Pope Francis Blasphemes

Pope Francis Blasphemes

[T]he people of God walk with sure hope. Even the Mother, 'the New Eve', as Paul himself calls her, in order to participate in her Son’s journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother....

And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother and the Mother Church is anointed when it takes the same path of Jesus and Mary: the path of obedience, the path of suffering, and when she has that attitude of continually learning the path of the Lord. These two women – Mary and the Church – carry on the hope that is Christ, they give us Christ, they bring forth Christ in us. Without Mary, there would be no Jesus Christ; without the Church, we cannot go forward....

Today, looking at this woman by the Cross, steadfast in following her Son in His suffering to learn obedience, looking at her we see the Church and look at our Mother. And also, we look at our little soul that will never be lost, if it continues to be a woman close to these two great women who accompany us in life: Mary and the Church. And just as our fathers left Paradise with a promise, today we can go forward with a hope: the hope that our Mother Mary, steadfast at the Cross, and our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church, give us.

-- Pople Francis at the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows in Casa Santa Marta, 15 September 2014
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/09/15/pope_at_santa_marta_learning_from_our_lady_of_sorrows/1106542

*************************

In his message, Francis the Pope commits a number of errors. He limits Christ's earthly mission so that it matches that of the Catholic Mary and the Catholic Church, elevates his church to a status equal to that of God, and positions his church so that it interrupts the relationship between God and man. By mis-defining the gospel, Francis endangers his followers' souls.

[T]he people of God walk with sure hope. Even the Mother, 'the New Eve', as Paul himself calls her...

Paul called Jesus the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45-47), but he never called Mary the Second Eve or the New Eve. You can search for yourself in dozens of translations, including Catholic-approved translations, at BibleGateway.com or BibleHub.com In the context, Paul never even mentioned Mary. Only once does Paul ever mention a Mary in any of his writings; that mention is a greeting to a different woman who lived in Rome. And only twice does he mention Eve, and neither of those mentions honors her. 

The Catholic Church might ask, if Jesus was the Second Adam, who was the Second Eve? The question errs by assuming that there must be a second or new Eve. Before asking the question, you must prove the need for a New Eve, and that proof would have to include the heretical idea that Christ was not enough for our redemption without an Eve.

Even the Mother, 'the New Eve'... in order to participate in her Son’s journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother....

Mary did not need to become mother. She was mother (with a small 'm') by virtue of having given birth to the body of Jesus. However, Francis means more than that. He means that Mary became Mother to all believers. This terminology and notion are totally without Biblical foundation. It's simply not there. I refer you again to the Bible. Search it. it is not there.

And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother

The Catholic Church may ask, If we have a Father, who is our Mother? Let me ask you: If Jesus had a physical mother, who was his physical, genetic father? But He did not have a physical father, you say. He was born of a Virgin! And that would be the right answer.

If Jesus did not need to have a physical father, then why do we need a spiritual mother? We don't.

And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother...

The Bible says our hope is in God our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 1:1), the return of Christ (Titus 2:13), and everlasting life (1 Peter 1:3). Our hope is not like that of Johnny who has two mothers.

We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother

This statement implies that if we do not have Mother Mary and Mother Rome, we are orphans. I can just see God the Father saying, Ahem! What I AM, chopped liver? 

2 Corinthians 6:17-18 says, “Come out from among them, and be separate... And touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and you shall be My sons and daughters," says the Lord Almighty. To usurp the Father's role as divine Parent crosses the line into full blasphemy.

[T]he Mother Church is anointed when it takes the same path of Jesus and Mary: the path of obedience, the path of suffering, and when she has that attitude of continually learning the path of the Lord.

Does an organization suffer scourging? Does an organization suffer from nails through hands and ankles, tortured, bleeding, starving for air? Does an organization die, and can its death wash away sins? Sure, the Catholic Church has had a few martyrs. However, to the contrary of Jesus, this organization has wrapped itself in silk, and adorned itself with gold and jewels. Indeed, it has afflicted genuine saints with torture and death through exposure to the elements, starvation, whips, gutting, iron maidens, and burning at the stake. That's a really strict mother!

More to the point, did Mary or the Catholic Church shed their blood to wash away our sins? [Y]ou know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your worthless lifestyle received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.... (1 Peter 1:18-19)

These two women – Mary and the Church – carry on the hope that is Christ, they give us Christ, they bring forth Christ in us. 

Oh, where is Mary preaching the gospel tonight? Is she serving food at a soup kitchen? I want to go! Just how does she carry on the work of giving us Christ? No, her role in giving us Jesus ended nearly two millennia ago.

Does the Catholic Church give us Christ? That is debatable, since, by elevating Mary and themselves and by under representing the power of Christ's sacrifice, the Catholic Church gives a lessened Christ. By inserting themselves between God and man, they give us a more distant, less caring Christ. By giving out God's grace bit-by-bit through sacraments, a continuing sacrifice, and chanted blessings, the Catholic Church gives us a Christ who lied when He said, It is finished (John 19:30). Just which Christ do they give? God the Son of the Scriptures, or an imaginary, diminished Christ? And if they give us a diminished Christ, are they not withholding the Christ who is?

But that as a trivial discrepancy compared to that final phrase, they bring forth Christ in us.

First, it is the believer's responsibility to bring forth Christ in himself. Wherefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12) Know God, know His Word, know His will. Then seek holiness. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1) There will be no passing of the buck before God's throne.

Second, it is the responsibility and privilege of all believers to bring forth Christ in each other. And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works.... (Hebrews 10:24) In that sense, it is the church -- the believers who make up the body of Christ, not some organization -- that encourages growth in Christ. God's relationship is with His children, not some soulless institution.

Third, it is God which works in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure. (Philippieans 2:13) God arranges our lives to challenge, stretch, and mature us. The Holy Spirit enlightens us (Ephesians 1:16-18) so we can understand the things of God and then teaches them to us from "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God" (Ephesians 6:16-18).

Without Mary, there would be no Jesus Christ; without the Church, we cannot go forward....

Without Mary, there would have been somebody else. Sorry. This was God's doing, and all the glory goes to God (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11). Mary said, my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. (Luke 1:47). If she had lived a sinless life, as Mary-worshippers claim, she would not have needed a savior. Mary was special because of the grace given to her, not because she was anything special by her own rights.

When Francis says without the Church, he means, without the Roman Catholic Church, we cannot go forward: God cannot take us forward without Rome. God's Holy Spirit cannot enlighten and teach us through the God's Word, the Bible. God cannot shape our lives or cause us to grow from within. You can't do it on your own or with God. You need Francis and Company because God is too helpless. This is not the teaching of Christ, but of a cult that usurps God's role and separates man from God.

Even the Mother, 'the New Eve'..., in order to participate in her Son’s journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother....

[T]he Mother Church is anointed when it takes the same path of Jesus and Mary: the path of obedience, the path of suffering, and when she has that attitude of continually learning the path of the Lord.

Today, looking at this woman by the Cross, steadfast in following her Son in His suffering to learn obedience, looking at her we see the Church and look at our Mother. 

Francis implies that Christs path was to learn obedience and suffering. Hebrews 5:8 says that, although Christ was God the Son, he learned obedience by the things which He endured. This verse can easily mislead one to think Christ had to learn some information or behavior that He did not know; but that is not the meaning.

As eternal God the Son in Heaven, Christ followed the will of the Father; yet he could not experience an obedience that cost Him, that challenged a carnal instinct to resist evil in order to preserve one's life. Christ did not learn to obey; He learned the experience of obedience. He learned the experience of humiliation and suffering.

Francis correctly includes suffering and obedience in Christ's path; but he incorrectly implies that they make up the totality, or at least the major purpose of, Christ's path. Francis omits the single reason that required such a path: namely, that this path led to the Cross for the purpose of redeeming a people from the doom brought upon them by sin. Obedience and suffering were instrumental, but they were secondary to the sacrifice.

God did not so love the world that He gave His Son to suffer and learn obedience.

