Saturday, April 28, 2012

A Tag and a Note

Something from last time that I think deserves being addressed:

Lalaith said that the God of of the OT might have done certain things that the God of Jesus would not have. To be clear, the God of the OT IS Jesus. You know that Angel that came and slaughtered 185,000 soldiers that were about to attack Israel? That was Jesus (many times in the OT, He is referred to as "the Angel of the LORD"). The Angel that came and was killing the Israelites when David sinned in numbering the people? Jesus. To say that the God of the OT and the God of Jesus are not the same demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about Who Jesus is.

Now to the post of today, a short one from Threnody.

There's a logical jump in her thought process when she starts going off the line of thinking that is, "if the Bible is right." She states that if the Bible is right, she was never saved - true. She then states that, since she "sought God" and never was saved, it's logical that she never will be. Which would be true, except that, if the Bible is right, she never SOUGHT God. In which case, there is absolutely no reason to think that God will not save her. She makes this same leap again at the end, switching between what the Bible says and what she believes. She believes she sought God, that she called HIM Lord, and all those other things. But if she's not saved, she didn't. So either she didn't come to drink of the waters of life freely and she's damned; or she did and she's not. It can't be half and half. And since she left, we know she's not; therefore, she didn't. It's my plan not to bring this up any more for a while, so if you notice these types of comments missing, it's because I don't want to be beating a dead horse. Or any horse. . . .

I don't want anyone to believe the Bible in order for them to feel doomed  - that just ruins any life they have here. Why would I want to take away the only life they'll have? I want people to believe the Bible in order for them to be saved. Yes, I do want her to believe that - unless something changes - her eternity is hell and punishment; but not for the sake of it hanging over her head for the rest of her life. Rather, like most people who teach on such things, it's to impress upon people the importance of their need for a Savior. People don't care if they're walking on train tracks if they don't think that the train is ever going to come.

If God were ONLY holy, all would be punished; and if God were ONLY loving, all would be saved. However, God is multi-faceted and the more beautiful because of it (like a precious stone); and in order to display ALL of His attributes, some must be punished and some must go free. It makes perfect sense. If rainbows were only one color, they would be pretty - but the array of colors makes them more marvelous.

Friday, April 27, 2012

OT Jews; NT Christians

Blogger went and changed its layout. Why are things on the internet always doing that??? Do they not understand that people USE their stuff because they LIKE IT the way it is?

That's not my topic, though I could probably go on about it for a while.

Here are some thoughts from Lalaith. And here are my corresponding thoughts. :)

First, some differences between Islam and Christianity - Islam kills people. Christianity does not. Islam says, "Convert, or I'll kill you." Christianity says, "You're already dying; convert." Did Israel kill a lot of people? Yes. Do Christians today kill people? Not generally. I can't say never, but generally speaking, people who actually believe the Bible don't go around killing people. Islam still does.

No one in the OT (or the NT, or any other time) is killed SIMPLY because they're not a Jew. This is quite clear from Romans 3:23, 6:23, and, you know, all those other verses that declare that EVERY person is sinful and DESERVES death. No one died for not being a Jew. People die because of sin. If Gentiles had no sin, they would not die. Sin is a prerequisite of death - being a Gentile is not. Not believing in the right God is more than enough reason that we die - it's sin.

The Jews and the taking of the Promised Land: God made the earth, therefore, God owns it. God allowed the Canaanites to live in Canaan for many years AFTER He'd promised it to Abraham. Whether or not they all knew about it, they COULD have known about it. And they certainly SHOULD have known once the Israelites were coming to take it. They stayed and fought anyway. Moses came 430 years after Joseph. That's over 500 years from the time that God told Abraham that He would give him the land and when Moses and Joshua brought the Israelites out of Egypt and into the land of Canaan. That's a long time for the news to get around. Whether or not they listened or dismissed it is on them, but I don't know how anyone can possibly know that they for sure didn't know that God had given the land to Israel. God actually sent hornets in to drive out some of the Canaanites, rather than having them slaughtered.

Also, it wasn't that the Jews wanted the land. It's that God gave them the land. In fact, they got lazy and didn't bother taking it all - that's how much they "wanted" it. God had to TELL them to take it. He cursed an entire generation of Jews to die in the wilderness because they "wanted" it so much that when they saw it, they didn't want to go fight for it because they were afraid. No, many of the Jews who came out of Egypt did NOT want Canaan - they wanted Egypt. They disobeyed - like Adam and Eve - and they died.

As for the part about Bible survey classes - they're CALLED "survey." I'm not exactly sure what Lalaith was expecting, but I think that class would have to be something like eight hours long in order to get through the ENTIRE Bible with any depth in only the space of two semesters. (I took those same classes, by the way, so I know exactly what she's talking about.)

