I had gotten up at about 11:30 last night and this morning wanted to go to church. I walked down the brick streets of Tyler to the First Baptist Church, one of Tyler's oldest congregations. The service began with the singing of three hymns, including Majesty and one other I forget and one which I was not familiar with. Then the pastor took the stage and pointed out that the organist was not present this morning. Unfortunately, his mother passed away last week. But despite this man's loss, he said "It is well with my soul." The story behind the song, written by Horatio Spafford, is incredibly moving (and I will make a post on this in time). Then the church sang the beloved hymn and it brought tears of joy to my eyes.
The subject of the sermon this morning was on sin. I was not prepared for the Calvinistic self-wallowing yet hopeful (in a most delusional sense) message. I was afraid at the introduction that it would be a presentation spoken in the common tongue, rather than the theological. I was mistaken because at the outset the pastor felt it necessary to make an observation on the Logos teaching of John chapter 1. His view was decidedly the Trinitarianist view of the matter, which was discouraging in that he had not advocated for my view. Indeed, I was the first theologian in a period of 1950 years to present this view of the Logos which you can find in one of my earlier entries on Trinitarianism. Because of that, I had no hopes of hearing him or anyone else share my view as I was the only one who taught it since the very earliest time. For that matter, I didn't expect to hear anyone's view of the Logos when I set out for church this morning and for that matter, I have no idea why he had to bring it up as it apparently had nothing to do with anything.
My hope that there would be a nod to theological matters turned to despair when I discovered I was sitting in a Baptist denomination, Trinitarian at that, and we know the Baptists never took pride in education, or evangelism for that matter. Instead, they let the good old Calvin rod and reel be cast out into the deep, drawing in sinners then roasting them on good old hellfire.
The reading began with Romans 3, which is immediately a red flag to me, as I have found that many churches skip over the words of Christ and are quick to get into Paul, you know, the fun stuff. Paul took it upon himself to advocate for many errors in this one chapter which I simply could not be any less familiar with until today because his writing to me is as a noxious fume and I'd prefer not to read it at all.
(This is the passage that the Baptists sing from, "There's not a friend like the lowly Jesus. No not one, no not one!")
Paul's historical blundering of the Psalms where he says, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one," was a purely self-serving reading of the text. Paul is here saying that we are all warped and without any redeeming feature whatsoever. What the text in fact says is not even close to what Paul claims and read within context (it opens with the phrase, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God) and that among those fools not one of them is righteous, very different from what Paul is saying. Paul resorts to deceit to further his own theological views and slanders the words of David.
(Yet the Bible says that Noah, Job, and Daniel were righteous men [Ezekiel 14:14]. How can this be when the so-called greatest apostle says that is impossible, he said so himself?)
Paul continues making his bed, which history will affirm he lies in to this day, by furthering other absurd beliefs that resulted in the Baptist pastor going forward with these following points:
The Law isn't meant to be obeyed (classic Paulinist thought), it's just there to show how crooked we are and how separated from God we are.
We can't obey the ten commandments. In fact, we don't break them, they break us. (Laughable, if it weren't sad. They don't claim to obey even the most basic commandments. Calvinistically speaking, they offer no explanation, only predestination and unconditional election.)
The rest of it that I suggested I would tell you are not even so relevant as to have taken my time and God's time this morning to even hear.
My humble observation on these matters is that this daemon Calvinist god is so evil that he has given us a whole variety of commandments just to see us fail, knowing that we have no chance of obeying even the most simple commands because we're the greatest most warped sinners, and he lives to rub it in our face, kills his son because he was out of ideas, and by the way, that was after he had his son rub it in our face and say Be ye perfect as my father is perfect, yet the whole time he is laughing at us because he's given us rules that no one could possibly follow and he knows that we can't even obey simple commands, much less be perfect.
Source: John Calvin, and the Baptist pastor speaking this morning.
Does it make any sense to us here today? No and if this were the religion, it would be no religion at all but an exercise in self-aggrandizement and wallowing in your own wickedness.
This was my first Sunday, the Sunday of discouraging Calvinism. But my second Sunday was an Inspiring Arminian one.
_______
I left that church not more than thirty minutes after arriving, before, in my estimation, we had arrived half-way through the sermon. I felt that in my excursion with the sect of Calvin, that I was in strong need of an Arminian take of things for a good refreshing. Fortunately for me in the early 1900s the Methodists had built a church right next to the Baptist church. I know not which was there first but since I was born in the 1980s it would seem to be most irrelevant, although it would tell me whether the Methodist church was built next to the Baptist church, or the Baptist next to the Methodist.
Upon walking into this most historic of buildings into another beautiful sanctuary, I heard the name of Jesus. It was all Jesus I heard. The pastor was animated and passionately speaking in the name of Christ. This pastor has made quite the name for himself as a charismatic speaker, his name coming to me several times, and I was not disappointed in hearing how passionately he spoke of Christ. I had only been to a Methodist service on one other occasion and I felt in both cases that I was but a Lilliputian standing amongst giants. The Methodists are very tall and distinguished people who I suspect are impressed with a necessity to marry only the tallest women, as they are all so tall! In fact, the shortest woman there had the appearance of an old shrew, walking alone with no husband beside her or any indication she even knew anyone there. She must have been 4'8" only on her best day and among people who had been blessed with such strong frames I suspect many without looking down wouldn't know she was there.
I caught about the last fifteen minutes of the service, which I suppose is all I can stomach from even the more decent congregations any more. As I heard the man speak of the power of Christ I thought to myself, this, indeed, is the spirit of prophecy, the testimony of Jesus Christ. It now strikes me as an odd contrast that the
Calvinists would be speaking so passionately about how dead we are in our sins while this Methodist pastor spoke of how Christ is alive and He lives in us! The difference could not be so stark. I have always been more attuned to Wesley's view of Christian perfection than Calvin's total depravity. In every sense of the word, the Baptist sermon was nothing but depraved and the heralding of Christ by the Arminian speaker was perfect!