Conveniently, Francis omits the purpose in Christ's path that Mother Mary and Mother Church could never follow. Catholicism's imitation of Biblical places faith in two women -- one historic and the other a corporation -- that cannot redeem. Francis pursues a false hope. The true hope is in God the Son.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.

Revelation 18:4

 Copyright 2014, Richard Wheeler

Review: Our Favorite Sins

Todd Hunter's "Our Favorite Sins" has the right idea. For the most part, Hunter's insights are thought-provoking and inspiring. Many of his chapter start with specific examples of sins, only to veer away from the topic at hand to discuss sin in a more general sense. This lack of organization would annoy if it weren't for the strength of the rest of his writing.

I found it difficult to put down the book as Hunter found more and more ways to explain his main point - that our evil desires come from within and must be reordered if we are to deal with and quit our sins. Hunter uses the example of Joseph, whose desires were reordered in such a way that he was able to think of God first when Potiphar's wife attempted to seduce him. He refused her.

Hunter says that we can refuse sin, too, if we reorder our desires. Hunter's suggestions, which he gives in the last quarter of the book, clearly show his Anglican background, however. While reading and memorizing prayers, listening to Scripture at church and participating in communion are all good things, Hunter seems to place their importance over that of the Bible itself, of reading the Bible for oneself. And his insistence that these "spiritual disciplines" be done on a regular daily basis morning, day and night would likely have most Christians overwhelmed.

I understand the importance of making certain things regular parts of our lives in order to grow spiritually and stay strong, but Hunter never addresses the possibility that those things can be taken too far - to the point of creating a works-based faith. He never really seems to get to the heart of solution, either. His insights on our sinful desires are wonderful, but there is so much more to be said and done beyond the few spiritual disciplines Hunter focuses on. I know this from personal experience.

So, if you can read the beginning of Hunter's book by itself, or read the whole book with what I've written in mind, you'll be able to take a lot away from this book. Just be careful.

*This book was given to me for free in exchange for my honest review of it.

Does the Good That Catholicism Does Outweigh the Bad?

This post replies to an article (included, below) sent to me by a sweet Roman Catholic lady. The article, written by a Jewish author, excuses the Roman Catholic Church from the actions of a few bad apples. The author advises Catholics to ignore the attacks from leftist media and hold their heads high over the good things their church does.

My Reply:

Dear H_____:

I've come to the conclusion that every good organization does no better than the sort of members it it has.  If it has human members, it has weaknesses that will eventually corrupt its practices, its message, and its reputation.

Human history, as recorded in the Bible and as interpreted through biblical principles, reveals a pattern of waves of God mercifully setting up ways for us to govern ourselves. Humans subsequently overwhelm each system with a tsunami of failure, demonstrating again how man's fallen nature permeates and overwhelms everything he touches.

Judaism, in particular, demonstrated the failure of a representative form of salvation. Priests mediated between sinners and God and enforced a code of righteousness. God gave that code not to justify man, but for the dual purposes of guiding man to the knowledge of his utter inability to achieve righteousness and of symbolizing the ultimate source of righteousness. "Universal guide to human behavior" was only secondary. The Jews, however, failed to recognized the Source, when He came, because they set about to achieve righteousness on their own. They focused on the code instead of on the Giver of the code.

Some such Jews became the church's "Judaizers"  that Apostle Paul opposed, from the provinces to the council of the apostles.  They wanted to continue the failed systems of human-earned righteousness that had failed in Judaism.  For example, they interpreted circumcision as a gateway to God's grace, just as many feel that baptism or other human actions convey God's grace today.  They failed to grasp that God bestows His grace Himself, not through the hands of the recipient or any other human intermediary.  Paul had to correct even Peter for such errors.

I could argue against the Roman Catholic institution on the basis of its history. The gospel of liberty as taught by the apostles survived centuries of oppression by the institution set up by a Roman emperor who straddled the factions of Christianity, preferring not one most likely to serve God's Kingdom, but one most likely to further Rome's empire. Despite political, unjust civil, and military actions against biblical believers, the spiritual church survived countless reinventions of its human facade.

Even from a post-Protestant perspective, one can see a history of institutions wandering from the truths that originally set them apart, making necessary the departure of believers, faithful men who believed the Word of God rather than the words of men, to set up new institutions.

Having to allow for the corruption that comes with every human presence, I must instead judge the works-based gospel that catholicisms spread.  (Not to get off topic, but, yes, the plural is intentional.)

I have seen enough human failure everywhere I've gone, including in my own footsteps, that I will take pride not in myself, nor in my efforts, nor in any human organization, but in the God who freely bestows His grace and who graciously sets up His works among men.

I send this to my non-Catholic friends just to set the record straight.  Thanks for understanding. Love, H_____
---------------------
THE CATHOLIC   CHURCH

Excerpts of an article written by non-Catholic Sam Miller - a prominent    Cleveland Jewish businessman:
"Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States, namely the Catholic Church?

Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday at the cost to that Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars.   The graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%.

The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an enrollment of 700,000  students.

The Catholic Church has a non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people - not just Catholics - in the United States today.

But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every way the Catholic Church in this country.   They have blamed the disease of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as blaming adultery on the institution of marriage.

Let me give you some figures that Catholics should know and remember.  For   example, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8% of clergy women reported unwanted sexual behavior; 17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed.
Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia.  10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.  This is not a Catholic problem.

A study of American priests  showed that most are happy in the priesthood and find it  even better than they had expected, and that most, if  given the choice, would choose to be priests again in face of all this obnoxious PR the church has been receiving.

The Catholic Church is bleeding from self-inflicted wounds.  The agony that Catholics have felt and suffered is not necessarily the fault of the Church.  You have been hurt by a small number of wayward priests that have probably been totally weeded out by now and a number of bishops who failed to act.

Walk with your shoulders high and your head higher.  Be a proud member of the most important non-governmental agency in the United States.

Then remember what Jeremiah said:  'Stand by the roads, and look and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and find rest for your souls'.   Be proud to speak up for your faith with pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other religions.

Be proud that you're a Catholic."

The "Scientific" Laws of Islam

Reference: Iingam, Rama. Iddat, a Scientific Concept in the Islamic Law to Identify the Paternity. factoidz.com. Downloaded 18 December 2010.


Something surprised me while I looked at writing samples from a web site that pays writers for short articles. The article is Iddat, a Scientific Concept in the Islamic Law to Identify the Paternity. The web site identifies writer Rama Iingam as its #4 expert in Divorce and Family Law.

The writer wishes to convince readers that many of [Muslim Law's] concepts are logical, reasonable and above all... scientifically based and have withstood the test of time.

Before we proceed, we need to define Iddat:

Iddat is quite scientific and it is helpful to identify the paternity of a child. Iddat is nothing but a period of probation a Muslim woman has to undergo immediately after she was divorced by her husband or on his death.

By probation, he means isolation. The law prevents confusion over paternity by ensuring that no child is conceived immediately after divorce or after the death of a husband. Here's the interesting part:

When a Muslim wife below the age of 8 who is under the menopause stage, even if her marriage is consummated, she need not undergo Iddat, when she is divorced or when her husband died.

How many 8-year-olds have undergone menopause? Hopefully, the author meant 'puberty;' so we will let that slide.

I admire Rama Iingam's courage to expose Islam's allowance for consummation of pre-pubescent marriage. Or, I am thankful for his naive exposure of a law, Iddat, that should be spelled Idiot.

What kind of culture condones consummation of marriage to a little girl who is only seven years old, or even younger? Muslims get quite worked up over others' sacrilege toward their false god. Perhaps they should concern themselves more with the blasphemy that is Islam.

Nothing New about Blind Politicians

Reference: I Kings 20. For context, see

• II Samuel 7
• I Kings 11-12
• start at I Kings 16:23 when you read chapter 20

God is pro-death penalty. In fact, God once pronounced the death penalty upon a politician when he made a treaty instead of executing a captured invader.

You can find more than one situation like this in the Bible, but today I focus on Ahab from my daily reading in I Kings 20. Ahab descended from a split and broken line of heretical politicians that started with Solomon.