During the OT, yes, God's focus was on the Jews. Why? Because they're His people. Growing up, my focus was on my family - my siblings, my parents. Now, I'm married and going to have a baby - my focus is on my family - my husband, my child. OT; NT. God is ALWAYS about His family. In the OT, God's family consisted primarily of Jews (though there are instances of non-Jews being saved and pulled into the family - Rahab and Ruth for example). In the NT, Christ opened up the doors for everyone. God expanded His family because the people He'd chosen had rejected Him. However, His focus is always and ever His family.

About the "change of ideology:" God used the nation of Israel to deal out judgment to other nations. Again and again, that was the reason He gave for the Israelites to destroy other nations. He also used other nations for that same purpose. In fact, later on, He used Assyria to destroy Israel and Babylon to destroy Judah for their sin. God uses nations to judge other nations. That is a theme throughout the entire Bible. The Jews were not to mingle with other nations. Why? The same reason that Christians are not supposed to marry non-Christians. "Be not deceived: evil communication corrupt good manners." That means that evil living corrupts good living. God knew that if the Jews did not put up defenses against their wicked neighbors, they would fall into the same sins as their neighbors. This is EXACTLY what happened to Solomon. He married a bunch of women who were not Israelites and they turned his heart away from God to worship THEIR gods.

However, God placed Israel in a very important spot of the Middle East for a reason. Israel is in the exact spot where the trade routes have to go connecting the East with Africa. Israel was placed there for a reason - to have an impact on the world around them. Like Christians, they were in the world, but they were not supposed to be OF the world.

As for Lalaith's point about making converts by love or force, sadly, she has a point. Again, this reminds me of the movie, "The Kingdom of Heaven" in which "Christians" took up the "holy crusade" for Jerusalem. In which you can hear a man repeating again and again, "It is not murder to kill an infidel; it is the path to heaven." Sadly, these teachings were associated with Christianity, but they are not Christian. Part of the problem is that the umbrella of "Christianity" includes so many religions. Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Catholicism - these all, though VERY different, are branches of that massive religious tree that is Christianity. But are they really? Well, no. The Bible teaches that Christ IS God, not that Christ was created (as both Mormons and JW's teach). The Bible only teaches that we are to pray to God, not Mary nor any saint, a staple teaching of Catholicism. It is important that we not assume that because a person claims to be a Christian that they are actually FOLLOWING Christ, which is what the name once meant.

While I believe that John Calvin was a Christian and he was certainly used of God, he was a man and a sinful one, as are we all. Like Luther and any other big name a person could throw out there - they are fallen people and wicked and they sin. And sometimes, they are even sins as destructive as murder. They should not be excused for these wrongs; but neither can all the good they did be thrown out because of it.

For Lalaith's example, I have stated before what I believe regarding Christians praying for the deaths of others and how there is not a single NT example of a Christian taking such an approach, but rather quite the opposite with Stephen and our Lord Jesus both praying for their murderers while being killed.

In her closing, Lalaith has a very good point. FORCED Christianity  is not real Christianity. You will not get anywhere trying to force things on people. You may make "converts" but you will not make Christians - you CANNOT make Christians. Only God can. This is a large reason why I started my own blog, rather than posting comments on theirs. I did NOT want to force my beliefs on them, or continuously be throwing them in their face. As an example, when a girl gets engaged, she doesn't have to shove her ring in people's faces. They see the sparkle and they want a closer look. And then, it does not serve you well STILL to shove it in their face. Rather, you hold up your hand and let them look at it at the closeness they can best see it, turning it to this side and that as they wish.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

A Query and Verses



The post.

I wasn't sure, at first, what I was going to do with this one. I mean. . . she's mocking the Bible. What's there to blog about? Why you shouldn't mock the Bible? Well, either you believe the Bible and so you already know you shouldn't; or you don't, and you don't think it matters.

One thing that does make me scratch my head: If my husband wrote a book (which he might someday), I highly doubt that no matter what most people thought about it, they would write something like that post mocking it. I could be wrong, but it's just not what most people I know would do, no matter how much they dislike my husband. If they're my friend, they wouldn't do that because they know it would bother me. So. . . . Here's my question: Certainly a lot of unsaved folks have friends and family who ARE saved, who do love God. Why doesn't the love of the unsaved for their friends and family cut off those kinds of things?

Christians hold the Bible very dear because it is a letter from their Father. It's a long letter, but it's also the ONLY letter. The Bible is very precious to us, like a keepsake that was given to a child when their dad promised that he would return from a war or a business trip or whatever. I know that both Threnody and Lalaith have family that are, at least, professing Christians. So why wouldn't you NOT write things like that just for their sake?

Of all the religions in the world, Biblical Christianity and Islam are the only two I can think of where if you don't believe it, you're damned. Every other one - as far as I can recall - has a way out. Catholics have purgatory. Mormons have different levels of heaven. I highly doubt that either Threnody or Lalaith believe in any form of eternal punishment. So, why not leave their family in their supposed blissful ignorance? Why bother them with things like this post when their family's beliefs aren't doing any harm?