Towards the end a couple young girls, perhaps about eight years old, in robes, walked from the front of the sanctuary to the back carrying these odd poles with lit candles at the end. (I was standing at the back). When they got to the back of the sanctuary they blew the candles out. The first girl I noticed was of exceptional beauty, she had blond hair, the joy of youth shone upon her, and I stared at her, fascinated with her angelic appearance, having all the splendor of the cherubim. But then as I looked around, I saw that not only was I surrounded by people who were tall by anyone's standard, but I was surrounded by beautiful people! They were astonishing and seemed to come from a different stock.
At the end of the service the old ladies who, dressed in ostentatious clothing, not expensive clothing but distinguished, appeared to me as being a group of very privileged class who I could claim to be nothing but inadequate presenting myself to even in my best clothes.
The stained glass windows, though I didn't take time to view what images they contained, had a special radiating warmth as the eastern sun shone through, beaming a warmth which was comforting on a cool morning such as we had today.
It was here I learned today that the powerful evangelism of John Wesley is what is necessary to free the saints of their Calvinistic stupor. Calvinism is a terrible disease in the church that brings me now even that much more admiration for the ministry of Wesley, not that he combatted it per se, but that despite being surrounded by Anglicans and Presbyterians chose to preach the word of God and go against the Calvinistic heresy.
Though the Calvinist Sunday was a disheartening and discouraging day, Wesley has brought me back to inspiration and here I continue my fight against the blasphemy Calvin preached.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Calvinism, beginning with Perseverance
This is how Calvinism falls. I read a book from the Primitive Baptist church, I think it's also known as Particular Baptist. The book makes a case for Calvinism;s TULIP arrangement and it explains that the subsequent doctrines are predicated on the truth of the prior doctrine. That is, if T, then U. If U, then L. If L, then I, and if I then P. If you don't know what I'm talking about go read up on Calvinist soteriology because I'm not here to hold your hand and walk you through it.
Then, working backwards, if P falls, then Calvinism falls, and this is by Calvinists' own admission.
_______
Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Eternal Security T U L I P
To borrow this formula of Romans 10: If a man confesses his sin (a1) and makes (footnote 1) Christ Lord in his life (a2) by confessing with his mouth,
And he falls away from the faith (footnote 2,3),
Arminianism says he was saved and then turned back to the darkness, And Calvinism states he was never truly saved,
Then Calvinism holds the pleading of the blood (a1) and declaring Christ's Lordship in one's life (a2) insufficient, and therefore His blood.
footnotes
1 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
2 2 Peter 2:20-22 "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and, The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
3 Hebrews 6:4-6 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
________
What it boils down to is this: If it is possible that a man could confess is sins, call upon the name of the Lord and make Christ the center of his life, and for him to still not be saved, because God from some time ago predestinated that man to not be saved, then the Christian religion is totally without merit and it would all be a horrible lie, in my opinion. We would be ruled over by some tyrannical Calvinistic God who has zero compassion or mercy on anyone but lives solely for His own personal gratifications and lust.
I definitely see where the unbelievers are coming from because I would not like that story much either. And many Christians stick by this story which is as much of a turnoff to the faith as anything else.
_________
If perseverance falls, then irresistible grace falls as well. Irresistible grace is the idea that those who He predestined to be saved have no power to reject His free gift, and therefore, they will persevere in that faith.
But if perseverance in wrong, the irresistible grace is wrong too.
If this irresistible grace is wrong, then limited atonement is wrong. Jesus died for those who His father did predestinate and that in order to assure they are saved provides an irresistible grace and that they will persevere. But if perseverance is wrong and irresistible grace is wrong, then limited atonement is wrong.
Unconditional election must fall as well. If the election is assured through no action at all on man's part but only bought at the price of Jesus' shed blood, then there must be an atonement, and it is not a general or universal atonement but limited to those God foresaw it being fit to predestinate. God's election was assured on the basis of the atonement, the atonement was materialized through an irresistible grace and this grace provided the strength to persevere. But because the latter three are false, the former is of no necessity at all.
Total depravity then falls as well (Thanks Jason). Because man is totally depraved, Calvinists say, then there was a need for God to elect some unto Himself, to provide the atonement which because of their depravity they could never attain of themselves, strike them with an irresistible grace so that they couldn't refuse it and give them the strength to persevere.
Man thus became an automaton serving no function of himself but solely at the bidding of predestinating forces which compel him to act in the way preordained. The Fall in the garden was not an emanation of man's free will but God caused Adam tom act and to bring sin into the world. He created the Devil predestinating him to rebel, to fall and to mislead the world including launching the persecutions that resulted in hundreds of millions of death.
All the world's a stage and we are all little marionettes with God pulling our strings.
Better yet, God is very much like I was at about seven when I put my little toys into fights and blew them across the room with my sheer imaginative power and imagined they were all my pawns for my central pleasure.
That is the Calvinist God and if that were true, He would literally have to force you with something as stupid as irresistible grace to follow Him.
Thomas Jefferson had a quote about this. I disagree with him on most of his religious views, but he has some of the most fascinating theological beliefs out of any historical figure. To me his beliefs are the most fascinating. This is what Jefferson said to John Adams on Calvin,
"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his five points is not the God whom you and I adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world, but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin."
Many of Jefferson's words must be read in light of the Enlightenment age in which he lived. His antisupernaturalism was common in that day and it lead him to compose his own Bible, the Jefferson Bible. He was a man of deep conviction who believed in an undying devotion to proclaiming the truth, though some of what he preached had come down to him in a polluted form. But he was a man of character and integrity who believed in a God of omni-benevolent character, though never quite determining who that God was.
I feel he was right about Calvin. As for the tendency for his soteriology to disintegrate, even if there were some degree of biblical support for his theories they might stand, but lacking that, and no consistent theory on which it may stand, it all falls. I feel it has done Christianity a disservice and I go along with Jefferson in declaring it a blasphemy, though I would prefer the term heresy and agree that the god of Calvin was more akin to one of Satan's kingdom, rather than the Father of Christ. This is the disputation against Calvinism.
Then, working backwards, if P falls, then Calvinism falls, and this is by Calvinists' own admission.
