On God and gods

A new year but still an old theological debate. By the time I wrote this many had already taken the task of answering this question and thank God, more people need to speak up about this. But it is going around so I will still add my two cents. Of recent the question "Don't we all just worship the same God? The Jews, Christians and all their denominations and what about the Muslims? Isn't it all the same God of Abraham? Aren't we just looking from different vantage points reading slightly different descriptions? Haven't you seen that tolerance and co-exist bumper sticker with all the world religions represented on it? Geez! Are we all approaching the same God who just seems to give different and conflicting marching orders to different peoples? Well with the rise of Radical Islam this is a good question to ask. This is not simply the case of Christians trying to be different for differences sake, these truths have gravitas, they carry meaning. As a famous person once said, ideas have consequences. 

Well let's look at it. Let's get Biblical a moment. The word of God gives testimony about what we are supposed to believe, this is why we place such weight to what is written. This is why even the Qur'an calls Christians people of the book. So what does that book say? The Bible records for us the character and nature of God. It says:

35. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. John 3:35,36

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me." John 13:20

He who has the Son (Jesus) has the father, he who does not have the son does not have the father. 1 John 5:12 

No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 
1 John 2:23

This is even foretold in the Old Testament.

13. I saw in the night visions,and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man,and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion,which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.  Daniel 7 

This is why Jesus frequently refers to himself as the Son of Man. The Father (God) is inextricably linked to the Son (Jesus). 

It other words there is a sense in which the Jews are approaching the right God but attempting to worship him wrongly. But can this be said the Islam? Does simply the idea that Isaac and Ishmael shared a Father in Abraham mean that a religion that rose literally hundreds of years later that pays lip service to that God mean anything? Well I think we have to seriously look at what the teachings say? How is God described what does he ask of his people? And finally, this is the linchpin, what do they say about Jesus?

This is the issue. If they acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the messiah come into the world, God's own son that shares nature with the Father then they are true, if not they are Antichrist. This is an explicit teaching of the Bible. No blogger can change this even if it wins friends and influences people. As creatures we have to come to God on his terms. 

If God condescended and humbled himself to take on the form of a human being in order to testify that he himself had the keys to death and eternal life and that nobody could approach his father, who he is himself one with, then apart from his known message and offer of redemption, are we really being intellectually and theologically honest in arguing that another religion that is hostile to that  truth is the same thing? 

If we have one math book that teaches that 1+1=2 and we have another math book that teaches that 1+1=3 then they cannot both be reliably teaching the same thing. Even if we were attending a conference on math solidarity and peace among mathematicians. I would hope that there would be enough integrity in the room for someone to stand up and say we have crossed over from math into silliness. 

The Bible is explicit. Paul specifically makes the case that even if it was an angel was to appear to you and were to preach to you another gospel that they should be accursed. Why? Because it would be messing with the very revelation from God himself, the very revelation that teaches how to have peace with God. In other words God is not going to contradict himself and confuse his people, but perhaps his enemies will...

Go and read Islamic history. This is exactly the story of how it happened. An angel from "god" appeared and gave new and conflicting testimony. A good follower of the God of Abraham would have recognized the revelation as new and quite different and thus not from the true God. They already had other books not included in the cannon. A good follower of Christ would have further asked and what do you say about Jesus? Is he Lord and God? Well the answer is clear from the Qur'an, No! He was just another prophet from (same god?) of which now Muhammad is greater.

The Bible records Jesus saying of himself from the Gospel of John:

"I am the way the truth and life no one comes to the Father but by me."

"I am the resurrection and the life."

"I am the gate, whoever enters through me will have eternal life."

and to prevent the idea of two Gods Jesus says of himself "I and the Father are one." 

This is how we get the idea of trinity along with the Holy Spirit, 3 in 1. These are exclusive Christian truths that no Jew or Muslim will claim or stand for. We have to consider theology here. If Jesus was just another one in line of people who at one time or another was privileged enough to speak on behalf of god for a bit, he really is no better than Moses, Isaiah , Jonah or perhaps even Mohammad. Jesus really should not be saying the kinds of things he said. We shouldn't be revering him the way we do and we should surely stop writing songs about the guy.

But God is a jealous God who will not share his glory with another. The writer of Hebrews writes:

The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father,   and he shall be to me a son”? 6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”7 Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds and his ministers a flame of fire.”8 But of the Son he says,“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

So Jesus is quite different from other men. Jesus is quite different even to the angels who owe him worship. This is not another prophet in line of the prophets. This man is God's own Son who claims worship for himself. Jews recognized this which is why they put him on the cross. The Qu'ran cannot and will not claim this, in fact neither will the Jews. Listen to what the Apostle Paul says of him in Colossians 1:

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

If we want peace with our fellow man we need more than a bumper sticker understanding, we have to follow it to the source which is a man Jesus, we do not however pretend all our gods are the same. This is why Jesus came, anybody can use the word god and fill in the meaning. Hinduism literally has millions of them, our planets are Roman Gods fashioned after the Greek gods and Zeus, who was that thunder guy? We have lots of gods in our history, we are not short on gods. Just because someone in your ancestry has a common relative does not mean your gods are the same, especially with conflicting revelation.

This is why all the many denominations of Christianity share confessions and creeds. We hold that Jesus is the only begotten Son and that he and the Father are both one.  The spirit proceeds from them, their is one God with three persons we have a holy trinity. We have certain confessions that demarcate faith in God or something else. If we have these confessions in common so we can disagree on baptism and liturgy and music. This is why the counter argument that certain theologians also had different gods because they worship differently does not work. We have church history and heretic councils when their gods were actually different and wouldn't you know it, it was about the theology. 