I can only think of one answer. The hatred the unsaved have for God and the things of God outweighs the love that they have for their families. Which would mean, on a very basic level, that the hatred the unsaved have for God is so strong that they are actively HURTING their "loved ones." If you have other ideas, please comment.

As for the verses themselves, I'm going to try to go over them briefly in order to help any who might not understand how they fit together. One thing to always keep in mind while reading Proverbs is that these are general truths, not absolute truths. That's why Proverbs 26:4-5 make sense. There's more than one kind of fool. Some you should answer and some you shouldn't. That's why wisdom is so important.

Onward! Proverbs 9:7 - The verse isn't talking about God's disapproval; it's talking about the disapproval of the scoffer. If you correct a scoffer, there's a good chance they won't like you.

Acts 24:16 - Paul says that he's pushing toward that goal. Not that he's achieved it.

Proverbs 28:4 - There are many ways to contend with someone. Living in direct opposition to how someone thinks you should is contending with them. Refusing to stand when the rest of the room does is contending with them. Etc. etc. Contention doesn't just mean words.

I John 5:2-3 - The fallen, sinful heart is not capable of keeping God's commands. Thankfully, God has offered salvation, so that we can love Him AND keep His commandments. (Side note on her paragraph: Hormones don't demand anything. They want; they desire. They can't demand; they don't have that power. That's why it's called "giving in." Your brain makes the decision.)

Romans 7:15-21 - This is nothing that any Christian finds strange. This is the war of the flesh and the spirit, and it is a war. But she left off the end. "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Justification is done; sanctification is a process, and this passage is about sanctification. But our Savior is still our Savior, and He doesn't leave us fighting alone. Verse one of chapter 8 - "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus..." Sometimes, the Bible makes more sense if you take out the stuff that men added in like verse and chapter breaks.

I Corinthians 6:19-20 - First, this is for Christians, who are sons, who are told to serve. Do children have to obey their parents? Yes and no. They're supposed to, but they often don't. We're not forced to obey; we're told to obey. We're not slaves; we're children.

Rand Hummel quote: If he's talking about Christians, he's absolutely right. While we WILL sin, we don't HAVE to sin and it is a choice.

I Chronicles16:29 - We can be holy. That's pretty much what salvation is all about. We just can't EARN it.

Titus 2:11-12 - "To all men" is not referring to individuals, but to peoples. Just like God is going to save some out of every nation and tongue and people. It is possible to deny our sin nature. That's part of the glorious liberty with which God has made us free (Romans 8). How do we live godly? The same way we live holy - by God's grace.

I Timothy 6:9 - That isn't talking about rich people; it's talking about people who WANT to be rich. People who want to be rich have a tendency of falling into trouble. Enron, anyone? Money isn't evil; loving money is.

Ephesians 4:22 and Romans 6:12 - The same as the living godly and holy. It's all the same thing.

Romans 8:32 - It's human sacrifice, just not ONLY human sacrifice and also, it wasn't murder on God's part. The "giving Him up" was partly the whole, you know, SEPARATION thing. Like, when you "give up" your kid when they get married. The "giving of the bride" idea. To be sure, Christ died and God killed Him, but it was just because first, Christ took on Himself all of my sins (along with a bunch of others) and that made Him, in a way, worthy of God's punishment though He Himself had never done anything wrong or was in His Person tainted in the least bit by sin.

I thought about splitting it up, but I need to go get lunch around.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

For All Have Sinned

In an effort to not fail my set goal yet again, I'm posting another blog today. So if you're looking for Part Two, it's just moved down already. :)

To the topic at hand: Here is Threnody's post. I'm going to be using some terms that I've defined in earlier posts, so please, make sure you're caught up first. :) Otherwise, you might get lost.

She starts by asserting that she is not a sinner, which is, of course, a direct contradiction to the Bible. She then says she was damned over something she had no control over. However, everyone damned is damned for their sin - something they not only choose, but something that they love and refuse to give up.

I've gone over why sin was not arbitrarily set up by God, but why does sin deserve such a harsh penalty? Death? Why death? Well, remembering what sin is - a rejection of God's worth by holding something else to a higher level of love and commitment - it becomes clearer. God is life. If you reject God, you reject life. So, why death? 'Cause you looked at life and said, "I like something else better." It's an interesting thing; God gives all the unsaved people EXACTLY what they want. They don't want Him; He puts them in Hell. They don't want His light; He gives them darkness; they don't want His life; He gives them eternal death. In sending them to Hell, God is giving them exactly what they longed for on this earth - complete separation from Him.