_______
Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Eternal Security T U L I P
To borrow this formula of Romans 10: If a man confesses his sin (a1) and makes (footnote 1) Christ Lord in his life (a2) by confessing with his mouth,
And he falls away from the faith (footnote 2,3),
Arminianism says he was saved and then turned back to the darkness, And Calvinism states he was never truly saved,
Then Calvinism holds the pleading of the blood (a1) and declaring Christ's Lordship in one's life (a2) insufficient, and therefore His blood.
footnotes
1 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
2 2 Peter 2:20-22 "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and, The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
3 Hebrews 6:4-6 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
________
What it boils down to is this: If it is possible that a man could confess is sins, call upon the name of the Lord and make Christ the center of his life, and for him to still not be saved, because God from some time ago predestinated that man to not be saved, then the Christian religion is totally without merit and it would all be a horrible lie, in my opinion. We would be ruled over by some tyrannical Calvinistic God who has zero compassion or mercy on anyone but lives solely for His own personal gratifications and lust.
I definitely see where the unbelievers are coming from because I would not like that story much either. And many Christians stick by this story which is as much of a turnoff to the faith as anything else.
_________
If perseverance falls, then irresistible grace falls as well. Irresistible grace is the idea that those who He predestined to be saved have no power to reject His free gift, and therefore, they will persevere in that faith.
But if perseverance in wrong, the irresistible grace is wrong too.
If this irresistible grace is wrong, then limited atonement is wrong. Jesus died for those who His father did predestinate and that in order to assure they are saved provides an irresistible grace and that they will persevere. But if perseverance is wrong and irresistible grace is wrong, then limited atonement is wrong.
Unconditional election must fall as well. If the election is assured through no action at all on man's part but only bought at the price of Jesus' shed blood, then there must be an atonement, and it is not a general or universal atonement but limited to those God foresaw it being fit to predestinate. God's election was assured on the basis of the atonement, the atonement was materialized through an irresistible grace and this grace provided the strength to persevere. But because the latter three are false, the former is of no necessity at all.
Total depravity then falls as well (Thanks Jason). Because man is totally depraved, Calvinists say, then there was a need for God to elect some unto Himself, to provide the atonement which because of their depravity they could never attain of themselves, strike them with an irresistible grace so that they couldn't refuse it and give them the strength to persevere.
Man thus became an automaton serving no function of himself but solely at the bidding of predestinating forces which compel him to act in the way preordained. The Fall in the garden was not an emanation of man's free will but God caused Adam tom act and to bring sin into the world. He created the Devil predestinating him to rebel, to fall and to mislead the world including launching the persecutions that resulted in hundreds of millions of death.
All the world's a stage and we are all little marionettes with God pulling our strings.
Better yet, God is very much like I was at about seven when I put my little toys into fights and blew them across the room with my sheer imaginative power and imagined they were all my pawns for my central pleasure.
That is the Calvinist God and if that were true, He would literally have to force you with something as stupid as irresistible grace to follow Him.
Thomas Jefferson had a quote about this. I disagree with him on most of his religious views, but he has some of the most fascinating theological beliefs out of any historical figure. To me his beliefs are the most fascinating. This is what Jefferson said to John Adams on Calvin,
"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his five points is not the God whom you and I adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world, but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin."
Many of Jefferson's words must be read in light of the Enlightenment age in which he lived. His antisupernaturalism was common in that day and it lead him to compose his own Bible, the Jefferson Bible. He was a man of deep conviction who believed in an undying devotion to proclaiming the truth, though some of what he preached had come down to him in a polluted form. But he was a man of character and integrity who believed in a God of omni-benevolent character, though never quite determining who that God was.
I feel he was right about Calvin. As for the tendency for his soteriology to disintegrate, even if there were some degree of biblical support for his theories they might stand, but lacking that, and no consistent theory on which it may stand, it all falls. I feel it has done Christianity a disservice and I go along with Jefferson in declaring it a blasphemy, though I would prefer the term heresy and agree that the god of Calvin was more akin to one of Satan's kingdom, rather than the Father of Christ. This is the disputation against Calvinism.
Atheists are right about Hell
I am a Christian but I do not believe in Hell. Many of my "brothers" if that is indeed what they are find this idea to be repulsive. There's nothing repulsive to me about Hell as much as it is unbiblical. The Bible does speak of the Lake of Fire but this must be understood in the vernacular of when it was said. A very grammatical-historical approach I think. Dispensationalists have trademarked this form of interpretation but prefer not to use it when it flies in the face of orthodoxy the same way Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible they agree with.
Grammatical-historically, the lake of fire referred to was Gehenna, a landfill. When it is said in the Bible that the soul goes to Gehenna, or, the Lake of Fire, that is to say the person goes into the ground to rot and become compost. I can use an allusion to demonstrate this: When you throw away your baby diapers and empty Cheeto bags, which Americans are so well-known for since they have a healthy appetite with one head and no responsibility with the other, to borrow and alter a line from Reagan, they go to Hell. They go where the other heaps of trash go and that is it for them. No recycling reincarnation, no heavenly paradise awaits it, simply just a dump. That is what will happen to the souls of the wicked when the end comes.
Jesus said, "...that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Biblically, when read within context, you see that there is no lingering into eternity facing eternal conscious torment. Some have used the phrase conditional immortality which is what it is. If you are of the redeemed, you go on to eternal life. If not, then your life is cut off.
I lean mostly towards anihilationism. John Stott felt that those who hold to the infallible view of Scriptures could sincerely hold to this belief. Anglican theologians have come out in support of anihilationism and it is something that I think we need a frank discussion on, but we won't, because pastors hold to the mistaken belief that it will scare people into going to church. In fact, atheists have a lot to say about this issue.