If we agree, we can have many flavors on a Sunday morning as long as we honor Jesus Christ as Lord. When not? Well this is why Mormonism is considered a cult to Christians, they do not share the belief that Jesus is the unique and only begotten Son of God in the flesh worthy of all our worship. Interestingly enough their revelation was also given by an angel of which we were already warned about. This is why people who say they want Jesus or God but don't like theology unfortunately do not understand how it works. Jesus gave us specific testimony that we either accept or reject. The Father (God) sent Jesus because he does care and specifically want us to believe and act in a certain way, it does matter. People will always create other ways to god and even gods themselves but the Father only recognizes the way of his Son. Certain things can never be denied or else we have 1+1=3 and only silly people will agree to live in such nonsense. 

Jesus says I am the way the truth and the life no one can come to the father but by me. There is no other prophet who gives aid. This is why even Jews need the Gospel. This is why Christians who know their Bibles will never agree to a statement that we all worship the same god, it is not to be petty, it is not to be belligerent, it is because it is not a simply a question of method but of who is actually on the other end of those prayers. 

Let's stop arguing for solidarity when there is none, but gain a little understanding. Instead read the Bible and see who it is we actually are seeking or not. Find out who it is you are reaching for as Michelangelo painted. Because there are many gods out there, but there is only one true God. Maybe we should find out who he is. 

thanks

On arguing with your Doctor

The man walks through the revolving doors and looks around. The smell of rubbing alcohol immediately reaches his nose and he is reminded that he did not want to come here. He looks around at the half empty room and decides on a good seat as he walks to the counter.

"Do you have an appointment, sir?"

The man looks at the young woman and again is reminded of the hassle of the ensuing paper work. "Yes I should have been scheduled for 2pm."

He half smiles, so does she. The woman checks her computer "Mm-hmph" and reaches down and hands out the large stack of papers that he was dreading to have to fill out. "Please fill these out and we will call you shortly."

The man looks around and grabs a pen off the counter and looks back to see his seat has now been encroached upon by a lady and her son. The seat he wanted was not yet taken but the buffer zone he was counting on was now gone. He lets out a short sign and eyes another seat off in another corner by some fake plants and quickly approaches. He turns gives another glance over the room and sits down. He was looking around to make sure no one was also racing for the place. No one was. But he checked all the same.

He glaces at his phone 1:50pm. "Well, now for mindless paper filling out, it's like I am still at work."

He beings writing his name and birth date and social security number. "They should know all this". He let's the tedious work annoy him. He continues down through the document where it starts to ask pertinent and seemingly non-pertinent medical history. "Hufff, I don't know why they need all this, what does my sexual history have to do with this?!" He continues on annoyed in the paperwork and at about 2:09 he concludes he has done enough.

He slams the pen down on the clipboard louder than he meant to, he quickly looks up to check if, but nobody notices. He gets up to look around as if someone was lusting after his seat, but nobody was doing that either and so he quickly dropped off the paperwork and returned to sit down.

"John?" The woman calls out.

He looks over his shoulder to the left and watches as a man looking equally as annoyed as him walks through the silver double doors to the back.  The man glances around and sees the typical magazines that people don't actually want to read. He lowers his head and pulls out his phone to continue reading an article he had found interesting earlier at work. Of course CNN was on but he would rather read about it. After a few minutes into it.

"Martha?" A woman not to far from him on his left stands up and heads to the doors but her face is more one of fear than annoyance.

He continues with his article. The government has made a decision, saved the day by simply pushing their laws through without the voice of the people. Of course the man doesn't read it that way. "It is time to move forward with culture." He said quietly. "It was the voice of the people, there didn't need to be a vote." He continues reading and thinking 'You can't legislate morality, everyone knows that.'  He gets lost in the article again. A few more minutes pass...

"Samantha?" The man looks up and to his surprise the lady that had moved in on his last seat position was moving up with her son. The man wanted to speak up. 'I was definitely here before her" he thought. Instead of causing a scene he sat back in his chair and decided that as usual the nurses just messed up the order. "Alight Peter, no big deal." Peter continued to read another few minutes, and then like music to his ears.

"Peter?" He gleefully stood and up and walked through those silver double doors. "Follow me." The nurse said. They walked down a white hallway and rounded a corner and she led him into room 307. "The doctor will be with you in a few minutes." She half smiled and closed the door.

Peter sat back down and was slightly annoyed that he had to wait more but such is life he said. Many more minuter passed and he decided to start reading once again. Eventually the door opened and the Doctor came in. "Hello Peter, how are you today?" The doctor was an older man with the looks of about 50 with his grey hair parted to the side and small but thick glasses. He looked like the kind of doctor you would imagine and would want to be your physician.

"Just fine today Doctor, I really feel great." Peter smiled truly this time.

"That's good Peter, good to hear, well...I know they sent you over here for the results, so if I may?" He asked.

"Please Doctor, I am all ears." He smiled genuine again. The Doctor open his folder and took out three X-rays. The Doctor scanned over his notes one last time and looked up.

"As you know we were very concerned with some of these spots." He said holding up the the x-rays so that Peter could see. Peter was truly not worried.

"Well Peter, I think we have been preparing for this." Peter's smile did not change.  "I still hate to have to tell you this but it looks terminal." The doctor said in the most gentile voice he could muster. With a bit of his own surprize from the lack of a reaction from Peter he continued.  "But not to worry it is still fairly early on, so we can probably make good progress with chemo."

Peter just blinked again, "But I feel fine doctor, In fact I went for a run this morning and I still feel as good as I always have. In fact since the fall, I haven't had an episode at all. I feel even better than before because I have been doing everything that was suggested. I can't have caner, I can't!"

"I am sorry to have to give you this news Peter, but again don't worry there is so much we can do for you, especially sine it is early on." The Doctor put his hand on Peter and tried to console him.

"No Doctor, I don't believe you, I won't!" Peter was physically shaking throwing off the Doctor's hand.