So why should we be overwhelmed with what Christ gave up for us? Christ is God. Christ took on death? Christ took on separation from God the Father? Christ took on sin and darkness and all those things that Hell is? Yes, we should be overwhelmed with that. That is beyond incredible. We were stupid enough to WANT Hell, and He said, "I'll take it for them so that they can live." Yep. Overwhelmed is exactly what we should be.

How much sacrifice is it to die? . . . Well, let's see. On one hand - perfect life and happiness forever. On the other hand - death and separation and the equivalent of millions of eternities in Hell. How much sacrifice is it for a prince to switch places with a servant for a day? That's a sacrifice, and that's only for a day and only going from EARTHLY riches to servanthood - not from HEAVENLY status as Lord of all Creation to servant. And it wasn't just dying. Jesus didn't appear as a grown man, spend a few days doing miracles and then go to the cross. First, He was confined to Mary's womb for nine months. He had to go through birth. Then, He had to grow up as a human - didn't we all just LOVE puberty? He lived on this Earth for 33 years, mocked, rejected, without a house, persecuted and hated by the people that He had created and how did His ministry come to an end? They crucified Him - one of the guys that He had spent so much time with betrayed Him. His disciples, His closest friends, ran away and denied Him. His watched His mother watch Him die. Think about that for a minute - watching your mom watch you die. And then there's all the stuff I've blogged about before - the separation between Christ and the Father; the aloneness that He had NEVER felt before and it happened at the Cross! And you know what's more - He's forever Man and God now. He's the second Adam forever. Christ has a body now.

Threnody's second paragraph: Sinners cannot do right in the eyes of God because everything they do is tainted by WHY they do it. If a Christian and a non-Christian do the EXACT same action, the Christian is the only one with a chance of doing it right because they have the Holy Spirit and they are a new creation. Yes, the plowing of the wicked is sin, because the plowing of the wicked does not take God into account. Even the plowing of the wicked - something that would seem like middle ground, like it doesn't count either way - is wrong. How? Because they do it ignoring God. And to ignore God is to sin. Unsaved people do a LOT of socially good things; they do not do anything morally good.

Third paragraph: There's not much to say for this one that hasn't already been said. One point, Jesus came voluntarily; He was not forced to come. For the rest, the natural man cannot understand the things of God. So Threnody sees death and hate and injustice where it doesn't belong, and it's only by God's grace that any of us see it differently.

How To Know: Part Two

I encourage you to first read these:
Lalaith's original post
Part One

So - obviously, I didn't get this up "the next day," but at last, here I am about to dive into the actual post. Some of it, I went over in Part One, so I'm going to skip over those things. As always, feel free to post or email questions/comments.

Do non-Christians have epiphanies? Sure. Where did they get the ability to reason? Why were they in the circumstances that led to them having that epiphany? Christians and non-Christians get good things from the same Person. They get them differently and to a different extent and such, but ALL good things come from God (James 1). The difference in the experience of the Christian and non-Christian is not that one received something good and one MADE something good. The difference is that they BOTH received something good and only one gave God the thanks for it. The difference is the ten lepers who were healed and only one came back. All ten got something. Only one showed gratitude to the Healer.

Lalaith says something quite interesting when she says that taking responsibility for your own smarts is something that takes guts. Really? It takes guts for me to say, "Hey, look what I accomplished"? "I made this." "Look, Mom, no hands!" Seriously? From the time we can show off what we can do, we show off what we can do - and it's usually something that's as lastingly marvelous as the riding a bike with no hands.

But even that - why am I able to ride a bike without needing my hands? That's not something I accomplished on my own. I'm able to ride a bike at all 'cause I have legs and don't have polio or cerebral palsy. Who gave me legs? You see? Even the smallest, "silliest" things that we can do, we can only do because God gave that to us. Now, this is a two-sided truth. Because, on the one hand, you can focus on your side of it and feel depressed because you suddenly realize that you deserve nothing. You have nothing to be proud of, nothing to think more of yourself for. OR, you can focus on the other side, the side that goes, "WOW! What a kind and generous God Who thought to give me legs and was good enough to keep me healthy so that I can enjoy riding a bike!" You know we could have looked like tadpoles. God didn't have to make us how we are, with arms and legs. We could have ALL had IQs of 40 - He didn't need to give us really smart people or talented people or strong people.

By virtue of acknowledging a creator (or creators), you acknowledge that nothing you have is of your own doing. It doesn't matter what creator you believe in - if you believe in one, you have nothing that you can say, "Look what I did all by myself!" Because someone MADE YOU with that ability. You didn't do anything by yourself.

A short, but important, point: Making a mistake, like believing that something that ISN'T wrong is God's will and then you realize, "Oh. . . . That wasn't right" does NOT mean that you are LIVING in sin. You probably sinned along the way, but sinning and LIVING in sin are two VERY different things. Everyone sins; Christians are not allowed to live in sin. And by "not allowed" I mean, our merciful Father doesn't let us. On the other hand, the unsaved are always living in sin.