Atheists argue that at the end of one's life, they go into the ground, they're done, poof, out of here. I've got news for you atheists: You are absolutely correct! You will be out of here, 'from dust thou art and to dust thou will return' [Genesis 3:19]. You will end your last days on this earth and then afterward there will be no more of you. Good riddance I say because some of you are the most awkward people I have ever dealt with, arrogant and way overestimate your own intelligence. You post these stupid little bumper stickers on your car, one of which says, "Come the Rapture We Will Have the World to Ourselves". (I don't believe in a pre-tribulation Rapture either and Christians are waking up to that lie too in my generation). Many of your own thinkers have shed light on why holding to a belief in an afterlife is for people who are too scared to face the reality of death. The atheists are not afraid, they say. Very good for you, good boy, we're happy for you that you're not afraid. Because that is where you're going. Yes, you are going to wind up much like Jimmy Hoffa, probably in a ditch that when Christ returns He will pave over with streets of gold, just like Hoffa allegedly wound up under the George Washington bridge. Many years from now, the beautiful flowers which arise from the compost of your decay will be enjoyed by young girls and boys as they run through the fields, make shapes out of clouds, and play with the animals of the earth, who will all live at peace with one another. Is that something you suggest we should be terrified of? There's nothing terrifying about this vision of the future at all. On the contrary I see yours as being rather bleak.
Voltaire, one of your great philosophers, wrote in Candide that Lady Cunegonde was traded between several men as a slave, finally falling into the hands of Don Issachar the Jew and the Grand Inquisitor. Candide kills Don Issachar and the Inquisitor and Voltaire writes that "His Eminence was buried in a beautiful church, and Issachar was thrown into the garbage dump." That is Hell. Your body will be cast to the ruinous heap and you will be done, just like Don Issachar.
In conclusion, I will end with a couple Bible verses.
Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell."
That is to say in Hell, you die, and you are done. The soul will be killed.
Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death..."
If you die and you are one of the wicked, then you are done and gone.
Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
You also see here, there is no talk of eternal torment. If you die as one of the wicked then you perish, you are dead.
Grammatical-historically, the lake of fire referred to was Gehenna, a landfill. When it is said in the Bible that the soul goes to Gehenna, or, the Lake of Fire, that is to say the person goes into the ground to rot and become compost. I can use an allusion to demonstrate this: When you throw away your baby diapers and empty Cheeto bags, which Americans are so well-known for since they have a healthy appetite with one head and no responsibility with the other, to borrow and alter a line from Reagan, they go to Hell. They go where the other heaps of trash go and that is it for them. No recycling reincarnation, no heavenly paradise awaits it, simply just a dump. That is what will happen to the souls of the wicked when the end comes.
Jesus said, "...that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Biblically, when read within context, you see that there is no lingering into eternity facing eternal conscious torment. Some have used the phrase conditional immortality which is what it is. If you are of the redeemed, you go on to eternal life. If not, then your life is cut off.
I lean mostly towards anihilationism. John Stott felt that those who hold to the infallible view of Scriptures could sincerely hold to this belief. Anglican theologians have come out in support of anihilationism and it is something that I think we need a frank discussion on, but we won't, because pastors hold to the mistaken belief that it will scare people into going to church. In fact, atheists have a lot to say about this issue.
Atheists argue that at the end of one's life, they go into the ground, they're done, poof, out of here. I've got news for you atheists: You are absolutely correct! You will be out of here, 'from dust thou art and to dust thou will return' [Genesis 3:19]. You will end your last days on this earth and then afterward there will be no more of you. Good riddance I say because some of you are the most awkward people I have ever dealt with, arrogant and way overestimate your own intelligence. You post these stupid little bumper stickers on your car, one of which says, "Come the Rapture We Will Have the World to Ourselves". (I don't believe in a pre-tribulation Rapture either and Christians are waking up to that lie too in my generation). Many of your own thinkers have shed light on why holding to a belief in an afterlife is for people who are too scared to face the reality of death. The atheists are not afraid, they say. Very good for you, good boy, we're happy for you that you're not afraid. Because that is where you're going. Yes, you are going to wind up much like Jimmy Hoffa, probably in a ditch that when Christ returns He will pave over with streets of gold, just like Hoffa allegedly wound up under the George Washington bridge. Many years from now, the beautiful flowers which arise from the compost of your decay will be enjoyed by young girls and boys as they run through the fields, make shapes out of clouds, and play with the animals of the earth, who will all live at peace with one another. Is that something you suggest we should be terrified of? There's nothing terrifying about this vision of the future at all. On the contrary I see yours as being rather bleak.
Voltaire, one of your great philosophers, wrote in Candide that Lady Cunegonde was traded between several men as a slave, finally falling into the hands of Don Issachar the Jew and the Grand Inquisitor. Candide kills Don Issachar and the Inquisitor and Voltaire writes that "His Eminence was buried in a beautiful church, and Issachar was thrown into the garbage dump." That is Hell. Your body will be cast to the ruinous heap and you will be done, just like Don Issachar.
In conclusion, I will end with a couple Bible verses.
Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell."
That is to say in Hell, you die, and you are done. The soul will be killed.
Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death..."
If you die and you are one of the wicked, then you are done and gone.
Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
You also see here, there is no talk of eternal torment. If you die as one of the wicked then you perish, you are dead.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Beggars
Tonight, I walked down to the gas station to get a couple packs of cigarettes and then went on to the William's Chicken to get dinner. I started out with $16 but after I paid for my cigarettes and food I was left with about a dollar in change. The point being that as I sat down outside to eat my chicken, a guy walked up and asked me if I smoked weed. I said not since I was a teenager. He then told me that he needed gas in his car to get home. I told him that after my purchases I had only a little change left. I gave him that.
I want to share a few observations on charity. A lot of pastors are nothing but beggars. Many are probably nearly disabled people who couldn't get a job if their wives depended on it. They found out that if they put on a nice suit and said all the right things they could get into a position of authority in a church and get on the payroll while spending most of their days talking on the phone and playing Solitaire. What do you think pastors do in their offices from day to day? I suspect many of them spend an inordinate amount of time playing Solitaire on a computer that they didn't pay for but that the church gave them. Then another good deal of their time while they are in the office is spent chatting on the phone, claiming to be doing "ministry" or "counseling", doing virtually nothing but saying nice things and scraping the bottom of offering buckets. They are beggars and they need the money no more that man tonight needed the money.
