, could it be that "perceived necessary explanations" could be included in the list of "all these things"? After all, this is another thing that "the Gentiles seek" (v32) Perhaps God is often waiting for us to allow Him the right to decide the difference between what is a "necessary explanation" and what is not, before He gives it (1 Cor 2:14-16).

Many of us tend to "gather into barns" our own "crops" of opinions, ideas and philosophies, at the expense of memorising scripture itself. And this at the expense of awaiting God's explanation.

"Wherever man attacks the concrete Word of God with the weapon of a principle or idea of God there he has become lord over God." - Dietrich Bonhoffer

So, what's the big deal about "speculation" anyway? Speculation puts words and events into "future" history that don't belong there, out of a fear of what "might be" based on what "could have been" (see Rev 21:8). It could be said that oftentimes the root cause of speculation is the "fear of the unknown" and is evidence of the existance of a distrust of God. Consider this in the light of Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Speculation says, "Imagine if God did..." (Past) Faith says, "Look what God is." (Now) Speculation says, "What about if God does..." (Future) Faith says, "Look at who God is." (Now)

God dwells in the eternal "Now". This may be a little confusing, but here goes. "We" pass through "Now" from the "Future" to reside in the "Past". If I were looking into the future from 200 years ago, you would exist in the future and not yet in the past or present (unless you're really really old). Looking now into the past back from 200 in the future, you would exist in the in the past, but not in the present or future (momentarily putting aside millennial doctrines and the resurrection). God, on the other hand, is present in every moment that can be called "Now" (Rev 1:8) and not only that, He is the exactly the same at everyone of these moments (Jas 1:17). This is why He introduced Himself to Israel as "I AM" as opposed to "I was" or "I will be" (Ex 3:13-14).

Based on this "fact", there is no need to speculate as to what God "might do" as we only have to look at what He "has done" throughout history (as described in Scripture) knowing that He will be consistent with what He has done. Not only that, but we also know that He "does" what He "says He will do" (Heb 6:17-19). Because of these facts, "faith" could be defined as having confidence that what God has "already provided" in the past, will "manifest itself" in the future, in spite of it being "not visible" now, in spite of having "no other proof", than His Word and His Prior Acts (Heb 11:1). Consider our salvation, for example. God provided our salvation in the event of the crucifixion of Christ, before we had even sinned. At a fixed point in time, we appropriate that salvation by repenting of our sin, putting our trust in Christ, being baptised and receiving of the Spirit of Life. There was a point where we didn't "possess" the salvation that was given at Calvary. We made a choice, in our unsaved condition, to believe that God had already provided this salvation, that was not yet manifested in our life, but based solely on a glimpse of his integrity, with no other assurance that we would or had received it until after we had actually received His Spirit (Rom 8:16). That is saving faith (Eph 2:8-9). Either He provides what He said He will provide or we are going to be left looking silly.

How far does His integrity go? Consider now the case of God's threat to wipe out Israel and make Moses into a nation (Ex 32:7-14) to answer this. It would appear that this instance contradicts the integrity of God. God had already promised that the "sceptre shall not depart from Judah" (Gen 49:10) but here He is telling Moses, "let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." Here we have God, as a husband catching his wife in the very act of adultery, reacting to the event of the blatant idolatry of His betrothed Israel with their self-made Golden Calf, which they had even named "Yahweh". In His understandable jilted jealousy, He expresses His desire to not only divorce His people, but to wipe them from the face of the earth, every tribe, including the aforementioned Judah. He then offers to make a new and great nation out of one that did not participate in the idolatry. Now, considering that Moses was of the tribe of Levi, and the sceptre would not depart from Judah, and God for all intents and purposes was about wipe out Judah with the rest of Israel, it would seem that God had painted Himself into a verbal corner. How can these two statements be reconciled while keeping God's integrity intact?

In order to illustrate the answer to this question, I will relate a true story. A family was driving through the country and the children started acting up in the back seat. The father turned around in a fit of rage and roared, "Right! The next kid to make a noise is getting out and walking home!" Suddenly the gravity of his words hit him, and he began to silently pray that they would remain silent so he wouldn't have to follow through with his threat while at the same time retaining his integrity before his children. Thankfully they didn't call his bluff.

Now obviously every illustration breaks down at a point, but consider that God knew Moses and trusted that the heart He'd formed in him over 40 years of tending sheep in the wilderness wouldn't call His bluff. If we reread God's words to Moses, we see that the condition that God attached for Himself to be able to wipe out Israel was for Moses to "let (Him) alone" (see also Is 45:11). In an incredible display of His omnipotence and omniscience God entrusted the validity of His redemptive plan to the decision of one man. And apparently it was in safe hands. In short, he took advantage of an opportunity to display His mercy, maintain His integrity and prove Moses character all at the same time.

So we can see that God is utterly consistent, even when at time He appears erratic. All the more reason to be ever vigilant to distinguish between placing our trust in our "speculations" of what God "might do" and the "facts" of what God "did do" and "is doing", knowing that He is the same "yesterday, today and forever". We can do this by considering where our opinions have their origin, in the light of scripture, out of our vital union with Him (Heb 4:9-13), be they "eternal" or "internal", "heavenly" or "carnal", as opposed to "good" or "evil", "efficient" or "wasteful".