There's no way to prove this, but I would imagine that most of the times that Christians think something is God's will and it isn't, it's because they didn't wait. It's because they rushed into something without taking time to stop and pray about it, to ask trusted people, to really consider it. Not always - but most of the time.

Obviously there's a problem with Lalaith's personal account. A prerequisite of being able to know God's will (with the sole exception of when God convicts you of needing a Savior) is being saved. I've gone over that MANY times and in different ways. She asks, "If I sought Him earnestly and did as His Bible told me to do, was I not following Him and considered to be His child?" IF she were actually doing those things, she would BE His child. The difference is, she THOUGHT she was when she wasn't. Like, when I think I'm being helpful, but I'm really not because, in actuality, I'm not doing the thing like the person asked me to. But I think I am. It's the same thing.

Those people in Luke 13 who are striving to enter in at the narrow gate are not striving to do it the right way. And that's why they aren't allowed in. It's not because they're doing everything right and God just says, "No." They're not doing it right. There is no contradiction of free will and predestination except where people try to fit God into a box. ANY time you try to put God in a box, you will contradict the Bible. But it's YOU contradicting the Bible - not the Bible contradicting itself.

As for differing Christian camps "warring" on each other - I've not seen this. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I'm just saying, I've never seen Christians war with each other. War seems like a rather exaggerated term, although, to be honest, the entire post seems on the dramatic side. If there are Christians WARRING - they need to stop. However, their warring does not touch anything about the veracity of God's Word. Because Christians are sinful therefore the Bible is false? No, that's not how it goes. Because Christians are foolish and proud, therefore God is not Who He says? That's not a proof. God never said we would be perfect here. The Bible doesn't claim that everything in it is easy to understand - on the other hand, the Apostle Peter said of Paul's writing that there are things very HARD to understand. We're finite trying to understand the Infinite. It's not going to be easy all the time.

In closing - God is NOT the Author of confusion. But sinful people cause chaos. And because God is long-suffering, He allows them to work through some things without just saying, "Here's the answer." Some things He told us straight out; some things He lets us learn to help us grow.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

How to Know: Part One

How to Know The Will of God. Can it be done? Is it of our own making?

Using a quote, that's basically the question that Lalaith is posing here. This quote reminds me of the movie "The Kingdom of Heaven" where you see Muslims and Christians fighting over Jerusalem both because it is the will of their god.

First, two terms to know - sovereign will and moral will. Now, the two terms do not exclude one another - God's sovereign will is not immoral and God's moral will is not lacking in sovereignty. Another way to describe it is God's will and God's plan. God's will is that none should perish (His moral will that no one ever did anything wrong and all were perfect always); His plan is that some do (His sovereign will, the will that allows evil). Because it's easier, I'll use will and plan as our terms; but I wanted to be clear that nothing that happens is OUTSIDE God's will.

So did God will the fighting over Jerusalem? Yes, that was in His plan - we know this because it happened. If it wasn't His plan and it happened, He wouldn't be sovereign. Was it in line with His moral character? Not if it happened like it did in the movie. I'm not a historian, but I highly doubt that many of the actual events were morally upright.

It is definitely true that we need to be VERY careful that we are not using "God's will" as an excuse to do what we want. This is more easily done if we first purpose to do WHATEVER God wants us to, especially if we're thinking about specific things, like what kind of job to pursue or where to live.

For instance, the man I married lived 2000 miles away in a state I pretty much ignored because my thinking was that nothing good came out of it. I did NOT want to move to CA. I hated the idea of leaving my church, my family, and my Michigan. Combined with the rest of the stuff we had to work through, had I not been CERTAIN that I was supposed to marry Zack (as in, that was the guy God had for me), I wouldn't have done it. My mother-in-law told me once that she was thankful that I loved Zack enough to come all the way out here. I had to think about it for a while, but I'm quite convinced that I didn't love Zack enough to come all the way out here. I almost broke up with him multiple times because I DIDN'T love him enough. I came out here because for years I had been saying to God, "I will marry whoever You want me to." And I would look at any guy and I would look at the ones I thought were unattractive or the ones that I didn't get along with really well as much as the ones I really liked - because I knew that whoever God wanted me to marry was going to be the best. And that's why I'm in CA. Now, of course, I love Zack more and I'm happy to be wherever he is. But it would have died had I not been saying for so long, "Whoever You pick."

Are there other times when we trick ourselves into thinking that something is God's will and it isn't? Oh yeah. I have an example for that too. When I was younger, my dad told me very specifically not to do something. After a few months, I did it anyway because "it felt right." It was a very bad decision. I don't believe that the thing itself was wrong - but the fact that I had so blantantly disobeyed my dad WAS wrong. It was sin, and I terribly regretted it.