Second, so what if the guy went and bought beer or drugs with it when he got enough money? I am not his mother and I can't tell him how to spend his money. The fact is, he said he was trying to get home, I have no control over whether he really did spend it on gas or not.
Look at the pastors. Many of them prefer Rolex to Timex, they prefer business class to coach, they prefer Lexus to Toyota. That's what it comes down to in a lot of cases is one quality of life versus another quality. And when we give money to these men that very few of us actually know, that's what it becomes in a lot of cases. Trade the Timex in for the Rolex, and the pastor sure will look sharp on Sunday.
Then look at those professional beggars, the Salvation Army. They come out near Thanksgiving, stay right up until Christmas begging outside the stores. Then they don't even have a large number of workers, most people will come in and give their time for free. They are beggars, just like the pastors, pretending they're doing the world a service.
Then other beggars are getting hauled off to jail or being escorted out of parking lots. Society needs to confront its hypocrisy on beggary. If I dress up in a nice suit Sundays and I say nice things can I get free things too? Of course I wouldn't do that because it would be beneath my integrity to do such things.
I gave money to a beggar, and I was just following the command Jesus gave. If anyone asks for your cloak, give him your tunic as well. I think He would also like for us to give a little money to a guy who doesn't have any gas so he can get home for the night. And if he bought beer? So what, the Bible days everyone drank. Or cigarettes? Nicotine is a serious addiction, if he bought cigarettes I wouldn't care either. The fact is I must do what Yeshua commands, period.
In my town in November, we had a proposition on the ballot (Proposition 2) to approve alcohol sales in the city. I'd rather give me money to a guy who's going to go buy a beer with it than give it to a pastor who's going to go home and have a glass of wine and go to church and put up a sign that says to vote against Proposition 2.
I want to share a few observations on charity. A lot of pastors are nothing but beggars. Many are probably nearly disabled people who couldn't get a job if their wives depended on it. They found out that if they put on a nice suit and said all the right things they could get into a position of authority in a church and get on the payroll while spending most of their days talking on the phone and playing Solitaire. What do you think pastors do in their offices from day to day? I suspect many of them spend an inordinate amount of time playing Solitaire on a computer that they didn't pay for but that the church gave them. Then another good deal of their time while they are in the office is spent chatting on the phone, claiming to be doing "ministry" or "counseling", doing virtually nothing but saying nice things and scraping the bottom of offering buckets. They are beggars and they need the money no more that man tonight needed the money.
Second, so what if the guy went and bought beer or drugs with it when he got enough money? I am not his mother and I can't tell him how to spend his money. The fact is, he said he was trying to get home, I have no control over whether he really did spend it on gas or not.
Look at the pastors. Many of them prefer Rolex to Timex, they prefer business class to coach, they prefer Lexus to Toyota. That's what it comes down to in a lot of cases is one quality of life versus another quality. And when we give money to these men that very few of us actually know, that's what it becomes in a lot of cases. Trade the Timex in for the Rolex, and the pastor sure will look sharp on Sunday.
Then look at those professional beggars, the Salvation Army. They come out near Thanksgiving, stay right up until Christmas begging outside the stores. Then they don't even have a large number of workers, most people will come in and give their time for free. They are beggars, just like the pastors, pretending they're doing the world a service.
Then other beggars are getting hauled off to jail or being escorted out of parking lots. Society needs to confront its hypocrisy on beggary. If I dress up in a nice suit Sundays and I say nice things can I get free things too? Of course I wouldn't do that because it would be beneath my integrity to do such things.
I gave money to a beggar, and I was just following the command Jesus gave. If anyone asks for your cloak, give him your tunic as well. I think He would also like for us to give a little money to a guy who doesn't have any gas so he can get home for the night. And if he bought beer? So what, the Bible days everyone drank. Or cigarettes? Nicotine is a serious addiction, if he bought cigarettes I wouldn't care either. The fact is I must do what Yeshua commands, period.
In my town in November, we had a proposition on the ballot (Proposition 2) to approve alcohol sales in the city. I'd rather give me money to a guy who's going to go buy a beer with it than give it to a pastor who's going to go home and have a glass of wine and go to church and put up a sign that says to vote against Proposition 2.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Baptism and the UPC
I met with a couple tonight who are members of the United Pentecostal church. Tne subject was going to be the proper baptism formula where the UPC claims baptism in Jesus' name is biblical whereas other groups claim that baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in accordance with Matthew 28:19 is the correct way. I can't stress to you how skeptical I was simply because I have always been a part of churches which did it the tradition (i.e. non-UPC way). I felt that because Paul's teachings are of a dubious nature that it was no point for them to show that Paul had used this, which he did at Acts 19, where we see at verse 5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
What I needed to see was that this was the practice, not Paul's but the church's. They showed me that Peter also used this formula. Peter, speaking to Cornelius and his household commanded "...them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
So it became apparent that what the disciples understood from the Great Commission was much different than what we understand. There were also several other verses quoted to support their notion.
What struck me here was it's Pre-Catholic implications.
The packet that was printed for me held a few quotations.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 ed., vol. 3, page 365-66, "The baptism formula was changed from the name Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the second century by the Catholic church."
Caney Encyclopedia of Religion, pg. 53, "The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the second century."
Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 2 page 263 line 7 acknowledges the Catholic church changed the baptism formula.
As I spoke of earlier, the role of a Unitarian understanding of the nature of God, in opposition to the Trinity doctrine, must be stressed in any discussion of Pre-Catholic faith.
It appears to me now, after this Bible study conducted by a couple from the United Pentecostal church, the current understanding of the Great Commission has been undermined by a propagation of the trinitarian doctrine, and has politely crept in as of 1800+ years ago as a manifestation of the Christian obsession with Triunity. However, if the disciples had an understanding of the command to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, contrary to our own, as a cursory examination shows they did, then this has implications for the doctrine of the Trinity, and the material also provides a motivation for the Catholics to alter the formula in order to posit an unquestionable support for their view, as a reading of Matthew 28 provides no reason to think it is being done incorrectly. It is therefore a Catholic relic in the Protestant churches that has no role in a pre-Catholic system.
