Looking Upward

Questions, I reckon...

2008-04-17T21:10:00.003-05:00

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

When Paul uses all this 'accounting jargon' what does he mean?
When are we justified? -
When our account reaches zero?
When our account has the righteousness of Christ as a debit?
When some of our own righteous works are debited? Can we even contribute?

How far above zero do we have to be to be saved?

If we are imputed, counted or reckoned to be debt free, are we also imputed, counted, reckoned to have a positive balance on account?
If so, how much, who put it there, and whose is it?

Who errs?

2008-04-08T21:13:00.002-05:00

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

They erred, not knowing the scriptures. Apparently the ability to not err comes from knowing the scripture. Which would mean that the scriptures are without err wouldn't it?

Romans 8:14

2008-04-03T15:33:00.003-05:00

A Christian believes that there are two forces at work on an individual's life - good and evil. He believes that there are only these two at work, no middle ground. No neutral decisions.
Essentially every one of his decisions are made with this at work behind the scenes, in his conscience as it were. If this premise is true, then it also stands to reason that when several Christians assemble and they make a corporate decision they are also affected by this phenomenon. Either their decision is good or their decision is evil.

Most Christians would call for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their individual and corporate affairs. Alas, Jesus himself said that where "two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the midst".

Is it a safe induction to say that the Holy Spirit is present giving guidance and inspiration to individual and corporate decisions made? Perhaps a distinction should even be made between individual and corporate decisions. Is there some number needed for a quorum? Jesus said two or three.

Is there something wrong with this logic?

Observations from the bow

2008-04-02T22:18:00.004-05:00

It's amazing to me how that some will go to such intellectual lengths to prove that going to intellectual lengths is not recommended.
Then when they see that their Logical Ship: Hypocrite is shown to be quite unseaworthy, how reluctant they are to grab on to the lifesaver marked Belief.

word or Word?

2008-04-01T19:39:00.002-05:00

I guess that I have always viewed God as somehow controlling the hand of the Biblical authors as they wrote the words that they were inspired to write. Whether or not it happened in just this way, I knew that God was involved somehow.
However, others say that the Bible is simply a collection of some historians, poets, dreamers, and other motley associated people and their thoughts, recollections and observations. Maybe this is true. To be honest, I am tired. Tired of trying to boil it down to either/or. Black or white. Yes or no. Right or wrong.
Even though I really believe it is one way or the other and that the character of God is stake, I like to think that this whole issue maybe doesn't matter that much.

And, yet... that is so unsatisfactory.

Freedom of press(ure)

2007-12-03T20:54:00.000-05:00

Usually when I’m fearful, my heart beats faster and my palms begin to sweat. Now is one of those times. The United States Government’s First Amendment has included in it’s content freedom of the press, or freedom to write or express what one will. However, as a basic right of humans created in the image of God, is this really an expectation that is reasonable? Is this something that we are entitled to in light of the Holy Scripture?
For some reason our country, The United States of America, seen fit to adopt as one of her guiding principles the right of her citizens to express themselves in poetry or prose. Was this because her founding fathers were denied this right at some other time prior to their organization? Of course. They were denied this privilege to some degree or another in some countries of Europe and then to a different degree by England when it became apparent what this upstart young rebellious group of people were striving for. Liberty!
In truthfulness, that is not always what this country has experienced since then. Consider the plight of the Native American, the African American and other oppressed peoples throughout the course of history. But, the point remains, we desire to have the freedom to write and express what is on our minds.
However, this is dangerous. Anyone can see that. One author has an essay titled “Ideas have consequences”. Stirring addresses have been written. Revolutionary books have been penned. Piercing poetry has been composed. Jokers write to make people laugh. Hucksters write to turn a buck. Professors write to impress. Journalists write to spread bad news. Prophets write because their bones are burning.
Does the Bible support the freedom to write without worry of censorship? I think it does. If you don’t, then how will we resolve this dilemma? Who has the right to expression? The oldest? The wisest? The furthest up the church ladder?
Some churches have taken it upon themselves to monitor material written by their members. This is prudent. However, if the iron fist descends in judgement upon the erring soul, what is the judgement bar? Is it the Word of God? Or, is it men’s writings that are used to determine whether the judged has indeed transgressed?
I think that our fellowship has built and nurtured a system that oppresses our own thinkers and writers from expressing thoughts and writing articles that may seem to threaten the Establishment. Do we have something that cannot weather a little criticism? Are we afraid that our doctrine and system may tumble under the lightest scrutiny? I say no! Let the flood gates of opinion and careful exegesis both open. We will be the better for it.