All this rebellion, destruction, and death started with an interfaith marriage. King David had unified Israel and passed it along to his son Solomon in 1015 BC. We think the "fundamentalist" Mormon cults in the Rocky Mountain states are bad, but Solomon left them in the dust with his 700 wives and 300 concubines. God never explicitly judged anybody for having multiple wives -- perhaps He sees the resulting family conflicts as judgment enough. Polygamy -- more specifically, interfaith political marriages -- led to something far worse: apostacy, breaking up with God.

Solomon's wives, many being from other nations (one nation being Sidon) and other religions, convinced him to worship the gods of their homelands. I suppose a thousand of the most beautiful women in the known world could do that to the average guy. Way to man-up, Sol.

God responded to this spiritual adultery by filing for divorce. God could not remove Solomon from office because He had given His word to David that his son would sit on the throne after him. So the divorce came posthumously in -975 AD. Like a judge who gives the girls to the wife and the boys to the husband, God divided Israel.

Solomon's son Rehoboam got to keep the south while a rebel, Jeroboam, got to take the north. The area of one tribe, Judah, made up the south, while the areas of ten tribes made up the north. (The twelfth and priestly tribe of Levi dispersed among the other eleven tribes.) Naturally, Judah became known as... Judah; and the ten tribes got to keep the family name of Israel. In the successions of rulers, north and south, few learned their lessons.

Ahab had no excuse for not believing God. Ahab ("father's brother") grew up in the home of his idolatrous home of his father, but he also knew of the Torah and had exposure to the prophets of God. As we approach I Kings 20, we find three events that should have convinced anybody:

1. He had lived through a drought that the prophet Elijah had declared (I Kings 17:1).
2. In a competition between 850 prophets of idols and one prophet of God, he had seen Elijah pray down fire from God to devour water-drenched sacrifices (18:17-39).
3. He saw the drought end per Elijah's declaration (18:41-45).

But Ahab perfectly illustrated Jesus' saying, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31)

When Ahab married Jezebel, he followed Solomon's error by marrying into the family of the King of Sidon, the capitol of Phoenicia. Ahab had grown up in a house that worshipped foreign gods with fornication and sodomy among their sacraments. Mr. and Mrs. Ahab and Jezebel, however, topped this. They added Baal-worship with its sacrament of infant sacrifice to Israel's sins.

According to I Kings 19:1, after the second and third events listed above, Ahab went home and told Jezebel about the signs God had shown. Jezebel responded by putting out a hit on Elijah. Considering that Ahab had converted once for love's sake, what might have happened if Jezebel had said, "Surely, the Lord is God!" like all the witnesses to the fire did?

Wives, don't underestimate your influence over your husbands. Behind every succussful man is.... Well, if you can make 'em, you can break 'em, too. He may one day give account for his leadership, but you will one day account for how you used your influence.

Meanwhile, back in today's reading (chapter 20), King Ahab finds himself quivering in his fortress as King Ben-Hadad ("son of Hadad," the Syrian sun-god) musters the army of Syria outside.

First Ben-Hadad orders Ahab to surrender all his silver, gold, wives, and children. Ahab agrees to comply.

Don't pretend shock. You already know that he practices infant sacrifice. In accordance with custom, Ben-Hadad would probably take the wives for his own and send the children to the best Syrian academies to eventually represent him in the conquered territory of Israel. With wives like Jezebel, Ahab probably thought he got the better end of that bargain. And winding up in the house of a mighty king like Ben-Hadad, Jezebel probably thought she was getting the better deal, too. It was a win-win-win.

However, Ben-Hadad changes the deal. He orders Ahab to let his soldiers pillage the city. Now, surrendering his money and his family is OK with Ahab, but surrendering his favorite stuff went just too dern far! Ahab ends the parleigh saying, "Let not one who puts on [as in donning armor for battle] boast like the one who takes [as in removing armor after successful battle]." In other words, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

The king had put his foot in it. As shown in verse 14, he had no idea how he would defend against Ben-Hadad. God sends a prophet to Ahab to tell him that God will deliver the enemy into his hand, that Ahab may know that God is God.

At the prophet's direction, Ahab musters his little army of 7,000 men and marches out of the city to face Ben-Hadad's army of over 127,000. (How do I get that number? Ben-Hadad returned the following year with an equal number (vs. 24-25). More on that, later.)

In this battle, every Israelite "killed his man," so that's at least 7,000 Syrian foot soldiers. Then Ahab led an attack against Ben-Hadad's chariots, "and killed the Syrians with a great slaughter." Ben-Hadad and his army flee.

Things start to look up for Ahab. God fights on his side. Maybe he will start turning to God.

After the first battle, the prophet warns Ahab, get ready because they'll be back! Sure enough, spring comes and the prophecy holds true. Ben-Hadad returns, but with a new strategy.

The Syrian tacticians decide that the loss happened because God is a hillbilly. That's what you get when your tacticians worship heathen gods. Actually, chariots don't work well in hills country like that around Ahab's capital, and Israel's capitol gives them the high ground, so moving the battle to a plain makes a lot of sense. Once again, Ben-Hadad has vastly overwhelming numerical superiority. Enjoy the word picture:

Now the children of Israel encamped before them like two little flocks of goats, while the Syrians filled the counrtyside.

Military (or religious) tactics and numerical superiority do not stop God, however. A prophet tells Ahab,

Thus says the LORD: Because the Syrians have said, "The LORD is God of the hills, but He is not God of the valleys," therefore I will deliver all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am the LORD.

The battle begins. The little army of Israel kills 100,000 foot soldiers (vs. 29), the rest flee, and God kills another 27,000 in an "accident" (vs. 30). That's where I got the 127,000 for the first battle.

Ahab has seen miracle after miracle. Do you think maybe this trip from doom to miraculous victory would crack open Ahab's heart? Not a chance. When Israel captures Ben-Hadad, he and Uncle Ahab call each other "brother" and make a treaty. 127,000 men dead and they just walk away.

God hates false religions and false gods to which people give honor that belongs to Him alone. False gods keep people condemned and separated from God. God delivers into Ahab's hands the ruler of a region that God had once given to Israel, a man that oppresses Israel, a man with the conceit to call himself the son of a god, a man who insults God... and Ahab lets him go.

A prophet calls him on it, saying,

Thus says the LORD: Because you have let slip out of your hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people.

God signed Ben-Hadad's death warrant and Ahab failed to execute the sentence. Doing so, Ahab signed his own death warrant.

Of all the lessons in I Kings 20, this one stands out to me tonight: One day, our judges, the politicians who appointed them -- and the people who elected the politicians -- will answer to God for the murderers, rapists, and traitors they allowed to live and even released to repeat their crimes. The jurisdiction to exact justice lies with God, not us. But, whether in this life or in the next, they will pay.

Copyright Richard Wheeler 2010. Permission granted for personal or non-profit use.

Review: How Should A Christian Live

I really should stop reviewing books and devotionals aimed at younger audiences. "How Should A Christian Live," a devotional for teenagers, is yet another example of an easy to understand yet lacking in depth read. Even as a teenager, I longed for something deeper than this. Maybe I'm alone in that, but I've always thought that Christians, no matter how young or old, should desire the deepest possible relationship with God. Plus, is the Bible really meant to be entirely easy to understand? Isn't that why we have the Holy Spirit to help us understand?

Anyway, back to my review. "How Should A Christian Live" has some great material, although entirely cliche material that I've heard many times before. It's organized with short sections within sections including definitions, Get It, Grab It, Hold It, Live It, and Give It, as well as several word games that are there just for fun. I suppose the games would hold a younger person's attention and get them to actually read some verses, but the games seemed pointless, boring, and easy to me. The devotional also includes a CD with select scripture readings on it. Unfortunately, my copy wouldn't work (there goes another star in my rating).

So, overall, this devotional makes a good read for its targeted younger audience, excluding a younger me. I'll give it 3 out of 5 stars for that.

I received a free copy of this book from BookSneeze.com in exchange for my honest review.