I cannot say that I am now against the traditional formula due to my liberal view of unity and diplomacy between churches. However, I now accept the Oneness Pentecostal view as valid.
What I needed to see was that this was the practice, not Paul's but the church's. They showed me that Peter also used this formula. Peter, speaking to Cornelius and his household commanded "...them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
So it became apparent that what the disciples understood from the Great Commission was much different than what we understand. There were also several other verses quoted to support their notion.
What struck me here was it's Pre-Catholic implications.
The packet that was printed for me held a few quotations.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 ed., vol. 3, page 365-66, "The baptism formula was changed from the name Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the second century by the Catholic church."
Caney Encyclopedia of Religion, pg. 53, "The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the second century."
Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 2 page 263 line 7 acknowledges the Catholic church changed the baptism formula.
As I spoke of earlier, the role of a Unitarian understanding of the nature of God, in opposition to the Trinity doctrine, must be stressed in any discussion of Pre-Catholic faith.
It appears to me now, after this Bible study conducted by a couple from the United Pentecostal church, the current understanding of the Great Commission has been undermined by a propagation of the trinitarian doctrine, and has politely crept in as of 1800+ years ago as a manifestation of the Christian obsession with Triunity. However, if the disciples had an understanding of the command to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, contrary to our own, as a cursory examination shows they did, then this has implications for the doctrine of the Trinity, and the material also provides a motivation for the Catholics to alter the formula in order to posit an unquestionable support for their view, as a reading of Matthew 28 provides no reason to think it is being done incorrectly. It is therefore a Catholic relic in the Protestant churches that has no role in a pre-Catholic system.
I cannot say that I am now against the traditional formula due to my liberal view of unity and diplomacy between churches. However, I now accept the Oneness Pentecostal view as valid.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Followers of the Way
"And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God."
There are a couple things I must share with you. The first pertains to the 144,000. God I believe started placing it in my heart as of last year that I am one of them. So the message I bring today is going to be unconventional, and perhaps to some, controversial. What I am here to tell you today is that we are no liars. We don't resort to deceit to accomplish our objectives. We are, in fact, followers of the Truth.
Here, some will take major objection, saying, "Isn't this an objectivist philosophy? Aren't you advocating for a rationalism, an empiricism, and the scientific method by saying that you are serving the Truth? Christians serve Christ alone!"
But before we go any further I must tell you that our Lord is "the Way, and the Truth, and the Life." We, as servants of truth are serving not any truth, not our version of it, but we serve the Truth, the Christ. We abhor those who lie to our faces, who use treachery and deceit, namely guile, to confuse or mislead us. We know no method of lying unless the Truth is a lie, and Paul says how vain that Truth is, if the resurrection did not occur. The greatest hoax on mankind if we are not right some have said. So, yes, the 144,000 are sworn to tell the Truth and nothing but the Truth.
But then the reality the world is faced with is that of the Truth, we also confront, that we tell. Our words do not appease, and to the extent that we harm ourselves in recounting our actions, we do great harm to ourselves. If I am telling you of, for instance, what took place Thursday night, I am bound and sworn to report faithfully the facts, no matter the conclusions you may draw from that about me as a person, but I must tell faithfully. This of course opens one up to much criticism and in many cases, unwarranted criticism. But that is a thing we must face, as we know no recollection but the Truth, and we tell it, no matter the harm it causes us.
"Christian" is a lie.
Our hypothetical critic warns us that, "Christians serve Christ alone [not the 'truth']!"
I even dispute this, because simply, Christians for the most part are not Christians. "Christian" itself has the meaning "Christ-like" and because of our state of fallenness most who use the name Christian for ourselves are speaking falsely of our name. We are not Christ-like as we cannot attain the perfect state of Christ on this earth. For the sake of religion, and for weak-minded brethren, I identify myself as a Christian. But for the sake of philosophy and being technically precise, I choose to identify myself as a follower of the Way.
But then there are those who object to this distinction, perhaps on the suspicion that those who speak in these terms might be cultists or babblers like the pagans were in Yeshua's day.
But here I must tell you, I am not fit to be called Christ-like. But I can in my weakness, be a follower of the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So my calling as one of the 144,000 is to be a follower of the Truth, and as a Christian, to simply be a follower of the Way.
I follow the Way, not my way, your way, or one other variation of ways, but the only Way there is! I am a follower of the Way.
Also remember that the earliest Christians in Acts, prior to being called Christians were simply called followers of the Way, because that is what we are, followers of the Way, the Christ.
____________
An aspect of prophets that is a variation of the 144,000. While the latter are followers of the Truth, and will speak that Truth even at the risk of people criticising them or at the risk of harm to themselves, prophets do this but do one other thing as well. If an event took place that would tend to make the prophet look bad, then that prophet as a follower of the Truth must tell the facts as they occurred, even at great risk to himself. But in it, the prophet is called to glorify God in the midst of humility. He not only brings himself down but he uplifts God in that.
____________
Speaking as to the prophetic ministry of the 144,000, they will find a balance that the prophetic ministry offers, is that in the midst of humbling oneself, he glorifies God and God alone. The perfect debasement of the prophet is where the full honor of God shines forth.
____________
And finally, we serve the Life because when we once learned that we die to ourselves, as Christ died for us, then we learned that Christ is given life in spirit, not here physically with us as He has ascended already, but dwells in us, convicting us to live the life He would have us live.
Therefore, we are dead to ourselves. We live no longer according to our day planners or our amibitions, but perfectly submitted to how God would have us live.
We are followers of the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Many people who call themselves Christians are just simply not. They do not speak truth and only the truth. They prefer to speak it when it is convenient, then shy away from it when it becomes uncomfortable. They mislead others by telling them of false ways that are not the Way, and they live lives not in devotion to the Life but out of their own lust and desire, their own day planners and ambitions.
They simply are not Christ-like. We must recognize therefore that we are on the straight and narrow path together, trying to reach that most perfect Way to the best of our ability, and we are not Christ-like yet, until we have taken on our glorified bodies and shed this wicked temporal flesh. Then we will truly be Christians, God's people, and we will know Him most deeply.