Misrepresenting God's will is a large danger, and it can cause a great deal of problems. And that is why Christians are wise to spend a lot of time praying, seeking counsel with each other, and spending lots of time in the study of the Bible.

On the other hand, God has promised that if we are seeking Him, He will direct us. You know that verse (paraphrasing here), Whatever you ask in My name, I will give it to you? Does that mean whatever we ask and tack on the words, "In Jesus' name" God is obligated to give us? No. "In His name" means, in line with Him, in line with His desires. Whatever we ask Following Him. I can't tell you how many times I've seen on Facebook, people post "prayers" that say things like, "I pray that such and such will happen in JESUS' NAME!" and then they say that therefore it will happen. And then it doesn't. That's a horrible misunderstanding of the Bible. It's NOT about the words. It's about the heart. If we are seeking God, He will direct us; He will show us what the path is. But we have to make sure that we're seeking HIS will, not OUR will. And that can be difficult, because we have sneaky hearts.

Well, this is getting long, and I haven't even touched the actual post part. I guess you'll get a part two, hopefully tomorrow.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Two for the Price of One!

But not on the same topic. The more I thought about it, the more I determined it would be better to just leave the rest of those quotes alone, along with the ones in the next post. So I'm just going to deal with the introduction part.

First, a clarification seems to be in order. There is a difference between true Christianity and the religion that is called Christianity. Mormons claim to be Christians; Biblically, they are not. If a Mormon leaves Christianity for Islam, they are a convert to Islam and an apostate of "Christianity." But not Biblical Christianity. Threnody was a "Christian" in that she verbally claimed to be under the umbrella of what is known as Christian. (This, by the way, includes a myriad of different beliefs, many of which directly contradict. Don't be fooled into thinking that because a thing carries the name of Christian that in reality it lines up with the Bible.) The word "apostate" is not talking about the heart - apostate is describing action and verbal claim. At one point, Threnody verbally claimed Christianity. Now she does not. Therefore, she is an apostate. "Apostate" is speaking entirely of something outward, not inward. So, it's perfectly fine to call her an apostate and it's not acknowledging that she was really a Christian - it just means that she claimed it and now she doesn't.

Why do only "ex-Christians" get told that they were not sincere? Well, I don't think "sincere" is a good word, because you can be VERY sincerely wrong. But taking what I think is the spirit of the question, the answer is, Because only "ex-Christians" have the Bible telling them they weren't. The Bible clearly states that you cannot flip-flop. There is no going back and forth. Once you're saved, you don't get unsaved. Once you're saved, you don't stop believing that God exists.

Arguing the foundational belief that Threnody was a Christian is not a personal attack, though I understand why it comes off that way. In point of fact, however, it's the only loving way to go about it. As long as she believes she was a Christian, she'll never have any reason to want to find God. If she thinks she had Him, why would she go back? And for everyone else, if they believe that she had Him, why would they ever want to go that route? Threnody isn't going to come to Christ unless she lets go of believing that she already knew Him. So while I'm sorry that she feels attacked, and she has my solemn promise that I did not mean personal harm, there is no other option here. For her and for anyone else who reads my blog. It is imperative that people understand she did not have Christ. And that is why, despite wanting to maintain our currently friendly status, I cannot cease or desist on this point. It's far too important.

Second, arguing that she is not a Christian is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is taking something "bad" about a person that has NOTHING to do with the argument and saying that's why their side should be disregarded. (One of the examples that was given when I looked it up was, "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003." Jane having cheated on her taxes has NOTHING to do with zoning proposals.)

Two reasons why what I've done is not ad hominem: One, I never said any of her arguments should be given less weight because she's not saved. I've argued with the things she's put forth because of what they are, not because of what she is or isn't. I've simply used the two to explain each other, because hey, it makes sense. Two, the question of her salvation has EVERYTHING to do with what she knows about Christianity. And that is at the very center of her trying to disprove it, and therefore, the center of my response to the blog. It's not ad hominem to say, "Don't go to Aaron for relationship advice; he's been divorced five times." The fact that he's been divorced so many times has DIRECT bearing on the topic.

There's one more thing I'd like to address. Threnody asks, "...what kind of horrible Being lets someone believe they are "saved" when they are not?" This, I find . . . almost humorous and would probably laugh if it weren't for her calling my Savior horrible. First, God revealed to her that she didn't actually believe the Bible, so she left Christianity. Now, Threnody has, what seems to be, numerous people telling her that she was not a Christian. How much more does she want from God? A note? Chances are she has access to a Bible. A messenger? If I'm not enough, she could visit a church. If she'd show them the things that she's put on her blog about denouncing God and calling Him a liar, I'm quite certain they'll tell her she's not and never was. Seriously?