The Doctor backed away and put his clip board up in front up him as if to make a bit of a barrier. "Now Peter, this is not the end by any means, we can work through this together, I have had quite a bit of success in this operation."

"Noo! Doctor!! I won't accept that, I won't!" Peter stood up fuming. He looked at the Doctor and wanted to say something but instead he pushed right passed him and headed for the entrance. Peter stormed out of the reception and got into his car. "That Doctor doesn't know what he is talking about, I feel fine. I am fine. I will show them."

Peter continued his routine for months and convinced himself that he was fine and would not listen to anyone especially the Doctor. In two years, he passed away.

Now we understand the five stages of acceptance. We know that anger and denial are the first two steps, but we also understand that it is a tragedy if people stay there. 

So sad. But is this really that unbelievable?

The church is a hospital. God is calling all to the house. We are all sick and in need of him. In fact it is so bad that we might as well be delivered straight to the morgue when we arrive. But all is not lost. Jesus Christ is the great the physician. He says that he calls not the healthy but the sick. He came not for the righteousness but for the unholy, in fact he came for our this very problem.

This is where Jesus says that we are, also that he is who we need, what we need, and he is available.

Furthermore the truth is that Jesus's staff are also sick. This is a sick person run hospital, some may have earned their positions as nurses but they still need the great physician's care as well, and he allows them to help. The job of the sick are supposed to bring their friends and loved ones because they themselves have experienced healing at the hands of the great physician.

See the great physician has already given the diagnosis. The call has gone out, it has been told on the mountains and in the streets. Some recognize their need and come to his hospital but some scoff at the notion that they are even sick. Both are sick but only one comes and gets treatment. When someone is convinced they do not have cancer no amount of discussion will change their mind. And certainly no amount of screaming will either.

If a man wants to walk the earth as a sick man rejecting the healing services of God there is not much I can do. This is why Jesus spent more time with those who heard his message rather than those who rejected it. He told them all of their need of the Great Physician but only the humble responded and received care.  This is the sad truth. It is not about types of sin or types of religiosity, it is always about humility at the diagnosis.

However compounding the issue sometimes the help tends to focus so much on the other people's x-rays that they start to sound like they themselves are not also going through their own treatment as well. If I sound like I am not also in treatment for my own prognosis than others will start to resent that they need treatment and I don't. I fear that sometimes we get into the business of instead of applying the healing balm of the Gospel we have instead tried to be evangelist's for people's sickness.

The church can never convince someone they are sick when don't believe that they are. We can only point people to the great physician. Only the sick that realize they are sick will go, only they can recognize their pain and identify with it or reject.

I fear where we are culturally is that the church is trying to convince the world of something they will not see and they hate us for it. Maybe instead of trying to convince people they are sick we can only remind them that Hospital is open 24/7 and the Great Physician is always on duty.

thanks

Knives in Flesh (a pox on Planned Parenthood or rather America)

Be angry but do not sin. Vengeance is mine says the Lord. We have had ten videos that have been released about the barbaric practices of Planned Parenthood, but no a lot of people seem to care. It would be easy if we could only blame Planned Parenthood, but we the people of the United Stated of America have allowed this to happen.

We know how to riot, how to march, and how to get angry and demand change. It was done for homosexuals rights, it was done in the race wars, it was done for immigration and the refugees, it was done for a lion, but we can't be bothered with dead babies? This one is OK to have differing opinions, the hypocrisy is deafening. 

I don't like to write on politics because they are not my area, nor are they of particular interest to me. They do however have impact. So why to write about abortion? Well, this shouldn't be a politic, we are talking about human life! Christianity has a lot to say about human life given from God. But part of the problem is that this issue is stuck in the realm of opinion and not where it should be: in the realm of life and death. I want to extract it out of that as much as possible because it amounts to so much more than a political position.

When issues become politicized it quickly passes out the realm of right and wrong and into the area of simple preferences. The problem is it is granted that precious position of being decided by public opinion.  This is why our constitution is so great, it grant's certain unalienable rights, these rights grants us certain ground rules so that a society can exist.  We have the foundation to relate with one another with certain protections guaranteed.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But when liberty is left unchecked than the pursuit of happiness stretches beyond the boarders of incredulity. It has so much so that the we are at a point in history where the right to life is no longer a right, but something that is politicized. This is a sad state indeed. The issue of a right to life is definitely Christian, even if it is no longer inherently human, and certainly not American.

Looking at scripture we see that this is the case. Genesis 1:27 says that we are created in the image of God. Psalms 139 testifies that God knits us together inside our mother's womb, and that it is a wonderful process. An important point is that we are a person in process not a thing, not just lumps of tissue. Exodus 21:22-23 Makes the point that a injury causing a baby to pass away before he is born is worthy of the death penalty for extinguishing a life. Proverbs 6:17 God hates hands that shed innocent blood.

He may not hate fags but he hates abortionists. This is not to say they cannot receive forgiveness but they need to repent.

So scripture sets a precedent of the life being carried inside as important and worthy of protection.

A Christian thus supports the idea that all men are deserving of life. As Christians we cannot and should not politicize an issue regarding actual life and allow it to be something that can simply be a matter of opinion. Life is not a matter of opinion, it is precious. When the right of liberty and the right of the pursuit of happiness of the parents becomes more important than the right to life of the baby than we have a serious moral problem that is hard to combat.

Why? Because this should be obvious, and sadly it isn't.

I know that part of the problem in this instance is simply ignorance, whether it is deliberate or deceptive, but there is an ignorance that is fostered that somehow the baby is not a person until his birthday. I get it, he hasn't been born yet. But Parents that want to keep their children have no problem understanding that their baby is inside, kicking, punching, jumping, interacting, responding to their cues. Doctor's don't have this problem either when it is understood that the baby is wanted. In fact their is such a thing as In utero operations, fetal surgery, why? Because life inside is worth operating on, worth saving. Doctor's understand that when treating a pregnant woman, they are treating two people. Their health is inextricably linked, that two lives are in the balance.