How do you know that?

2007-09-24T12:59:00.000-05:00

You can never know too much...

Dan. 12:4, Ecc. 12:12

How the story ends

2007-08-18T17:34:00.000-05:00

My dear brother posted on How the story begins. My question is how the story ends.

Joh 19:28-30 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. (29) Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. (30) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

What is 'It'?
All things?

If it is all finished then why do we place the importance on the resurrection?

Why do you preach?

2007-07-02T08:58:00.000-05:00

Historical Anabaptist (Brethren) belief is that the Great Commission has been fulfilled. At least, that is what the holders of this view say.

This is what they point to for support:

Mat 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen

Mar 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Mar 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mar 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

It seems that at least from a cursory reading of the text that that view is correct. Is it?
Is that the case, and in today's economy upon reading Matt. 22:39 we simply see "neighbor" in a larger scope because of better modes of travel and communication?
To me, if we are called to love our neighbor, that at least means that we should tell them the truth about their precarious situation before a just God, which in turn leads to "preaching the gospel and baptism" a la Matt: 28. Doesn't both roads lead to the same place, or are not those that are opposed to the Great Commission and those that believe it is still very much in effect both ending up at the same destiny - in regards to impetus for preaching...?

Query #2

2007-03-10T21:45:00.000-05:00

C'mon now, let's talk about the difference between dispensationalism and covenantalism and whether another view exists. It seems that the Mohler brethren (Al and David) are not dispensationalists, but I can't hardly picture brother David in covenantal garb.
Enlighten me, is there another view?

Further, without getting too deep, can another view be formulated that doesn't make the covenantal or dispensational mistakes. Admit it, there are problems with both views.

Go light on the Greek please.

Query #1

2007-03-10T21:29:00.000-05:00

I have got to post something and retire last Christmas' post. The bummer is that I really don't have anything but questions. It is difficult to come up with a clear, concise, cohesive exhortation or expostulation when all you want to do is ask questions... Alas, I have two queries but I shall make you wait for the second until the first is sufficiently aired.

The other evening our church fellowship men got together and listened to two of our spiritual leaders talk to us about spirit leadership. The discussion that followed produced the following comment from one of my older fellow members. This particular portion of discussion was centered around the necessity to continue (next winter) with the meetings that we were finishing. Directly following a request from one young man to have more meetings that were taught from a book of the Bible, say Revelation, or something like that, this older man piped up and said that he didn't think it was necessary to bring the Bible into our meetings because he has heard before that "you can prove anything from the Bible."
I'll have to say that I was incensed. However, I haven't had a chance to talk this man yet.
Hint: here comes the question, What would you say?

Christmas Cheer

2006-12-11T13:25:00.000-05:00

Last evening our family went to a neighboring church to experience their Christmas program. Our experience was veritable sensory overload. As we entered the lobby we were greeted at the door by two older gentlemen that were fairly bursting with Christmas joy. Inside the lobby smooth jazzy notes exuded from a couple guitars, a muted piano, a saxophone and drums. Off to the sides were tables spread with wassail and butter cookies. The actual program was replete with choir, orchestra, soloists, ballet pieces, drum corps from a nearby marching band, theatre and more.
Our eyeballs were entertained by fake fog, colorful costumes and carefully choreographed dance and gymnastic moves. The ears were tickled by the titter and crescendo of the orchestra, the ‘feel’ of the drums and the harmony of voices singing period and contemporary Christmas music and carols. Not to be outdone by the sensory input, the emotions were keenly involved by virtue of the story – Jesus Christ answers the inherent cynicism of the season, the endless running after gifts because He is The gift, the Ultimate gift.
As the noise died down and the mind began to be involved as one of the faculty members again, I tried to process what I had just witnessed. I am torn, torn between the sensational emotions of the experience and the lack of simple worship.
Now, as you read this, am I just a snotty, better-than-thou do-gooder, only interested in tearing something apart just because it maybe doesn’t meet my stringent view of how things ought to be done in all of Christendom? How can we that are fairly critical of each and every thing that comes into view be even-handed in our criticisms? It only concretes the dim view that some of our peers hold of us when we go off about how this isn’t right about that and that isn’t right about this. Have I ascended into spiritual and religious haughtiness, intolerant of everyone who doesn’t see things just the way I do? Am I a pharisaical snob interested only in the sure, pure exegesis of the Word of God to the exclusion of the sinner, the one who needs it most?
Shall we continue, from the relative safety of our desktops, to cast doubt on every attempt at worship by our fellow followers? Is this indeed the worship that we ourselves bring to God, a legal, tight-lipped, furrowed-brow, assessment of all the inconsistencies of everyone around us? Brethren, if so, we shall be busy.
However, please start at home.