There are a couple things I must share with you. The first pertains to the 144,000. God I believe started placing it in my heart as of last year that I am one of them. So the message I bring today is going to be unconventional, and perhaps to some, controversial. What I am here to tell you today is that we are no liars. We don't resort to deceit to accomplish our objectives. We are, in fact, followers of the Truth.
Here, some will take major objection, saying, "Isn't this an objectivist philosophy? Aren't you advocating for a rationalism, an empiricism, and the scientific method by saying that you are serving the Truth? Christians serve Christ alone!"
But before we go any further I must tell you that our Lord is "the Way, and the Truth, and the Life." We, as servants of truth are serving not any truth, not our version of it, but we serve the Truth, the Christ. We abhor those who lie to our faces, who use treachery and deceit, namely guile, to confuse or mislead us. We know no method of lying unless the Truth is a lie, and Paul says how vain that Truth is, if the resurrection did not occur. The greatest hoax on mankind if we are not right some have said. So, yes, the 144,000 are sworn to tell the Truth and nothing but the Truth.
But then the reality the world is faced with is that of the Truth, we also confront, that we tell. Our words do not appease, and to the extent that we harm ourselves in recounting our actions, we do great harm to ourselves. If I am telling you of, for instance, what took place Thursday night, I am bound and sworn to report faithfully the facts, no matter the conclusions you may draw from that about me as a person, but I must tell faithfully. This of course opens one up to much criticism and in many cases, unwarranted criticism. But that is a thing we must face, as we know no recollection but the Truth, and we tell it, no matter the harm it causes us.
"Christian" is a lie.
Our hypothetical critic warns us that, "Christians serve Christ alone [not the 'truth']!"
I even dispute this, because simply, Christians for the most part are not Christians. "Christian" itself has the meaning "Christ-like" and because of our state of fallenness most who use the name Christian for ourselves are speaking falsely of our name. We are not Christ-like as we cannot attain the perfect state of Christ on this earth. For the sake of religion, and for weak-minded brethren, I identify myself as a Christian. But for the sake of philosophy and being technically precise, I choose to identify myself as a follower of the Way.
But then there are those who object to this distinction, perhaps on the suspicion that those who speak in these terms might be cultists or babblers like the pagans were in Yeshua's day.
But here I must tell you, I am not fit to be called Christ-like. But I can in my weakness, be a follower of the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So my calling as one of the 144,000 is to be a follower of the Truth, and as a Christian, to simply be a follower of the Way.
I follow the Way, not my way, your way, or one other variation of ways, but the only Way there is! I am a follower of the Way.
Also remember that the earliest Christians in Acts, prior to being called Christians were simply called followers of the Way, because that is what we are, followers of the Way, the Christ.
____________
An aspect of prophets that is a variation of the 144,000. While the latter are followers of the Truth, and will speak that Truth even at the risk of people criticising them or at the risk of harm to themselves, prophets do this but do one other thing as well. If an event took place that would tend to make the prophet look bad, then that prophet as a follower of the Truth must tell the facts as they occurred, even at great risk to himself. But in it, the prophet is called to glorify God in the midst of humility. He not only brings himself down but he uplifts God in that.
____________
Speaking as to the prophetic ministry of the 144,000, they will find a balance that the prophetic ministry offers, is that in the midst of humbling oneself, he glorifies God and God alone. The perfect debasement of the prophet is where the full honor of God shines forth.
____________
And finally, we serve the Life because when we once learned that we die to ourselves, as Christ died for us, then we learned that Christ is given life in spirit, not here physically with us as He has ascended already, but dwells in us, convicting us to live the life He would have us live.
Therefore, we are dead to ourselves. We live no longer according to our day planners or our amibitions, but perfectly submitted to how God would have us live.
We are followers of the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Many people who call themselves Christians are just simply not. They do not speak truth and only the truth. They prefer to speak it when it is convenient, then shy away from it when it becomes uncomfortable. They mislead others by telling them of false ways that are not the Way, and they live lives not in devotion to the Life but out of their own lust and desire, their own day planners and ambitions.
They simply are not Christ-like. We must recognize therefore that we are on the straight and narrow path together, trying to reach that most perfect Way to the best of our ability, and we are not Christ-like yet, until we have taken on our glorified bodies and shed this wicked temporal flesh. Then we will truly be Christians, God's people, and we will know Him most deeply.
Perfect Liberty
In the Christian religion, most fall within one of two camps: the legalists and the libertarians. The libertarians teach that no salvation comes from the Law, while the legalists teach that salvation comes from the Law. I reject both as being absurd.
The apostles give us many commands which Christians are to abide by, which negates libertarianism.
Also, the Word teaches us that we are saved by faith in Christ, which negates legalism.
Yeshua said, If you love me then you will obey my commandments.
He also says, "...that whosoever should believe on him should not perish..."
What needs to be seen here is love = believe. If you believe Yeshua, that is, if you love Him, then you will obey Him. Likewise, if you obey Him it is because you love Him. But if you do not obey Him it is because you do not love Him.
Paul calls the Law chains. It is no chain but freedom! Perfect liberty can only be realized in a system of law. Political philosophers have always known this, and God before them knew it all along. The Law is for us and not against us.
Let's look at a few points.
Murder
We do not regret the fact we are not free to kill. We don't levy complaints against God because we are not free in this matter. But it is because society and religion, e.g. law, prevail that we are given our freedom from being killed. We are at liberty in our lives, frankly, because of law.
Sexual relationships
The atheists and skeptics are gravely disappointed that they cannot continue in sexual immorality under a Christian system. The big Party Pooper in the sky they say wants to crash their party and to keep them from having fun.
But we see in theory and in practice that relationships can only prosper at their highest level when we respect our bodies and the bodies' of our respective others. We have longer, happier marriages, greater levels of fulfillment, lower risks of unwanted pregnancies, STDs, poverty, and a lack of education by doing it the way God intended. It is because God loves us so much that He wants us to be fulfilled in our lives, not because He wants to punish us or keep us from having a good time.
Unclean Meats
The Christians in the church mock today and say they are entitled to eating these meats. But God said we were not entitled to yet we do it anyway.