Review: Chronological Guide to the Bible

True to its title, "Chronological Guide to the Bible" goes through Biblical events in chronological order, providing historical insight and background. Unfortunately, rearranging things to fit a historical order makes for a confusing format. The book's cover claims it "works with any translation," but with its confusing format and lack of organization, readers will find it difficult to look up the many suggested passages or navigate their way through the book when looking for specific events.

Divided into nine epochs, the book includes book summaries and outlines, time lines, maps, reading guides, and random side bars (if you can even call them that). Colored pictures and informational facts make the read a bit easier, but the overall layout is too random and has too much white space.

That said, "Chronological Guide to the Bible" still makes an interesting reference book if the reader is willing to wade into the book and find its hidden gems. If the reader has time, he may also read the book straight through, which allows the book to flow more easily.


I received a free copy of this book from BookSneeze.com in return for my honest review.

Review: "Kaleidoscope" by Patsy Clairmont

Leave it to Patsy Clairmont to create a book with a cover as cute as she is, a length as tiny as she is, and chapters as short as she is.

Beautiful cover and all, Kaleidoscope fails to connect. Chapters, each based on a single verse from Proverbs, come across as devotional stories. While one or two chapters may hit individual readers hard, most readers will have to either dig deep or read only one chapter per day/week and truly commit to thinking as hard as Winnie the Pooh to get something out of this book.

Mind you, the stories Clairmont tells are delightfully funny, but that doesn’t compensate for lack of depth in the Word. I have yet to read a book by a Women of Faith Speaker that truly dives into God’s Word. Some pointless questions and a few verses to reflect on after each chapter are the closest Clairmont comes to covering readers with the water of the Word of God.

On the bright side, she does bring some clear understanding to a few confusing proverbs, but, as lovely as its cover is, Kaleidoscope does not “find inspiring reflections of the divine that bring clarity to our world.”

*Quote from the book jacket’s description.

Book Summary:

Acclaimed author and Women of Faith speaker Patsy Clairmont causes womens' hearts to leap and their hopes to lift in this quirky, straight-to-the point look at the Proverbs.
Understanding the Christian life and the Bible can be a daunting task. But maybe God didn't mean it to be so hard. In Kaleidoscope of Proverbs, Patsy Clairmont pieces together some powerful messages from God and reveals new facets of beauty, inspiration, and instruction. Written for busy women, Patsy offers brief, powerful chapters that address the key aspects of their lives, hearts, and relationships.
In the Proverbs, God gives us small gems of hope and truth, and in Kaleidoscope of Proverbs, Patsy Clairmont unveils them for readers with her trademark humor and insightful teaching.


* I received a free copy of this book from BookSneeze.com in exchange for my honest review.

The Problem of Emotional Conversions

Biblical Salvation
Evangelist John Nordstrom
AAA Ministries:  Gospel Sowing to Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime

Biblical salvation becomes a reality when three components of the human body become interactively engaged: The mind, the heart, and the will (Romans 6:17). The gospel sower initiates the process of regeneration by delivering the doctrine of salvation into the prospect's intellect. The sower who dares pass beyond his jurisdiction and tries to also manipulate the heart, goes too far. The heart’s inner sanctum, is reserved for God alone. Truth delivered by the sower becomes a hammer in the hand of God, breaking down the fortified walls of the heart (Jeremiah 23:29). The final outcome is man’s will yielding to God’s will. True salvation takes place in the heart, not the intellect. It takes place after God has done his convicting work and not without it. God is the soul winner, not man (1 Corinthians 3:7).

There is nothing a gospel sower can do to cause the prospect to mean business with God.  The sower must focus on giving a correct gospel in an understandable way. The rest is up to God and the individual. When they die, their sincerity is between them and God.

I agree with much in the letter, but not with all. It draws a picture of intellect, heart, and will, to the exclusion of the spirit. This picture shows God pounding on the heart and the will, but ignores God giving life to the spirit and understanding to the intellect. Any Calvinist would offer tons of Scripture references that tear the letter to shreds.  (By the way, in interest of full disclosure, I triangulate somewhere above and between Arminians on my far left and Calvinists on my not-so-far right.)

Before I go on, I should point out that, while God ultimately wins souls, God delegates the privilege and duty of engaging in soul winning to believers. Somewhere, the Old Testament says, "he that wins souls is wise." Soul winning is a partnership between God and his ambassadors -- us. True soul winners give the glory to God and will one day cast their bejeweled crowns before His feet; yet it is God who places those jewels in their crowns and calls them soul winners. Therefore, I'm not following the false modesty of abandoning the term.

People sometimes claim to have had a head conversion without a heart conversion. The letter says that True salvation takes place in the heart, not the intellect.  This is false.  Both the intellect and the heart must be involved -- and the spirit, too. More often, I think, people have heart conversions without head conversions (especially in Charismatic circles). Perhaps legalistic sects such as Catholicism have will conversions without either head or heart conversions. (I'm not sure we should isolate "the will" as a separate function like intellect and heart. I think of it more as a verb -- to will -- resulting from the majority vote of the intellect, the heart, and the spirit.) The letter implies that people can even have head, heart, and will conversions based on the gospel and the emotional appeal of the soul winner, but accomplished without the work of the Spirit. Examples might include Judas in the gospels and Simon the Sorcerer in Acts.

The letter does not imply that an emotional appeal excludes the work of the Spirit. It is possible for God to quicken the sinner's spirit even if the gospel presenter includes an emotional appeal.

What a frustrating idea, that a fraction of those converted through emotional appeals are saved, and the rest are not. Between the intrusion of the world into the church and its saturation with unconverted souls, it becomes no wonder that "Christians" stand so undifferentiated from their neighbors. I must think, however, that all those false conversions represent a great lessening of coals upon those souls' heads and a great preservation of the societies in which they live.

On the other hand, might there be people who whose decision or act of will as a result of emotional appeal lead to greater things? Could the gospel with a God-prepared spirit result in an authentic conversion that lacks devotional energy because the soul winner left the person to cross the threshold alone? If we all did all things because we had the right information and the work of the Spirit upon our spirits, when would we need exhortation, encouragement, and provocation? Why would Paul and John have included such emotional appeals in their epistles? I conclude that the soul winner needs wisdom, caution, and balance (as do we all), since scriptures do not preclude the use of emotional appeal along with the preaching of the gospel.

What disadvantages do we find in false conversions? One is that false converts besmear the name of Christ when they stumble or fall away. The banner held high by remaining true converts ought to restore Christ's honor, but that brings us to the real danger. When false converts wander off, they discourage us. We feel betrayed because we put more trust in each other than we do in God. Sometimes, after times of failure, we question our own conversions because we know that things like what we did have also led to the revelation of others' false conversions. It hurts, especially when you were the person who "led them to the Lord." You wonder what you did wrong when, in truth, false conversions happen regardless of the soul winners' methods.

So we look for reasons why. In some churches that use strong emotional appeals, it's easy to blame the emotional appeal. We might conclude that all emotional appeals are wrong because the work on the heart and the will belong to God. That's an unreasonable extreme. Banning the emotional appeals makes about as much sense as banning the teaching of the gospel. After all, head-without-heart conversions are just as doomed as are heart-without-head conversions; and when false converts fall away, it hurts us just as much either way. What comes next, ban both the attempt to make the gospel plain and the attempt to appeal to the heart?

The first half of the answer lies in the wisdom to find appropriate proportions of intellectual and emotional appeals. At the same time, I'd like to acknowledge that God makes us with unique capacities. Some personalities have no capacity for emotional appeal, and it would be a mistake to force them to conduct altar calls with two dozens verses of Just as I Am at every service. Other personalities have little capacity for intellectual appeal. Let each man serve according to his gifts without rejecting others' gifts.

The second half lies in a wise response when false converts fall away. Some "false" converts are weak or misled believers who will later return, or they are believers whom God will call home prematurely for the preservation of their souls. A soul winner who judges such converts "false" takes on needless disappointment. Our disappointment indicates trust due God but misplaced in man and, even worse, in ourselves. Aside from sanctions prescribed by the Bible, we should leave judgment to God who alone sees our hearts.