But when a different choice is being made about the baby then somehow the science changes. Doctors start to fudge the facts about babies and the science of new life. And then once the decision has been made the vocabulary changes yet again. What was previously just lumps of tissue now is specifically human body parts. "Be careful how you harvest the organs they are worth money." That simple pile of tissue has remarkably changed back into a miniature human with viable money making organs that could fuel industry. The only care offered at that point is applied to the removal of the parts rather than the care of maintaining the little one's precious life.

My Son Raphael came seven weeks early. He was only 3.5 pounds, He could fit mostly in my hand. He was breathing, looking, and grabbing our hands. But political thinking would say he wasn't viable as a person until his actual birth-date. But if a child can come early than it stands to reason that he is a person before he is fully ready to come out. Now my son didn't come nearly as early as many babies can and do, but they came all the same and were little people in their own times.

Now I don't say all this without understanding. If we can't sympathize with a pregnant woman scared to death about how to care for and what to do with her infant, when she is being told that actually he isn't a person yet, than all we will ever be is more people making her day worse. We have to be willing to love her and help with the care, if not, then we offer nothing but condemnation.

But don't miss the point. The condemnation is due, a life is taken away. Innocent blood is split and God hates it. There is always forgiveness, but we have to understand what we are doing first.

James says that true religion is caring for widows and orphans. This is an objection to the pro-life movement; who will care for all the babies? Perhaps the government should redirect that same money towards that very problem rather than on extinguishing lives. We understand using government moving to save human life in other countries, just not our own. But will Americans make hard moral life saving decisions when there is money to be made?  The videos have made it clear that there is money to be made and the answer so far seems to be "No."

The church needs a response. Why are Catholics the forerunners in orphanages? Where are all the protestant American orphanages?  Where do all our mega churches mega monies go? Could it be that we love to picket but still spend our money on bigger stadium churches rather than offering real help? Shouldn't we put our money where out mouth is? Churches need a comprehensive view of helping in this situation, but let's not temper what needs to be said and done on this issue because we haven't worked out the details of what the outcome will be. Lives are being extinguished now. Yeah they offer other services, but other organizations do as well such as uh, hospitals.

Whose kingdoms do all our Christian resources fuel? Jesus said his kingdom was all about the kids. He said it would be better that a millstone be hung around our necks and for us be flung into the sea than for us to cause them any harm. But we are causing them harm, lot's of harm.

The number is at about 50 million, 50 million babies that our country has extinguished so that the parents could continue on with the pursuit of happiness and their liberty, but the life, the life part is something that we can disagree on?! How did we get to the point where babies are discarded as trash, or for commercial trade? Perhaps it is because we don't recognize that the god Molech is alive and being worshiped here in America? We worship our own rights and Molech underscores our rights with every baby we sacrifice to him. Leviticus 20:2-5 speaks about this. Psalms 106 also comments:

36 They worshiped their idols,
    which became a snare to them.
37 They sacrificed their sons
    and their daughters to false gods.
38 They shed innocent blood,
    the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
    and the land was desecrated by their blood.
39 They defiled themselves by what they did;
    by their deeds they prostituted themselves.

I do not weep for us, I weep for the babies. I don't know how to respond, I understand the killing of abortionists from the Leviticus passage. I do not agree with it as we are not Israel as Israel was God's but I understand the cry for justice. I understand the being angry at a system that does not even follow it's own established principles for a free society.

So what do we do? First we pray. We ask God for the killings to be stopped. We ask God for practical ways to put an end to it. I wish I knew what the equivalent to the commandment in Leviticus 20 is. I think that Christians need a unified voice on this for starters. We need to stop with the burying our heads in the sand. We need to stop framing this as a "choice" issue. A Christian simply cannot take that stance. I am all for women's rights, but a woman does not have the right to murder, nor does a man. It is not OK for Christians to support abortion. God hates the hands that shed innocent blood. God hates those that are involved. Yes, God hates things. We need to stop with the ignoring the volatile nature of these events. This is a polarizing issue, but it shouldn't be among Christians.  It is a great shame and travesty that baby killing is debatable. It also shouldn't be debatable among the civilized world.

Our hearts are so hardened that we cannot see that Romans 1 has come true. We have debased minds. God has given us over to our sinful ways. If it makes you angry to hear than take it up with God but his response will be repent or likewise perish.

When a society is so blind to right and wrong that they will not acknowledge the butchering of children and the practices involved in abortion as evil, well even Jesus didn't refrain from calling some people the son of the devil. Motives do not count in this instance. God hates those who shed innocent blood. The only innocent parties are being carved up with knives and the populace does nothing. God have mercy on our souls, but he will not, not without repentance.

We live in a society that grants us a voice and thus we need to use it. We highlight that life is being extinguished, this is a human problem. We Christians agree that abortions are wrong and we never stop saying it. We lift our voices in unison, we demand that our Government uphold justice and stop allowing the murder of our children. But it is up to God to move as we cry out to him. So cry out to him!

This is not a political issue this is a Christian issue that life is precious. But it shouldn't be a Christian issue it should be a human issue, let's bring this back around. When life is minimized to just a choice than we should expect nothing less than the commoditizing of human baby body parts. Fall on your face and repent America.
As Psalms 106 ends: Save Us O' God.

thanks

Jude 14-16 a Commentary

<sup>Continuing our look at Jude.

14</sup> It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, ¹⁵ to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” ¹⁶ These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage. (ESV)

14 Jude reminds that he is drawing imagery from the book of Enoch. This judgement is in its own category and is apocalyptic in nature. Judgement that requires a pulling back of the realm of the physical so the spiritual realm can be witnessed. God is upset. Again these ones have warnings and prophecies about what happens to them from the Bible. They should know better and they are without excuse. 