If I left notes around the house for my husband, asked a friend to remind him of something, and left a message on his cellphone, and he didn't bother listening to any of those because he thought he already knew? I would get pretty upset. Now imagine God doing that for years for us. Yes, what kind of "horrible Being" is so cruel to be so patient and giving with us blinded fools?

Thank God for how long-suffering He is; if He weren't, we'd all be in Hell today.

Recurring Themes

People have a tendency to go back to things, to a way of thinking, to a certain fun thing, to whatever. The tendency to go back is caused by the inevitability of change. You know how they say that people can't change? That's ridiculous. People change all the time. It's just the way and the amount that is in question.

I can learn; I can teach myself; I can study. All those things change me. I can work out; I can run away; I can hurt someone; I can help someone - all those things change me. The fact that we are inside of time and time is moving necessitates that we change. You will never be how you are right now. Not completely.

However, there are some things we cannot change. And there are some things that, no matter how much we want to get away from, we cannot do it alone. Some of these things we can do with help from others, with support from family or friends. Some of these things people just cannot change.

Threnody's post is full of old things she wrote - things she wrote from the time when she claimed Christianity. And it amazes me because the post is FULL of the SAME things she says now. Now, they have no veil of religiosity, but the same things were there before.

The surprising part is not that they're the same things - it's that no one realized BEFORE that she wasn't saved. I don't know if these are things she shared with others, but honestly, writing, "then I hate God" should be a LARGE red flag. There should be NO escaping that. You CANNOT hate God and love Him. That is an impossibility. If you don't love God, you are not saved. You CANNOT hate God and be a Christian.

So, basically, I'm just going to point out all the red flags. Things to think about: Do these come up in my desires, in my words, in my thoughts? These are very important because they reveal the heart.

First section: She craves peace. "There is no peace, saith my God, unto the wicked." Do you have no peace? You're not right with Jesus. John 14:27 records Jesus saying, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."

Second section: Threnody very well understood the point that people are not worthy of God's love and mercy, that we are sinful. The problem is, she never really seems to get the point that God MADE us worthy. That's why Paul says we can go BOLDLY before the throne of grace. Christians ARE worthy now - through Christ. That's what salvation IS - it's not just being saved from Hell; it's being made FIT for Heaven. I BELONG there now. That's my home. I've read a lot of what she has written - and maybe it's just that those sections don't appear, I don't know - but I don't recall having read anything that accepts that she has been made fit for Heaven, that she is now worthy of God's love because she is clothed in Christ righteousness, that rejoices in that fact, and thanks God for it. Which makes perfect sense if you believe she wasn't saved.

Third section: I started with this one, so just quickly, you cannot hate God and love Him. If there is a Christian who had access to that before Threnody stopped claiming to be saved, they were remiss if they never pointed out that Christians don't hate God.

Parenthetical Note: Those "Christian counselors" were idiots and didn't know their Bibles very well. At the very least, her brother, parents, and ANYONE who had ANY idea of what was going on (or should have had an idea - like, oh, you know, PARENTS) was at fault. To say that it was HER fault is a most absurd and erroneous judgment. Did she have fault in it? Probably some, but honestly, a young girl should be able to trust her brother, and parents ought to be watching their kids. And anyone close enough to those involved ought to be able to see the issues that are arising from abuse like that.

Fourth: God does care. He cares about sparrows; He cares about His kids. Threnody questions things that should have been very clear from the Bible quite often. Where was the faith she claims she had?

Fifth: This seems like the epitome of the whole thing. She wanted to believe it, but she couldn't. She never completely gave it to God. She always held on to something because she was afraid. And you can't do that. God asks for all, and until you give Him all, He's not going to pick you up. In my opinion, the root of reason that Threnody never got saved is because she never fully believed that God would never hurt her.

Sixth: She thought she was in control of her death. Not a very sovereign god she believed in.

Seventh: She actually wanted God to hurt. You know what bothers me more than anything else when I'm upset about something - the fact that my husband gets upset right along with me. Because I'm unhappy then he's unhappy. I really dislike it; makes me try really hard to not get bugged about stuff. Why? We love each other and don't like seeing each other sad or frustrated. Love doesn't like it when its object is unhappy.

Eight- Twelve: After reading the other stuff, it's really hard to read this and not think "Hypocritical much?" She goes from, "God I hate you!" to "You're so real to me now!" . . . . Really? And what happened to His realness that now she doesn't even believe He exists? This is a red flag. Being flip-floppy is a problem; maybe not always a "you're not saved" problem, but a problem nonetheless. Because it's the thing that we keep going back to that shows our heart. It's the habit that reveals us. And her habit was to question God, to NOT trust His promises, to NOT believe that He was Who He said. Even inside these, it's a "I want to" not, "Thank you for helping me." It's "I want to be warm" not, "Lord, you've set me on fire!" It's a desire, yes, but in the context of the rest of the post, it's a passing one. And it doesn't ever seem that those desires came to pass - which, again, not surprising since she wasn't saved. Fervently praying for things like a greater love for God, and it doesn't happen - red flag. Possibly, the problem is you don't have a love for God to be made greater to begin with.