Review: Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts

"Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts" makes a great resource for any person with a desire for a deeper study of God's Word. The book, complete with maps, photos, and outlines, would make a great textbook for most Bible courses, especially classes that overview either the Old Testament or Old Testament or classes that focus on the geography of the Bible.

While the reference book doesn't include as much geographic background as it could, it does exactly what it's title promise: It delivers easy-to-understand maps and charts. Each chapter covers a specific book of the Bible and includes resources such as outlines of the book, maps of geographical locations in the book, and information on the author, date, themes, and literary structure of the book. Depending on the book being covered, the chapter may include more details on the book, as well.

The majority of the material appears in the Old Testament sections, so, the book could use some more extensive coverage on New Testament books. Then again, the shorter the book covered, the shorter the coverage. That makes enough sense. Still, while "Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts" provides plenty of simple material that lays the Bible out clearly, it's not a deep theological explanation of books. Its book introductions could come right out of a teen's study Bible. Ultimately, the book makes a great companion for a Bible class or the study of the Bible, but doesn't stand completely on its own. It has its use, but it is much like a lot of other sources on the market.


I received a free copy of this book from BookSneeze.com in exchange for my honest review.

Could NAZI Germany Happen in America?

Ever wonder how a modern, sophisticated, Christian nation could birth the Nazi movement and allow themselves to be led by an Adolf Hitler? Could that ever happen here and now?

-- David Hanneke, Letters, Modesto Bee, 20 Jan. 2010

The Wiemar Republic -- Pre-NAZI Germany -- epitomized the modern, sophisticated nation, but it also epitomized the secular, post-Christian nation.  America follows dangerously close to Germany's footsteps.

Germany rejected Christianity in the mid-1800s, led by "scholars" who elevated materialist philosophy over the Bible. Declaring modern philosophy greater than Divine revelation, they believed the serpent's rhetorical question, "Yea, hath God said?" and ate the apple, planting the seeds that sprang up as the works of Marx, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Catholic and Black Liberation Theologies... and yes, today's leaders of the Democratic Party.

Hitler's personal beliefs were closer to occultism or the New Age movement. Germany's national rejection of Christianity left a hole. Hitler filled that hole by building the NAZI cult upon an abandoned religion, Arianism.

Anyone who calls pre-fascist Germany or Hitler "Christian" has a huge hole in their knowledge of history. Only America's Judeo-Christian core has hindered her descent down the path Germany followed.

America's multicultural population would never accept a racist cult like Hitler's, but we are struggling to resist accepting Nazism's secular, neo-Marxist brother, Progressivism.

Contradiction between John 3:17 and John 9:39

Dec 21, 2009

What do you make of John 9: 35-41?  In lots of other places in the Gospels, Jesus said He has not come into the world to condemn the world but to save the world.  In vs 39 He says for judgement He has come into the world....

The short answer lies in judgment being a process that includes the violation of a law, identification of the violation, indictment, conviction, sentencing, and execution of the sentence.  Christ's first coming served not to condemn the world, but to identify our guilt.  By providing a means of redemption, however, Christ also established a final standard -- faith -- that determines whether we go on to damnation or salvation.

Because the world has violated the Law of God, the world's guilt already condemns it.  God will sentence the world in the final judgment, but Christ did not come into the world to execute conviction and sentencing in His first advent.  Christ came, rather, to announce our state through his words, his actions, and the world's response to Him, so that we might turn to Him for salvation.  While Christ did not come into the world to condemn it, His coming does play a pivotal role in our judgment.

To set up the long answer, let's review Salvation 101.

In John 9:39, Jesus says,

For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 

This seems to contradict John 3:17:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.

The gospel states that God removes us from the darkness and places us into the light when we place our faith in Him and in what He has done for us through His Son.  That requires a context:  Without this good news, all stand condemned before God.  Christ did not need to condemn the world because the world was already condemned.

Natural man responds to The Law -- or to the natural law that, according to Paul, lies within each of us -- in either of two ways.  One group is in a burning building but fail to realize it:  Even if they knew about the fire escape, they see no need to use it.    This self-righteous group misses the point of this law and interprets it as a path to righteousness, missing the unrighteousness that it reveals.  They fail to see themselves in the context of reality, a context that gives the gospel its value to them.

The other group knows that the burning building entraps it, but they have yet to trust and utilize the fire escape.  People in this guilty-conscience group see themselves honestly; they see that they live in condemnation.  Their dilemma provides the context for the gospel.  They accept their condemnation but have not yet taken the next step, consenting to God's provision of salvation.  These people, as Paul argues, stand closer to receiving salvation than does a pious Jew or Christian.

Let's look again at 3:17 with more context:

17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 9:39 (For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind) aligns with 3:18-19.  In order to save us, God must first reveal to us the state of condemnation in which we stand.  For the two groups, we see four results:  Members of the first group, who consider themselves enlightened, either continue in the darkness of self-righteousness or step into the light that reveals their unrighteousness and, as a result, join the second group.  The second group likewise has options either to continue in faithlessness or to trust God for rescue from their condemnation.

Between all these options, Jesus focused narrowly on two results:  Those who cling to self-righteousness continue in condemnation; and those who recognize their condemnation can receive justification.

Between the two passages, we have three closely related Greek words centered on the topic of condemnation:  krima, krino, and krisis.  All have wide ranges of meanings, yet they retain distinctions of judgment, condemning, and verdict.

Krima, used in 9:39, denotes the decision or the process leading to the decision.  The Bible often calls the Old Testament the judgments of the Lord, referring to God's pronouncements concerning sin.  For example, God condemns the unjust balance and a lying tongue.  Moral law is like physical law:  If you try to violate such a law, you will suffer predetermined consequences.  In one case, the enforcement comes from gravity; in another, it comes from God's justice.  Judgment, then, refers more to the substance of the pronouncement.  The verse could be paraphrased,

I am come into this world to reveal man's condition relative to the Law, that the self-righteous might be revealed as spiritually blind and that the humble might receive enlightenment.

Again, this is consistent with with 3:18-19.  The natural man stands condemned not because Christ condemned us, but because we have violated God's Law.  Christ came into the world to shine light on all of us, revealing the dark path of the proud and lighting the path of those who acknowledge their need and consent to the rescue.  God desires to save the world with the result that men see the condemnation under which they stand and turn to the Light for remption.

Krino in 3:17 and 18 denotes the action of convicting or sentencing.  (The possible meanings are wider than that, but the context narrows the meaning down to just this one sense of the word.)  Whereas krima in 9:39 is like a man who has just thrown a hamburger wrapper out the car window and then sees a traffic sign that says, $250 Fine for Littering, krino in 3:17 is the judge issuing the fine. 

The noun krisis (condemnation) appears in 3:19 and refers to the result of the the action, krino (condemn), in 17 and 18.  If we read all four paraphrased verses together, their blending becomes obvious:

17  God sent not his Son into the world to damn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18  He that believes on him is not convicted: but he that believes not is convicted already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19  And this is the conviction, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

39  I am come into this world to reveal man's condition relative to the Law, that the self-righteous might be revealed as spiritually blind and that the humble might receive enlightenment.

 Before concluding, I'd like to toss in an unlikely interpretation of 9:39.  W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words states that the meaning would appear to be, 'for being judged' (as a touchstone for proving men's thoughts and characters)....  If the declension of krisis indicates such, then couldn't the word refer to the speaker rather than to the world?  Look at this fit between 3:16-17 and 9:39 with such an interpretation:

39  I am come into this world to be condemned, that the self-righteous might be revealed as spiritually blind and that the humble might receive enlightenment.
16  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.
17  For God sent not his Son into the world to convict the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

God sent His Son into the world to save the world; He gave His Son to be convicted and sentenced for our sin.  His teaching and actions expose the lost and enlighten the humble so that whosoever -- not just those among some chosen or pious group -- through faith in Him, might be saved from perishing and might have everlasting life.  The commentators I checked did not get this meaning out of 9:39, but in its favor, the Scriptures often have multiple correct meanings (especially in Proverbs), and this interpretation fits beautifully with established doctrine.