15 Judgement is coming for these men who not only pervert the truth of the faith but act in ways worthy of Judgment. God will bring conviction on these because of their anti Godly deeds. Not only are their deeds anti God but their methods are anti God. And not only this but they speak harshly against God himself. This is probably both by undermining his character in their teachings and outright blasphemy as they have already been shown to do against the glorious ones. These men undermine God's character when they teach that God allows and encourages things that he outright forbids. This undermines the character of God. It misrepresents God. It challenges his authority and it attempts to steal God's glory making him out to be something lesser than he is. Did I mention God is upset with these men?

16 Jude calls them grumblers and malcontents. This may be what fuels their misdeeds. They refuse to be content with what God has done, they continually grumble against the one who would have saved their souls. Perhaps they grumble against what they consider his restrictions on their behavior so they drum up teaching that allows them to continue down their dark path? Instead of listening they follow after their own sinful desires, and worse for the wear they use the grace of God to justify their own sins.  They are loud mouthed boasters and they show favoritism for their own gain. They work for money and prestige and somehow their message of cheap grace leading to sexual sinful pleasure has a landing place in some hearers. 

The testimony of Jude about these men is damning indeed. What is worse is that they are teaching others to follow suit. God will absolutely judge false teachers. God will defend his honor and character and woe to the man that attempts to poison the image of God. God will not excuse those who lead others astray, nor will he excuse those who attack his very nature. This is both for Jude's time and in ours. Grace does not excuse perverting the character of God.  I do want to comment for application on how they show favoritism to gain advantage. This is precisely what is happening in our culture, they show favoritism to those with the sinful proclivities of our culture and in return receive praise and acceptance. They get to both live in the world and be of the world. They manufacture a different gospel that sinners love because it does not call them to repentance. So they rightfully gain a following and point to this "gain" as God's blessing but do not see that their judgment was long written down. We should not lose heart that many follow after them and the rest that hold the line get socially condemned, because it is before God that any man stands or falls. Take heart the day is coming when everything done in the darkness will be revealed. 

I know this is challenging. I feel discouraged sometimes when our own Christian theology is hijacked. When grace and love are the handles that they hang their new teachings and perversion on we are made to look like bigots and backwater fundamentalist without hearts or care for the the world. But take heart, God is well aware of the score. 

thanks 

Do we really need to fight the Avenger?

With another law passed from the supreme bench in our country some have started to speak out more about rebellion. But what is all this rebellion business about?

The obvious example is the civil war but is that what we really want? 

Well the question is of course at what point should the church stand up to a corrupt government? You know because of Nazi Germany? Well how about instead of going to that extreme which may be a legitimate barometer for a culture to at least reference, let's instead ask how should a Christian think about this?

I am not so interested in how a republic should respond to this type of losing of its rights; I will leave that aspect to the political scientists. Since the government is not a Christian institution how should it act fair in this instance? How do you legislate for a people of differing values? differing worldviews? How should both anti-discrimination laws and free speech work? It can become so nuanced that someone is going to feel violated at some point; probably making an executive judicial ruling in favor of one over the other without the input of the people is not such a great idea, but here we are. I am no lawyer so I can only speak to the faith of those who feel like they are living in an increasingly sinful world with no help from a system they thought would help them.

So if using the system doesn't work as many feel in this case what does a Christian do? Do we grab our guns and religion and start a revolution? I sure hope not, and here's why.

We should always look at how those who resisted in the Bible did it. We are called to live at peace with everyone after-all. Christians do not go to war for their rights. They do not even go to war over the Gospel, they peacefully present it and they accept the consequences.

But even Biblically speaking there is precedent to run for our lives but never, never to kill for them. We have too many times in history taken principles in the Bible and have turned them into reasons to kill for and quite frankly we have been wrong every time. Vengeance is God's.

We have to of course deal with what Jesus said to Peter about the sword. In preparedness Jesus told the disciples that a time was coming where they may need to buy swords, but was this for going on the offensive? When the time came for Jesus to be taken away one of the disciples decided that that was the purpose of the sword and rose to the occasion. But what was the outcome?

When this account happens in John:

Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?"

It was more important that God's will be done even when they were threatened with physical violence.
Luke records the same event. Luke 22:47-53
This time Jesus rebukes his disciples when this happened and even goes so far as to heal the man's ear.  He did not want his disciples engaging in acts of violence and even restored the person.  

Mathew records it this way.
52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

Jesus teaches that if one wants to live in such a way that he takes justice into his own hands then he will be opening himself to that kind of death. He also reminds Peter of God's own sovereignty and plan.

So yes he did tell them to obtain a sword, but was it to go on the offense? It seems that this was not what he was getting at. It seems he was simply acknowledging it may be dangerous out there and be prepared, an object lesson perhaps?

So let's understand the context they are in the process of putting Christ to death and he was not at all interested in the self-righteousness of even his own protection from this with acts of violence from his followers. Ah but that was for a pivitol time in redemptive history, what about when something not as essential as Jesus dying on the cross is happening? Well if the answer is not already in the question then let's look at the New Testament. 

Paul writes to the church is Rome. Now when we hear Rome we think of cool ruins and exotics locals over in Italy and that awesome movie Hudson Hawk. Nice.  But think about what that culture was really like. I was just in Italy last year I walked the halls of the Vatican, strolled over the canals of Venice, and the stood in the middle of the Roman Colosseum. The Roman Colosseum was a system in place for the sport and entertainment of the people. But the sport was brutal fights to the death, often with Christians and simple slaves trying to stay alive. Not only this but the system supported cults, temple prostitution, and yes homosexual lovers was common. You could also be jailed with no supply or care for your lively-hood for speaking against the Caesar. He used Christians as human torches for his garden parties and blamed the fire of Rome on Christians to incorporate open and free persecution of them. There were so many religions and gods that if you violated one of them you could bring the ire of the whole community down on you. You could say sin abounded. In fact Paul points out the state, not of just humanity, but of Rome in the beginning of his letter to the Romans.