"The man who lives under the sign of the tree of life, cannot know of himself, that which he must know, and which has therefore to be told him (to be explained and interpreted to him). The reality of Divinely given life speaks for itself. The possibility of Divine likeness does not do so. It obviously does not commend itself. Man has to be told specifically and in fact is told that from that tree he must not eat. It's not an opinion. Not an evaluation he makes, he needs to be told, and to receive the word that comes to him, from God, as being the statement of the Lord. This is the relationship that God has wanted to establish, from the first in the garden, that man is not to make his own independent assessments or determinations by the operation of his own mind, which is eating of the wrong tree, but that he recognises that there are things that he can not know." - Karl Barth (as quoted by Art Katz in "Gleanings From The Garden")

Knowledge that may have been beneficial in leading us out of yesterday's defective opinion, may be merely a "lesser deception" compared to the undiluted truth that God is leading us toward. Therefore that same knowledge that helped us I can be toxic to our walk tomorrow.

How then can we be safe from deception? Paul mentions a healthy attitude, "...let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged" (Rom 3:4). In other words if you never allow yourself the luxury of thinking that "any man" has a handle on truth, but always consider the possibility of them being wrong. Be prepared to judge their words in the light of scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17), their behaviour in the light of the "fruit of the Spirit" (Mat 7:15-20; Gal 5:22-24) and the "spirit" of their work (1 John 4:1-6). If we do this, then the possibility that our words and deeds will stand under scrutiny will be greatly increased. [A thorough study of 2 Timothy and 1 John would be most beneficial in this area.]

Note, that it is not my purpose here to turn people into "heresy hunters", but to exhort cautiousness in our choice of who we entrust with our spiritual input. It is possible that God can conceal truth in the most unlikely places, however it is unwise to run with a philosophy that says that "every bush is burning, but only those who take of their shoes will hear the voice from the flames". There are times that the our shoes must be left on in order to "shake the dust off" them (let those who have "ears to hear" these comments hear them). Remember, it is not about how God "can" speak and what He "would" say (speculation), but how He "is" speaking and what He "is" saying (fact).

Bear in mind that you are to judge yourself by the same standard, knowing that you come under the "every man" category also. Even Christ rebuked someone for referring to him as "Good Master" saying "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" (Mat 19:16-17). We all know that the "punch line of this joke" is that Christ is God, but because this young man wasn't privy to this revelation, Christ applied this "eternal standard" which was later to be revealed to us through Paul's epistle (Rom 3:4). Such was his integrity. If Christ would apply this principle to himself, then who among the rest of us under the category of "every man" is exempt from being known as a "liar" apart from where his words are consistent with God's?

Why would people speculate?

Overcaution (Deut 12:32)

Some people form a hypothetical "safety barrier" around that which is clearly presented in Scripture as sin (eg. Gen 3:1-3 - Eve adds "neither shall ye touch" to God's command to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge).

Seduction (2 Tim 3:13)

Some seek to avoid responsibility to obey by rationalising. In reality they are oftentimes deceiving themselves (eg. 1 Sam 15:13-15 - King Saul justifies his allowing Amalekites to survive).

Arrogance (Is 5:20-23)

Some fail to recognise that their "righteousness is as filthy rags" (eg. 2 Sam 6:6-7 - Uzzah touches the ark to steady it, considering his hands to be cleaner than the dirt; Acts 8:18-23 - Simon the sorcerer offers money to receive the Holy Spirit).

Whether by overcaution, seduction or arrogance, speculation tends to result in self preservation. Consider the words of Jesus in Mat 16:24-25, "...If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

Being speculative is like riding a bike with training wheels. As one is starting out, confidence is increased due to increased stability. However, as they get used to riding the bike they find that the training wheels reduce maneuverability. Then as speed is increased the wheels become dangerous as the rider attempts to lean into corners. The same training wheels that helped at the onset, now hinder greatly. This "speculative protection" denies the realisation that there is "no good thing" in human flesh unless God put it there (Rom 7:18). Mankind is in need of "total redemption" and there is nothing that can be added to it (Deut 12:32). Any attempt to do so "adulterates" so "great a salvation".

So what's the answer? First, acknowledge and confess your sin calling it as He calls it (1 John 1:8-10) It's okay to disagree with God's word, if you're prepared to admit that your argument is wrong and choose God's side in your disagreement (Ps 73:25-26). Secondly, remain as humble as a child in the midst of adults (Mat 18:1-4) You don't have all the answers and that's okay because if you did, they'd probably be wrong. Thirdly, see things as they are, as opposed to how they "should be" (Prov 3:7). God knows how things are and doesn't need us to tell Him how "we think" they should be. And lastly, trust the Lord as the only one adequate to guide you through the mess that is this fallen creation, one step at a time (Ps 73:23-24): in thought (Is 55:7-9), word (Mat 10:19-20) and deed(Pr 3:5-6).

In short, in the light of all we have considered "I beseech you ... by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom 12:1-2)

Does this describe you?

"His one purpose is the glory of God. And he's heard Christ say, 'If any man doesn't take up his cross, he cannot be my disciple.' And he's gladly gone with Christ out to the cross. And there he's brought his ego and his ambition and his vanity and his pride and all the things that once motivated him and controlled him to the cross. He has no plan and no purpose but the glory of Christ. This is the one that has heard Christ say, 'If any man does not forsake all he hath, he cannot be my disciple.' He doesn't give a seventh of his time and a tenth of his money. He holds everything as Christ's. All is Christ's." - Paris Reidhead (Agree)

If it is not, then why is that?