I hope I didn't hide the answer in all my verbosity.

New Blog

I've joined forces with my daughter (NYCindividual) to start a new blog called Confab Remarks at http://confabremarks.blogspot.com/. Since I barely ever post on this blog, I will mainly be posting there from now on. I will still post here from time to time, but mainly on Confab Remarks. The new blog will include my comments on blog posts I read on other blogs as well as comments on articles I read. It's a place of discussion and a place to link with other blogs and to network. It's a place to post recommended articles. ETC.

Here's a Description:

Confab: A casual talk; confabulation. To engage in casual talk.

Remark: To say casually, as in making a comment. to note; perceive; observe. comment or mention. a casual or brief expression of thought or opinion.

Welcome to Confab Remarks!!! This blog is where I will post all the blogs I read and my comments on their posts. In a way, it's a tip page. In another way, it's a page for discussion. Please join me in the world of blogging!

What does it mean to be a Christian?

Question posted at http://help.com/post/87698-i-know-that-in-life-you-should-have#myLast
i know that in life you should have one religion and i was wondering…
if you say you are a christianthen what do you think it means to be a christian?

My response:
Christian isn’t something you be. Christian is something you become. The foundation of becoming is critical. I’d say that Christian is defined by Christ; that any other definition has no authority. What we know about Christ comes through the Bible. If you think you believe Christ, then you must believe the Bible because Christ believed the Bible. If you don’t believe the Bible, then you have no Christ to believe except a mythical one. That is, you can’t believe Christ if you have nothing of his to believe. Therefore, you have to decide: Will I believe the Bible, or won’t I? It’s an all-or-nothing proposition.

The reply from vballchik3575 is the only reply so far that comes close to answering your question, and it will do for a starting point. The faith of a child is sufficient for anybody, but becoming requires learning more about your God. That implies learning His perspective, and that causes the number of subjects to explode, but I’ll limit this to a few essentials.

The Bible begins by introducing a Creator with personhood — intelligence, will, emotion, etc. One of the perqs of being Creator is that everything you create is yours; and since God created all things under His own authority, He has absolute, life-and-death rights over all creation — including us. This Person consists of a single God who transcends time and space, mass and energy, yet somehow exists as what we, from within time and space, perceive as multiple Persons. It’s a mind-bender. As the Bible develops its revelation of spiritual things, we learn that there’s a central Father-figure, a Spirit, and a Son-to-be, all of whom claim to be the One God.

The foci of the revelation spell out the identity of the Son: Jesus, son of Mary (and step-son of Joseph) of Nazareth. God, we are told, inhabits the body of Jesus; and as a holy God, Jesus lived a holy, sinless life.

That’s as far as I can go without building the definition of Christian from another angle: That of mankind. Whether one believes in Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden as literal or figurative, it tells us that rather than bowing in total submission to God’s absolute authority, we all fall short, we all rebel. That is the entire meaning of the Ten Commandments. Yes, by keeping them, you can become more like God in a moral sense; but you can never achieve the absolute perfection required to enter the presence of an absolutely holy God. Not only do we fall short by doing wrong, but we also owe it to God to do every right thing that lies in our power to do. If we are indebted to God to do right, then we cannot offer anything that we do as payment for our failings. (If I bring you a cup of sugar that you loaned to me, I can hardly call it a gift to you, can I?) Therefore, the notion of weighing one’s good against one’s evil is misleading and irrelevant. In a hypothetical balance, our evil (and the good that we should have done, but didn’t) in the pan on the left will always outweigh the empty pan on the right.

All of the sacrifices of the Jewish temple system pointed to the terrible consequences of our failure. Even then, they were object lessons and a stopgap solution. The blood of bulls and goats (which ultimately also belong to God, not to us) just doesn’t cut it; indeed, they were symbols that pointed toward a greater sacrifice. That sacrifice was God’s Son; the righteous for the unrighteous; the holy for the defiled.

Now, I have to tag on two things that many churches corrupt. First, Christ, being God, could not be held by death. You have to believe in the resurrection because if there’s no resurrection of Christ from the dead, there can be no new life for us. Second, the gift has to be received as exactly that: a gift. To add other requirements such as church membership, keeping commandments, baptism, or any other thing than simply receiving the gift, then we insult the Giver and fail to receive the gift.

A Christian is someone who believes these foundational ideas, submits to them, and receives the gift. There are plenty of things that give evidence that the conversion was genuine and there are plenty of things to do (or not do) that coincide with becoming, moving toward the goal of being worthy of the name, Christian; but none of those things should be confused with the basics I’ve laid out that define the beginning of the process. And when you recognize the distance between fallen people and the Holy God, you know that it is quite a long process.

I’d like to know the reason for the question.

Salvation

Questions:
On the note of my last question: What do you think is required of salvation? Personally, I think that salvation is aquired only when you accept Christ into your heart as Lord and Savior. It has nothing to do with baptism or good works. However, after you become a Christian, God does call you to be a servant. That can include works. They are what you do to show Christ to others. This ties into my last two conversations when it comes to interpreting the Bible. No, we don't have to interpet the Bible correctly to go to heaven, but does God want us to interpret the Bible? How do we do that? What if we are wrong, or someone else is wrong? There is a child-like faith that Jesus tells us we need to have. How do we keep that child like faith and interpret the Bible at the same time? There is the child like faith, but interpreting the Bible complicates things because so many arguments can be made. So, how do we simplifiy things? Where is the line drawn?