My mother is one who has had allergic reactions to seafood. These foods can be harmful, the toxins and worms they may carry.
God does not punish us in telling us to abstain from pork and other meats! It is because He loves us and wants the best for us.
Imagine for a second that perhaps God, the greatest Geneticist of the universe, foresaw in the genetic code of the Hebrews who He have this command to that some who ate these things would get sick and die. Then they would go to God mourning and wailing saying, "Why did you let us eat this, when you knew of the great harm it would cause?" And think back and see why this is exactly what the Jewish people would have done.
But God loved His people so much that He does not say to us, "I hold the lightning in my palm, and whosoever eats of this meat shall die." But instead He says, "I love you with such a great and abiding love and see that you can only live your best life by eating healthy and so that is why I ask you to avoid these things which will only pollute and harm you!"
A friend of mine says we are at liberty. I suppose we are. But God has saw fit to declare to us how best to live our lives and I think He might be privy to some information we are not. Surely we are not damned from smoking cigarettes or eating a hot dog. But will we live the best life Christ wants us to live by doing those things? No.
In every act of God, we see His mercy
When the youths were killed in 2 Kings 2 for mocking the prophet, I do not see judgment. I see the loving mercy of God. God in His wisdom saw that if these kids continue on in their sin, they will lead the people of Israel astray and they will go to their own damnation. Because of the great wickedness they committed at the young age they did, God saw fit to bring their lives to an end and spare them future damnation, but to bring their souls pure life with Him. That is a hard lesson, but it pays well.
The mercifulness of the Father was tried when His people cried for quail. But from the generosity of His heart He offered them quail and at the same time saw fit to judge them for rejecting His good gift. In it was the heart of a father, reprimanding his son, not out of hatred for his son, but because of the great love he has and wanting his son to be the best man he can be in his life.
Time after time after time we see the goodness and graciousness of our God and the Christians impugn His motives saying, "He was too harsh on those Israelites," and "What do you have against pork, they look so tasty."
God does not hate us and seek to destroy us. Deny us liberty and offer us only chains. It is because He knows as all the political philosophers will tell you, perfect liberty is only realized through Law and you can only live your best life possible with self-control and abstaining from unhealthy habits.
It is because He loves us that He has offered a plan for our health and for our prosperity.
The apostles give us many commands which Christians are to abide by, which negates libertarianism.
Also, the Word teaches us that we are saved by faith in Christ, which negates legalism.
Yeshua said, If you love me then you will obey my commandments.
He also says, "...that whosoever should believe on him should not perish..."
What needs to be seen here is love = believe. If you believe Yeshua, that is, if you love Him, then you will obey Him. Likewise, if you obey Him it is because you love Him. But if you do not obey Him it is because you do not love Him.
Paul calls the Law chains. It is no chain but freedom! Perfect liberty can only be realized in a system of law. Political philosophers have always known this, and God before them knew it all along. The Law is for us and not against us.
Let's look at a few points.
Murder
We do not regret the fact we are not free to kill. We don't levy complaints against God because we are not free in this matter. But it is because society and religion, e.g. law, prevail that we are given our freedom from being killed. We are at liberty in our lives, frankly, because of law.
Sexual relationships
The atheists and skeptics are gravely disappointed that they cannot continue in sexual immorality under a Christian system. The big Party Pooper in the sky they say wants to crash their party and to keep them from having fun.
But we see in theory and in practice that relationships can only prosper at their highest level when we respect our bodies and the bodies' of our respective others. We have longer, happier marriages, greater levels of fulfillment, lower risks of unwanted pregnancies, STDs, poverty, and a lack of education by doing it the way God intended. It is because God loves us so much that He wants us to be fulfilled in our lives, not because He wants to punish us or keep us from having a good time.
Unclean Meats
The Christians in the church mock today and say they are entitled to eating these meats. But God said we were not entitled to yet we do it anyway.
My mother is one who has had allergic reactions to seafood. These foods can be harmful, the toxins and worms they may carry.
God does not punish us in telling us to abstain from pork and other meats! It is because He loves us and wants the best for us.
Imagine for a second that perhaps God, the greatest Geneticist of the universe, foresaw in the genetic code of the Hebrews who He have this command to that some who ate these things would get sick and die. Then they would go to God mourning and wailing saying, "Why did you let us eat this, when you knew of the great harm it would cause?" And think back and see why this is exactly what the Jewish people would have done.
But God loved His people so much that He does not say to us, "I hold the lightning in my palm, and whosoever eats of this meat shall die." But instead He says, "I love you with such a great and abiding love and see that you can only live your best life by eating healthy and so that is why I ask you to avoid these things which will only pollute and harm you!"
A friend of mine says we are at liberty. I suppose we are. But God has saw fit to declare to us how best to live our lives and I think He might be privy to some information we are not. Surely we are not damned from smoking cigarettes or eating a hot dog. But will we live the best life Christ wants us to live by doing those things? No.
In every act of God, we see His mercy
When the youths were killed in 2 Kings 2 for mocking the prophet, I do not see judgment. I see the loving mercy of God. God in His wisdom saw that if these kids continue on in their sin, they will lead the people of Israel astray and they will go to their own damnation. Because of the great wickedness they committed at the young age they did, God saw fit to bring their lives to an end and spare them future damnation, but to bring their souls pure life with Him. That is a hard lesson, but it pays well.
The mercifulness of the Father was tried when His people cried for quail. But from the generosity of His heart He offered them quail and at the same time saw fit to judge them for rejecting His good gift. In it was the heart of a father, reprimanding his son, not out of hatred for his son, but because of the great love he has and wanting his son to be the best man he can be in his life.
Time after time after time we see the goodness and graciousness of our God and the Christians impugn His motives saying, "He was too harsh on those Israelites," and "What do you have against pork, they look so tasty."
God does not hate us and seek to destroy us. Deny us liberty and offer us only chains. It is because He knows as all the political philosophers will tell you, perfect liberty is only realized through Law and you can only live your best life possible with self-control and abstaining from unhealthy habits.
It is because He loves us that He has offered a plan for our health and for our prosperity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)