So let's understand the context that Paul writes when he pens Romans 13. 

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Remember this is the government that eventually puts Paul to death. To further the example the new Jewish converts had to live through John the baptist being beheaded, James the brother of John being beheaded. Phillip the evangelist being stoned to death and let's not forget Jesus was put to death as well, he rose again thankfully. If you read Fox's book of martyrs the traditions are that almost all of the disciples had their end in this way. But the persecution was never a reason to get organize and raise the capitol. In fact the disciples had a reputation of rejoicing when they were persecuted for the Gospel's sake. The only other response that came about from persecution was a scattering and a spreading of the Gospel. 

The resurrection took the power out of violence. What is the point of physical striving with arms when there is a resurrection of the dead to look forward to?

In other words the response of Christians to a corrupt government is a doubling down on the preaching of the Gospel. The message is reinforced by Paul telling the people to "Owe no one anything except love." Now love did have stipulations for living for sure, but for Christians. We see in the rest of chapter 13 that the responsibility was to display love nonetheless. I mean Paul reminds them to keep paying taxes. It would be nice that if I can't go to war at least I can stop supporting them financially. But Paul seems to think that the Christian should continue to love and support God's avenger. 

If part of our system of government is to allow dissent then we are still in fullfillment of Romans 13 by using the system as given to us. This is what Paul did in appelaing to Rome, he did not simply let the system silence him he used it for the gospel's sake. But when a system changes for the worse all we can do is thank God for time that he gave us to establish his kingdom in the way we were able to do and then continue to do so under a stricter hand. 

Part of the rub for us I know is that we live in a society that grants us a voice of dissent. In fact our free society was based on a voice of dissent. We are blessed to live in a country that started out honoring God and thus adopted some tenets of freedom. But unrestrained and undefined freedom will always consume itself. It will leave behind all those good intentions of the people who believed that man was somehow better than he actually is. 

See if our anthropology is that people are basically good then we will think that ultimate freedom will lead to utopia.  But an anthropology that reflects true human nature reveals that when we are given more freedom we use it selfishly, sinful humans with ultimate freedom leads to more moral decline and the collapse of society or at least one that wants to live in opposition to God. That is why our founding Father's though wanting to establish a free society still recognized the need for laws and even laws to protect the people from the newly instituted government. The separation of church and state as Thomas Jefferson penned it, not in the constitution I might add, was to prevent government interference with religion not prohibit it. Now somehow it is interpreted backwards. But if God's deems our plight worthy of an exodus then he will provide his own Angel of Death, he doesn't need us for that role, but if not and probably not, we must continue to be faithful and humble ourselves. All we can do is pray for our leaders to change or for the Maker to return.

If our prayer leads us to anger and temptation to rise up then our focus is wrongheaded and we are not resting in the one who has both the power to raise up kingdoms and bring them down.   

Daniel 2 reminds

“Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,
to whom belong wisdom and might.
21He changes times and seasons;
he removes kings and sets up kings;
he gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to those who have understanding;

When commanding Jeremiah the prophet God tells him of his power over the nations

1:10See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms,
to pluck up and to break down,
to destroy and to overthrow,
to build and to plant.”

Psalm 75 is also about this. 

The last point is simply this. We are not Israel, so we are not a true theocracy and we do not get to act as his sword. He did that under a different covenant for judgement, but at this point in history he has reserved all judgment to the Son, who when he returns will administer it all. As I said before all we can do is know that they will give account, even the very avengers that we had a hard time living under that God allowed for a time.

This is a hard truth no doubt. It takes humility to let God handle his own affairs in the realms of men but they are his affairs. His affairs are justice, mine are obedience. The only warfare Christians wage are on their knees humbly before God.  So maybe we should we should enact some warfare: take it to the Lord in prayer. 

thanks
 

God's Avenger

The fourth of July is here and it is a very testy time to say the least with the government and Christianity.

On everyone's mind right now is the role of government. What did it do? What should it have done etc? How should Christians react? Paul gives an interesting summary of the purpose of the Government and he calls it God's avenger. This doesn't so much hit on the ruling yet but setting some ground work for the discussion to happen. I know that Paul's discussion doesn't quite get to what everyone is so mad about right now. This isn't the hot topic of the day right now, but, the reach of the government is. In order to get there though we need to see what its purpose is supposed to be. We need to look at Romans 13.

I started writing about this honestly because I occasionally see someone comment about how Christians shouldn't be for the death penalty because we are pro life and believe we are made in the image of God.  Rightly so, we are.  But so much has happened historically that this will be a two part-er.

On more reflection on my previous needing a hero blog and our desire of justice, it got me thinking about another hero. Or rather an anti-hero The Punisher.  I was familiar with the comic book character and so I watched the movie a few years ago and I remember struggling with a line in the movie where he says "It is not vengeance but punishment." In other words he was justified because it was not a personal vendetta but administering the due desert.

At the time I remember struggling with how it was any different, mostly because he was entirely spurned on by the personal loss of his family. But I do understand the intent. Vengeance in the our typical sense is reactionary despite justice, whereas punishment is in direct response measured by desert.

Any vengeance is in a sense retribution but our typical vernacular tends to be more along the lines of a personal tit for tat, or payback with righting the wrong of personal feelings. True desert involves righting the wrong as in restitution, it is a measured response to the wrongdoing. The problems of vengeance tend to be emotional and thus the solution may be greater than the crime.

For example: "He should be in prison, but I want him dead."

This as I have said before is why God instructed the rule "An eye for an eye". So the punishment is measured.  God is about just measures, remember?