My Response:
I thought I would comment on your questions. I found your questions concerning Bible interpretation interesting. The question of Bible interpretation is going to be a big debate in the future because of post-modern thinking. The issue of the absoluteness of truth is essential in dealing with this question. I'm not sure if you are familiar or not with the different "hermeneutical" systems. (Systems of Bible interpretation) Alas, the bottom line is that there is only one accurate interpretation (God's original intended meaning) and we will spend our lives searching and being students of God's Word to obtain the fulness of that meaning. Furthermore, God's Word was meant to be interpreted literally and normative, that is within the context of the passages surrounding it. (Also known as a "dispensational" approach to Bible interpretation) I would disagree with you on interpretation not being necessary for salvation. How then do we really know what the "all" mean when Romans states that "all have sinned". If interp. is not necessary, how then do we understand the death of Christ being necessary for salvation? We cannot neglect interpretation. Interpretation and faith go hand in hand in the search for God's ultimate meaning to what He wrote. The biggest stumbling block in Bible interpretation is man's presuppositions that he brings to the table because of his sin nature. Good post though with good questions. I have a number of "deeper" thinking posts on my blog if you are interested. PJ Posted 3/1/2006 at 11:19 PM by PastorJames33 - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) By the way, I would agree with you as well on your concept of salvation is by faith alone. We are all sinners and we would ruin heaven if we went there apart from God's grace obtained through faith in the death of Christ. Posted 3/1/2006 at 11:20 PM by PastorJames33 - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) I see what you are saying about interpretation going hand in hand with salvation through Christ, and I do somewhat agree with you. There are other sources of learning about Christ, though. Aren't there other writers and historians who have confirmed the truth of the Bible? Plus there are evangelists telling people who have never read the Bible about Christ, so it seems like there are some who become Christians before reading the Bible. It is essential that you read the Bible, though, to grown in your relationship with Christ. In that essance they go hand in hand, but the original relationship starts when you accept Christ as Savior and Lord. What is your opinion on the original intent of the Bible? "...one accurate interpretation (God's original intended meaning) and we will spend our lives searching and being students of God's Word to obtain the fulness of that meaning. Furthermore, God's Word was meant to be interpreted literally and normative, that is within the context of the passages surrounding it." So how would you interpret the Bible literally in today's world? (For example, regarding women pastors.) Posted 3/1/2006 at 11:42 PM by christianopinions - delete "Hermeneutics" means the set of rules by which we interpret. Most people know the most common rule, that we need to take passages in their context. A common quote goes, "A text without a context is a pretext." The context can always affect the meaning of a passage. It's possible, however, to lift some verses out of their contexts without distorting their meanings. For example, the text following "I permit not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man," explains how it's a matter of the different strenghts and weaknesses of the two sexes, Eve having been deceived by Adam having sinned willingly. Since the reason given has to do with human nature and not with the practices or beliefs of Paul's culture, lifting the verse "out of its context" doesn't change it's meaning. At worst, it make one vulnerable to the accusation of lifting things out of context, which raises a new issue that detracts from the main point. Unfortunately, quoting the entire context would (a) make for a wordier reading that most people don't have patience for, and (b) require one to explain the context and how the context reinforces the plain sense of the verse -- which makes for even greater verbosity. Fewer people realize that different levels of context exist. The neighboring verses provide context, but so do the chapter (as the outline of the book would define it; I'm not referring to the chapter divisions in today's Bibles), the book, the set of books written by the same author, the testament, and the Bible as a whole. Even the culture and history at the time of writing can give context. I hope PJ returns and lists some more rules of interpretation. My pastor when I was in college did a series on hermeneutics for our Bible study, but I only remember a few... inspiration, enlightenment, first mention, complete mention, and of course, context. Posted 3/2/2006 at 3:25 AM by alphadogtucker - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) I believe that someone becomes a christian when they accept Jesus into thier heart, like you said. "For if you confess with your mouth Jesus is God, and believ ein your heart that he is risen from the dea, you will be saved" Works are simply the product of our salvation. If one has no works that point to salvation, the question is did they truly mean it when they became a chritian, which of course on ly they can figure out. If they truly are a christian but have no works, they are probrably already feeling guilty and in turmoil, for the loly spirit will convict them of thier wandering heart. Back to your other question, I believe that women shouldn't be preaachers because they need to submit to the man, and the man needs to be the spiritua head of the family and church. If a woman is Pastor, she becomes the sspiritual head. A pastor is responsible for everyone in the church - the pastor is in spiritual authority over all others in the church, including her husbad and ll the other men in the church. I'm a girl, and I lead devotions to youth girls and children. When I grow a little older, I will teach other adult women - but I will not be in the charge of Men's spirtula needs. I can talk to them, I can give testimonys to them, I can share my faith, but never in the position of pastor. Posted 3/2/2006 at 1:49 PM by ebaben - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) I posted on my site my response to her questions. . .I appreciated them greatly. I think that I will do a major post soon on rules for Bible interp. It's a hot topic today in greater Christendom. It all goes back to: "What is the meaning of is". Anyhow, look under my post on necromancy and spirits. Scroll down to the very bottom to see my response. Alphadog is right, context, context context! It's the key that opens the door to meaning! He is also right about people being lazy and not wanting to think through the verboseness (what a word!) of the greater context, however, it is necessary. Thanks, hope to hear from you all, PJ Posted 3/2/2006 at 3:41 PM by PastorJames33 - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) hey- thanks for the comment- yeah i just wanted to get some more discussion going even though there are already these discussions going on-like your site so i might as well anser some of these question.... about interpretating the scriptures, i like proverbs 2: especially 1-6 even though it's not super-specific basically-studying the scriptures is a good thing. Just be careful- I've heard somewhere that each scripture's interpretation needs to be in harmony with God's four main attributes (love, justice, wisdom, power), and in harmony with itself, every other scripture, the ransom, and the facts and purposes of the bible. I've also heard it's good to try to stufy with a group of people- but i can't recall what scripture that is. those are just some ideas... Posted 3/2/2006 at 4:35 PM by not_afraidto_fall - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) not_afraidto_fall what you said about interpretation needing to be in harmony with God's 4 main attributes makes sense. The question is how do we do that? PastorJames33 and ebaben and alphadogtucker I was wondering how you take things in context. What is literal versus not literal? Back to the women being pastors topic, there are those verses about women keeping in silence and not being allowed in the church. How do you interpret them? One woman I know says that there will always be one man to submit to no matter what you do: God. What do you think of that?

Anonymous response to my response:
In regards to salvation, I have a hard time believing that God would d**n anybody to hell for eternity. I think that this is possibly where purgatory would come into play, since it is a stage before going to heaven where one reflects upon his or her life and is purified before meeting their maker. I dunno . . . I guess I think that there's some good inside everyone, and that since God loves the sinner and hates the sin, maybe He washes away the sins of everyone (even those who have never believed) so that the good in them is all that's left when they reach the pearly gates. Hmmm . . . it's an interesting thought.

Go to http://www.forumforfree.com/viewtopic.php?t=8&mforum=christianopinio for the rest of the debate. The site is full of spam now (so ignore the spam, it just came coming until I decided to leave the site alone) but the old conversations are still there.

Faith or Works?

I got this in an email a long time ago and was wondering what you all think of it.

The Letter
"You have joined a number of my web rings, and you seem to have a desire for Truth. I see that you also began a forum where you discuss opinions on many issues. On the Gate of Eden ( http://GateOfEden.com ) web site you will find one of the most important necessary conditions for seeking the Truth. After all, if the Bible were easy to understand, then everyone would read it and proclaim the same revelation. And it must be recognized that some of the greatest minds have read the scriptures, and they all come away with a different and often conflicting interpretation. And what they fail to understand is the fact that this is by design. You pose the question: "does God want us to interpret the Bible? How do we do that? What if we are wrong, or someone else is wrong? The original teachings of Yeshua and TheWay were purely spiritual -- we are the prodigal sons and daughters -- and we must return to the Edenic Kingdom within us while we are still in the body-vessel. Because a great number of the Gentiles lived a heathen lifestyle and were overburdened by a pagan mindset, they were unable to grasp the spiritual essence of the teachings of TheWay, and they failed to comprehend that the scriptures are the Key of Knowledge that must be turned within self, in order to open the inner "narrow gate" to the Kingdom. In their blindness, they created a dogmatic church than in its idolatry and paganism, became the Synagogue of Satan. The above conditions off the Gate of Eden web site of which I speak is found in the words: There are many other references to the Kingdom as something that a believer must find and manifest in their life. Throughout all of the New Testament it is asserted that if a person is to find the Kingdom, they must free themselves from the things and thinking of this world. Thus, Yeshua taught: "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it" (Matt 13:44-46 NKJ). The Kingdom of God being within us, is indeed the treasure that is hidden in the field of our body/mind. And the Kingdom can only be found by those who are "...seeking beautiful pearls" and are prepared to sell all that they have in this world in order to acquire it. This inner reality is further portrayed in the words of Yeshua where he taught: "Another parable He put forth to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?' But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 'Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn'" (Matt 13:24-30 NKJ). Thus, Yeshua came and taught men how to live and seek the Kingdom within -- but the devil created the false doctrines that men are saved by belief without producing a good crop of fruit. There is nothing in the scriptures that even remotely suggests that we can live in the manner of the unbelievers and heathen as cultural Christians attempt to do today, and expect to inherit the Kingdom. Further, Yeshua did not teach that man is saved by proclaiming belief without a total change of mind in conjunction with the manner that the disciple lived their life. One of the truly prime examples of this fact is seen where the English translation of the scripture says: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2 NAS). The meaning of the original Greek, which literally means to “change the mind”, conveys a message of great depth that is not apparent in our English translations today. To phrase the thought that is being expressed, the true meaning is to “Open and unloose the mind, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. This is truly important for the person of faith to come to terms with -- for it is the beginning of The Way. When we begin to put these words into their proper context with respect to the Kingdom within (Luke 17:20-21), then we can see that the Gate of Eden which in the New Testament is portrayed as the "narrow gate", can only be entered by unloosing the mind from the anchor of the doctrines and thinking of men -- opening the mind to the inner reality of the Kingdom -- and this can only be accomplished by living one's life in strict accord with the Commandments and Teachings of Yeshua and TheWay. Most believers of the simple faith will immediately reject the above, because they think in a group consensus mode -- i.e., believers are saved by faith. But because they have embraced the doctrines of men, they fail to understand salvation within the reality of the journey of the soul. Yeshua warned that while many are called, only a very few are chosen. But to even begin to understand this reality, and the Mysteries of God, you will have to unloose you mind from the limitations of the doctrines of men, and open your mind to the inner Kingdom which is at hand.
Allan http://Ebionite.com"