Merry Christmas season –
From: A sinnical, yet saved Christian…

The happy unbeliever

2006-12-04T11:14:00.000-05:00

The U.S. New & World Report periodical recently ran an article on Atheism.
Here is a letter to the editor in response to the article:

Many thanks for Jay Tolson’s thoughtful “The New Unbelievers” [November 13]. What is new about the new atheism is that science is just beginning to explore religion as a natural phenomenon of the brain, not the super-natural phenomenon of gods, spirits, and demons that most people still believe it to be. Atheism is a positive and uplifting worldview. Liberation from darkness, superstition, and irrationality of religion often brings great happiness, along with a serious commitment to do what is right for our fellow humans and for our natural world-the only world there is.
-John C. Wathey
San Diego
(emphasis mine)

Hmmm, (stroking beard), whence cometh all these words of ethics, value and morality? Atheism is positive? How positively ludicrous! To say that atheism is positive is to assume a negative. Or rather, that religion is the negative worldview. Many awful atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but with the exception of radical Islam, most religions are peaceful. When the awful stains upon these religions, especially Christianity, were committed, they were in direct opposition to the tenets of their faith. However atheism has no barometer for goodness. See Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany for the logical end of atheism.

If Atheism is positive and belief in God is negative, then who or what determines what is the definition of positive or negative? Who defines what is uplifting? How about happiness-how is that given meaning? What of right and wrong? Something or somebody has to determine what or who is the measuring stick for these value-laden words. Is it society? Shall we place society on the bema? If so, would you prefer to live among the head-hunters of South America, war-torn Darfur, The Netherlands, The States, etc. etc.? Not that many of us have a lot of choice in this matter anyway. If we did then why would we choose one society above another?

I asked a co-worker in my office the other day whether it would be right to torture a young child. His response: “I wouldn’t like that, but I can’t say that it would be much more than preference”. He then went on to bring his dog into that conversation and compare mistreatment of animals with mistreatment of children... What really blew my mind was that this person is no dummy. He is a thinker. So much for thinking. Maybe I’ll just stick with being a simpleton.
If evil exists, and it does, then good must also exist. Otherwise, what on earth is evil? If good and evil exist then there must be a moral law to determine between what is good and what is evil. Once again, is this society? Verily not. Is this the dictatorial ruler? No. Is this the beneficial and democratic ruler? Nay. Tis none other than the law of God. If there is a moral law, there must be an origination of the law, i.e. there must be a moral law-giver. God.

I am stunned when I read something that an atheist has written and it is filled with judgement based on ethics, value and morality. These folks may think they are above religion, but they are not above the laws of logic. The law of non-contradiction snags them in a web of inconsistency.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the philosophy of logic itself proves the existence of God, but that is another discussion.

May I be found as a servant of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for that brings me happiness and is positively uplifting and right.

Caught in between

2006-10-26T13:28:00.000-05:00

On one hand we are faced with legalism and authoritarianism. On the other we have the over-emphasis of experience-based religion mixed with postmodernism.

Orthodoxy vs. Mysticism

However, I do not like the term 'middle of the road'. If the middle is not what we aspire to, then what on earth do we aspire to?

2006-10-23T21:08:00.000-05:00

Infiltration or Separation?
In and not of, or come out from among?
Salt, preserving and light illuminating?

Evangelicalism is steeped in mission work. This is the test of a 'true fellowship'. Somewhere on the other end of the spectrum is the Brethren position which teeters between being separate and reaching out to those in need.

Without a doubt, the dying world and the worldly church needs the influence of true Christians, but where does one say enough is enough: "Lest I get my garments soiled, I must stay myself from these swine. "

I suppose many illustrations could be made concerning circumstantial situations that either reaching out or not reaching out would seem to be the laissez faire. That reasoning in and of itself is wavering and postmodern. So which is it?

Infiltration for the sake of reformation and change, or
Separation to maintain purity and control.

Infiltration and the resultant conversion of the out-and-out worldly non-Christian-upbrought person adds all kinds of mixed up viewpoints and perspectives to the church. However, the introspection and self-concern of the Separatist and his offspring upbring ends in excessive control and thought domination. Legalism follows quickly and chokes any fresh thinking that may sprout.

How can we meld these two seemingly opposing views into a pragmatic, faith-building, community-preserving, group of believers? Believers that are filled and motivated by His Spirit to keep themselves unspotted from the world and and the same time be His hands to help the adulterous woman go and sin no more.