So at the time I didn't understand it for the movie, I am not sure if it conveyed the idea well, but I do understand the difference in principle. The idea is that sometimes people escape through the system and true justice cannot be levied so the Punisher brings the desert for the crimes.  This is the very premise of the Steven Seagal movie Above the Law (1988).

Now while I can grant them the premise for the fictional comic book character and for a movie, this doesn't work in real life. When real people do this they also have to give account.

A more realistic yet still fictional story tried to portray this as well.  The movie A Time to Kill (1996) from a John Grisham book dealt with this exact premise. A Father whose daughter was brutally raped knew that the accused were going to be let go because of racial tension so he took it upon himself to punish them. He shot them both dead and the movie plays out about his own trial. Despite his own obvious guilt he feels justified because the system failed. His guilt is undeniable the question becomes should he be prosecuted? In the end he isn't because the jury realizes he acted as probably any father would because he was himself denied justice. A very good movie.

But the obvious point is sometimes the system isn't enough.  Now this system is in fact what God has left behind to be his own avenger. Romans 13 calls the government a servant of God for the common good. The government is referred to as his avenger who carries out God's own wrath on the wrongdoer. In other words God is about punitive desert.

So what are the common responses?

People are the image of God. God told us we are made in his image and he believes in the death penalty. God enacted the penalty many times and had his people do the same. God is not so concerned about his image bearers that he refrains from snuffing them out when they corrupt his image by offense. But that was the Old Testament. Well in New Testament rightly so that responsibility has been handed over to God's Avengers: the Governments. Their primary purpose is to restrain evil and this is done by the sword (by force). But what about the woman caught in adultery? The scenario was that the mob wanted Jesus to allow them to put her to death. They actually didn't have the right under Roman law to act such. There was no formal trial and the man was mysteriously absent. But primarily Jesus' purpose was to save lives not destroy them. Jesus reminds his own disciples this in Luke 9:56 when they wanted to call down fire on his opponents. His purpose was to bring the gospel, his mission from God was to spread news of the Kingdom. It was not his responsibility to act under Old Testament laws when the New Covenant was being put in place. However he did teach Paul to instruct that Governments did hold that power as his servants.  Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong? Because death is a great message. Really it is. The death penalty serves as an object lesson for sure but first and foremost is a just desert. It is also to curb evil. God gave us the example of punitive justice.

I would further point out the punishment for our sins was punitive; the death penalty. Furthermore when reading the New Testament at this point God is delaying punishment til his return for the purposes of showing mercy 2 Peter 3:15. God wants to grant grace in forgiveness through his Son. But a time will come when he shows up and the time for mercy will have expired. This is why everyone wants to put a date on the apocalypse. Read the New Testament about the Day of the Lord. God's justice is about the death penalty. The wadges of sin is death. God does offer a way out but if people don't take it then they deny the savior end up paying it themselves.

Now the purpose of this blog is not to defend the death penalty, but to advance the notion that sometimes justice is punitive. Justice doesn't really care about the rehabilitation, that is for a separate office. Rehabilitation is on the individual. A system can be put in place to help, but rehabilitation is not justice. Rehabilitation is necessary for a society to function but it is a luxury. A luxury that we all very much hope that people take advantage of, but it cannot take the place of just desert. God demands justice, he is not as much interested about his avenger creating programs to reintegrate the people into society, the avenger's job is justice. Rehabilitation is the Church's job. It is called the Gospel.

Before we get caught up in the why's of this or that tragedy let's not skip over the just desert. When we skip over desert we compound the trespass, multiply the victims, and encourage repeat offenses. The punishment must fit the crime after-all.

Without punishment we breed lawlessness. And thus we get a country that hates accountability and screams for little more than anarchy. If we need to change the system we should use the system lawfully or else our own lawlessness brings about more sin. Again in chapter 13 of Romans we are told to not resist the government as they act as the avengers or else we are found to be fighting against God himself.

If the Avengers go bad, they will give an account to new governments and ultimately to God. Avengers will give an account. Just as God punished those he used to punish Israel. Avengers are not above the law as Steven Seagal taught us.

Thus we leave punishment to the government and we leave the government to hands of God. But what about when they violate God's law? Well we can look at that next time.

thanks

Upon the Bible can I only claim

I was hoping to mop up all the messiness from the last entry in a self contained blog. But this problem is so big that it could not all fit in one entry.  I hope I made the case that our current problem is our need to be accepted on both sides of the debate. It was inevitable that Christians would be outed as having issue with sin. But Christians have fallen for the very thing that homosexuals want: cultural acceptance. 

This blog is for Christians to understand the Biblical view of this, if this was for homosexuals the conversation would be very different. Not in truth but in presentation. The Gospel trumps discussion of mastering personal sin. 

This was never supposed to be about this specific sin but the way the cultural war has gone we cannot but comment at this point because we will inadvertently being backing a specific world view. At this point if we do not stand on the Bible on this issue we will be backing the worldview that makes it out to be not that big of a deal. This is about acceptance, if it would stay there that would be one thing but it will not and has not. It is coming to the point where Christians either cave or are bigots, as if honest communication is not an option anymore. Well it will not be if we continue to only capitulate or say nothing. 

As I mentioned we all want to be accepted and all want to fit in. That is normal. And the Christian job is not to make people feel uncomfortable, however it may be that we are being called to that discomfort ourselves. If we stand for something that the culture does not like we should expect blow-back. The way we know this is because the Bible calls for us to be humble on what it teaches. It says we will suffer as he did. We are not free to seek comfort over what God asks of us. So let's look at why we are not free to capitulate on a topic that is so culturally hot that we would want to.

1 Thessalonians 2:4
But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.

Proverbs 29:25
The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.

John 12:43
For they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.