My Response
Old Testament salvation came through faith just as New Testament salvation does. Paul wrote that the Law was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, for through the law we learn of our inability to earn salvation through any merit of our own. Even the Jews, Paul wrote, find themselves condemned by God's perfect Law. The points of the Law concerning sacrifices provided a temporary covering for our sin, but only the sacrifice of God the Son can completely wash away our sin. If I understand Allan correctly... well, as the doctors say, the following may sting a little. Sorry, but it's necessary. Allan's logic makes more leaps than an equestrian in a steeplechase! He certainly has a way of splicing things together to make his points. For example, he extensively quotes the parable of the tares, which explains why Christ didn't judge the world and separate the believers from the unbelievers during His first coming. Allan, however, violently twists it into a lesson about fruitful living and rejecting the doctrines of men. As another example, he correctly cites that the Greek word translated "repent" means to change the mind, but then, without citing any authority, turns "change" into "open and unloose." Allan's biggest error concerns believing that the Kingdom of God lies within everyone. When Jesus said that, He referred to the nature of the Kingdom, not to it's location. The Kingdom cannot lie within those who are dead (Paul), who are children of the devil (Jesus), who live in rebellion against the righteousness of God. Allan demonstrates a rejection of God's holiness when he claims that he can find sufficient righteousness within himself; that is, when he links human works to salvation. God's gift is righteousness sufficient for salvation, not the ability to achieve enough righteousness to justify us. Christ purchased our justification -- the declaration of righteousness -- through His work on the cross. It is a price that we, the destitute, cannot pay. The Pharisees indeed needed to "open and unloose" their minds from the shackles of legalism, but ironically, so does Allan: The "doctrines of men" against which Allan argues were those rules the Jews made to ensure adherance to the Law -- that is, to ensure achievement of salvation by works. When refering to the "doctrines of men," Jesus was preaching grace, not works! In inadvertent hypocrisy, then, while condemning the "doctrines of men," Allan alligns himself with the very same error, legalism. Sophism is the practice of assembling arguments that sound convincing but actually have major faults. Allan is a sophist. He majors on the Gospels and perhaps on James, but seems completely ignorant of Johannine, Pauline, or Petrine doctrine. Such an emphasis on the bridge period between the Old Testament puzzle and its New Testament solution misleads many into an inordinate dependence on works and accompanying lack of dependence on God. Allan's words indicate that he has yet to receive the gift of God as just that -- a gift. While I do not judge him, he gives strong indication that he yet lies in the same condemnation into which we all are born. If my words are blunt, so be it; that's the only way I know how to communicate: openly, truthfully, and vividly. But my heart weighs heavily for Allan and for all who have yet to escape eternal error.

Having an Open Mind

http://harmoniousglow.blogspot.com/2007/06/person-who-does-not-know-what-they_19.html

MightyMorgan said...
Hi I just wanted to comment on the back and forth thinghy you had going on here. I will only speak for myself..but in that I speak for many other people that have searched for answers but never found them in the conventional teachings of the bible.The one thing that is so important to remember is that certain things speak to certain people.For me the bible didn't cut it. I could not relate it to the reality of my own humanity, it just didn't make sense.For years I struggled with the concept of God or a higher power. Because it was sort of laid out that religons in general seemed to have "exclusive" rights to God.I had to take my own journey through life, re-define what kind of a God I wanted..and ultimatly the Loving and caring higher power I choose to call God came into my life.It's easy to tell people what they should or should not do. To ask them to be what we want. But in the end it just keeps us all seperated from each other.Some people don't buy into the whole bible thing..and thats ok for them...always remember in any sitaution ask yourself....What would God do...preach or just love.
July 7, 2007 7:34 PM

My reply:
I believe in objective truth. From the late 1930's to 1945, Germans followed leaders who exterminated millions of people for having Hebrew, Christian Gypsy, homosexual, or genetic anomalies. Our knowledge of history is subject to distortion, error, mystery, or correction, but history itself does not change. I can pick and choose my interpretation of history, and I can even choose to deceive myself through selective acceptance of the facts; but what I believe does not affect the past.

The search for God resembles the investigation of history. If a transcendent, personal God exists, then God exists as an objective truth. What I pick and choose to believe doesn't affect God's attributes. We should search, therefore, not for an imaginary god who fits our specifications, but for the God Who Is. For example, do we imagine a "loving" god who lacks holiness? Do we imagine a merciful god who ignores justice? Or do we conjure a god who can function as a personal magician-in-the-sky, yet cannot create the Earth, life, and mankind? Doing so, we would betray ourselves as surely as would the leader of the worst counterfeit cult. We must follow the trail through whatever ground it leads, not just to whatever appeals to us. So the first ingredient in a search for God must be honesty, a willingness to submit to the truth, however unappealing it might be to us.

The comparison of investigating history to searching for God fails, however, where the heart comes into play. MightyMorgan correctly sought a personal connection. What good does a commitment to a religion do if the commitment exists only on an intellectual plane? Paul referred to such a losers when he said "knowledge puffs up;" it inflates the ego by giving a sense of accomplishment or the pride of acquisition; but it has no positive value. Practical religion must apply to life, to one's heart. The search becomes, ultimately, a search for a relationship. At the least, we seek an example to follow; at best, we seek a loving Provider-protector with Whom we can interact. Unfortunately, love and protection both require instruction and correction. Submission to truths whose basis we fail to grasp returns as a barrier. Just as we must submit to the truth, we must submit to instruction, correction, and even commission, if we seek a personal, relevant God with any integrity. The kingdom of heaven, to put it another way, is not a democracy; it is a family whose Leader has the right to train and to give assignments according to His own grand purpose.

"[C]ertain things speak to certain people." Indeed. As an English-speaking resident of Mexifornia, I've learned that you can speak to people only if they know your language. The literary approach of the Bible doesn't all come naturally to our Western mind set. The accumulation of knowledge about the biblical God's attributes took millennia. Only a few people who diligently seek God encounter Him; many of those people wait a lifetime for their encounters, and for others, one or two encounters have to last them a lifetime. Despite this, though all the silence, an undercurrent exists, God quietly moving mankind toward a great reconciliation. The New Testament reveals how some of the driest details of the Old Testament reveal that quiet evidence of God's involvement. God's language consists more often of action than of ideas.

Learning any language takes persistence. My daughter studied French, but it had no relevance to her and she has lost the skills she had learned. Soon, she will study Spanish, which has relevance in Mexifornia; but if she does not accept that relevance or does not diligently apply herself to its study, it, too, will fail to become part of her life. Her attitude does not diminish the value of learning Spanish when she lives in a state that Latinos will dominate within a few decades. Failure to see something's relevance does not render it irrelevant; but it can render one deaf.

Just as importantly, as a father and husband, I've also leaned one lesson that saturates the Old Testament: You can speak to people only if they listen. More precisely, people will benefit from your speech only if they listen. Again, failure to submit one's time and attention forms the primary barrier. Many non-Christians have accused me of being "closed-minded;" but in actuality, as a self-sufficient agnostic, I had to open my mind to become a Christian.

The subject of open minds brings me to a final point. Calvinistic faith holds that we do not open our own minds. Rather, God's Holy Spirit illuminates our minds. Spiritual things, Paul says, are spiritually discerned; and to the natural mind, they are foolishness. Even mature, experienced Christians appeal to God for understanding before reading the Scriptures.

The bottom line: For anyone seeking relevance in the Bible, persistence, willingness to submit to whatever one finds, and diligent appeals for enlightenment from God are essential tools to finding the relevance of the Bible, and to finding that elusive personal relationship with God.

Of course, it helps to have somebody provide the introductions.