Homosexuality is a hot topic not just because it is current but it affects the very lives of people, the very lives of people in a very intimate way.  As I said before it also speaks to where we are culturally. This is something that the church has failed to recognize. We think it is a simple sin issue but it affects the way people view themselves and the way they find intimacy.  It also is indicative that the culture is already in quite a different place. This is why we need to be clear on why we believe what we do, because it has such impact. And when we communicate it to non-believers we have to understand the sub-text of what we are saying and the depth that is affects people.

It is difficult, yes. It was a thing in the nineties to say that Christianity was counter cultural. It was fun and almost cool to say that, but well, it finally is.

But God doesn't ask people to combat sin, that is why he conquered sin in death himself. The Gospel is not "Straighten out your life and then come to me!" The message is "You can't straighten out yourself so you need to come to me." It does involve addressing the sin for sure but if we tell people about their sin problem as if it is something they need to fix without presenting it humbly within the context of the Gospel we leave people in a feeling of helplessness. If this is something that someone identifies with an identity then they are going to feel doubly lost aren't they? In order to present the Gospel to homosexuals or anyone really we have to understand what the Bible says about it. Why they need the Gospel.

So what does it say, is it really a sin?

Now a common objection is that the command against homosexual activity is given in the Old Testament. The Old Testament! case closed, right? Why aren't we more upset about all those other silly laws?  This objection is not the smoking gun that is assumed. A lot of Americas saw the program West Wing when the fictional president gave this very objection to the fictional conservative talk show host condemning her to also focus on pigskins and mixing fabrics, oh my! So unless we want to impose all those other uncomfortable laws we are out of luck, or at least hypocrites?

Well the issue is this, not only does the New Testament reiterate this specific command, but the very issue of what Old Testament laws gentiles-Christians needed to follow was addressed in the Jerusalem council in the book of Acts chapter 15. Also Paul also wrote a book about it called Galatians because this was a big topic in the first century.  The conclusion of the council was this:
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

The apostles teach that new converts still must uphold and continue to avoid idolatry, sexual immorality, and food that was strangled and from blood. Idolatry is continued to be avoided by the church and rightfully so.  As far as strangulation and blood, the issue was a strangled animal would not have been drained of blood. So drain the blood and then cook it, we pretty much already do this. But Paul speaks to this as well, if we do not know about the food preparation do not make inquiry unless a weaker brother is conflicted.  In order for unity and love to continue. 

But the central issue here is the gentile Christians are still to hold to the rules of sexual immorality. The question is where do rules for sexual immorality come from? Well rules for immoral sexual practice come from Leviticus 18 and 20 and there are rules for marriage covenants as well, which is always between a man and a woman. This is where the Jewish person is going to go for these instructions, this is where the Jewish person would point the Gentile wondering what defines sexual immorality. The Law does inform these practices. This is why Paul reiterates homosexuality, and why Jesus repeats adultery, and why Paul gets mad at the Corinthian church for allowing a man to have his Father's wife. Why not simply allow this if they are loving consenting adults? Why not let grace abound on this Paul? Paul knows that this act is specifically mentioned in this list. This is also why incest and bestiality is also still prohibited, despite what interests our culture.

To argue that this list is not still in vogue is to tell Paul he can't be mad about adultery, incest, bestiality, and specifically this episode from first Corinthians. This is to tell Paul that when he mentions homosexuality many times that he doesn't understand grace and certainly not love. Jesus furthers clarifies this list when speaking to the underlining problem of lust. Lust makes them all out of bounds, this is why pornography is also a problem. Lust makes sex about us. Lust means we throw off the commands of love and sex and demand our own ways. Lust says "This is how I feel", not what is right. Lust means we want it our way and we do not care about what the creator of our bodies and of sex says. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul further tells us that sexual sin seems to have a special problem for all people:

The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

This type of sin, sins against the temple of the Lord. The questions is are you a temple of the Lord or not? If so then you should avoid sexual immoral practices all the more. The non-Christian doesn't believe they are a temple so why belabor the point? Paul even mentions homosexuality specifically in the lists of sins that people who practice them will not inherit the kingdom of God. This should be scary enough to avoid. But if a homosexual does not believe in God or the Bible then they should simply say "Well I don't believe that." But instead what we get is reasons why it should be OK. Well to a Christian I have all the reasons I need. Just as I have all the reasons to believe that Jesus is Lord. If God created us then he gets to set the standard. If he is Lord then he gets to tell me "Yes" or "No" . Again these are Christian truths based on a Christian worldview.

As a Christian I have to agree with what God says about the way he designed sex to work. As I Christian I am not allowed to practice homosexual sex. As a Christian I am not allowed to practice adultery. As a Christian I am not supposed to have sex outside of the marital covenant. As a Christian I am not allowed to have sex with animals. As a Christian I am not allowed to have incestuous sex. If any of these pose a temptation, we have to recognize that and give it to God to be nailed to the cross, not identify with it.

 ¹³ No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

This doesn't mean you will not fail but that there is a way out, if you are interested. And we remember...

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

There it is! The problem is that the wadges of sin is death. So the answer to our why question is that sin distances us from God and leaves us in eternal separation form him. The message here is not "God hates Fags!" It is that God hates people to die without relationship to him. He desires that none should perish. The reason that God has such strong language against sin is because it robs people of relationship with him. 

If people are unwilling to even acknowledge sin, then they aren't going to be interested in the savior from it.

If homosexual sin is enticing to you, then that is your temptation, but you have to face it the same way a heterosexual man or woman faces their own sexual temptations: in obedience or rebellion, in humility or pride. As a Christian I have a responsibility of obedience because I am not the King, and the good news is when I fail there is a God who forgives. But a Christian needs to hold to what the Bible teaches on such matters. A non-Christian does not, that is their choice.

But our sinful proclivities do not excuse our acquiescence to them. God is inviting us all to himself if we will only come.

thanks