This is getting really long. Maybe I'll finish it tomorrow or later today. For the time being, remember when you read the rest of those things how she labeled that post. Unanswered. All those things that she wanted, she never got. I'm pretty sure she'd say that her post disproves Christianity because she wanted "to serve God." Christianity, however, says that it disproves the veracity of her claims that she wanted it most.

There are lots of people who want to be on good terms with God. That doesn't mean they want it most. So, either you believe her or you believe God.

One last note: there is an interesting thing almost entirely missing in that whole post. Did you notice it? There are emotions that range from hatred to love to depression to joy. But there's this big empty place where gratitude ought to show up that has one little "thank you" sitting there. This is a red flag. If you are a Christian, you have SO MUCH to be thankful for. Even when the excerpts sound like a Christian, they're still missing gratitude. Thanksgiving is an integral part of prayer and worship, and if you find you are not very grateful, you may want to recheck why you think you're saved.

Monday, April 9, 2012

The Logic of Self-Sacrifice

In case you were wondering if there was a reason I only put up two posts last week, it's because Saturday was my birthday. So I took a day off. :)

Here's another post by Threnody. I almost skipped it because the content is very similar to some things that I've gone over very recently - and I don't like beating dead horses. Or live ones, to be honest. But as I thought about it, I think there's an underlying issue that I may have missed. The underlying issue is the misunderstanding of the virtues of self-sacrifice.

I've addressed why, in order to make people, God had to create men with the ability to choose, why sin is what it is, and why sin isn't just an arbitrary judgment, so I'll not go back over that - if you don't remember, please go back to "Long One" (a two-parter).

Then there is the question and answer, "Who chose not to call ten legions of angels? God did." Now, I'm not sure what the mental context for this is, but what comes to my mind at the mention of legions of angels is Matthew 26:52-53. This is where Christ tells Peter to put his sword away because Jesus has at His disposal all the angels, but His purpose in coming was to go to the cross.

When Threnody said that "God didn't have to do any of those things," she's sort of right and sort of not. From one perspective, God didn't need us, so of course He didn't have to make anything. God was not lacking in anything in His eternal state before the universe existed. So, from that point of view, He didn't have to make men, or take any of the subsequent steps. However, God wanted to make men - and that means, from a different point of view, that He HAD to. To not do what He desires would have been just as wrong for Him as it would be for me to not do what He desires.

In the same way, the rest of the stuff HAD to (and didn't have to) happen, depending on how you're looking at it. Christ didn't HAVE to die on the cross, but at the same time, because God is loving and merciful, He did. Who God is, with His multitude of glorious attributes, dictated what He would do. What people mean (or, should mean) when they say that "God didn't have to" is that no outside force was making Him. God chose to do what He did - His choices (like ours) are determined though, by Who He is. God is just - that's why not all are saved. God is love - that's why Christ came. God is merciful - that's why some are saved. God is good - that's why unjust and just alike enjoy this good earth. Etc. etc.

And finally, we come to the main point of the post - why self-sacrifice makes sense. First, what is self-sacrifice? Basically, it's just giving up something of your own for the sake of someone or something else. My mother is very self-sacrificing, but I don't think a lot of people people see it that way because it makes her so happy. She will give food, money, time, talent, housing - and all while she's feeling sick and has a pounding headache. And she'll do it happily.

Does that remove the sacrificial part? Of course not. She's still giving something for the sake and well-being of others. This is a very important point, because half of the reason that self-sacrifice makes sense is because it has the extraordinary power of giving joy to the one sacrificing! Do you think that Christ went to the cross grudgingly? He did not. He laid His life down WILLINGLY. Why? Because it pleased Him to obey His Father, and it pleased Him to help us. Self-sacrifice, while it can be very difficult, if done with the right attitude, makes the giver very joyful.

The second reason is that helping those around us makes life better for us. If the standard of the whole world rose - in anything - we would all benefit. So if I sacrifice a day off to help teach a math class for poor people, it's beneficial to me as well as them. If I take an afternoon to teach the neighbor kids about how to safely cross the street, it's beneficial to my kids who are going to be playing with them. And that is beneficial to me.

You might think that none of it is really self-sacrificing then. The difference is the reason. Self-sacrifice doesn't do it for me. It just makes sense because, in all honesty, I benefit too. Self-sacrifice is still DOING it for THEM, not for what I get. What I get is just part of why it's logical.

Well, what did God get? God grew His family; He redeemed a bunch of people and now His family is HUGE, and eventually, He will have exactly what He wanted from the beginning - men worshipping Him, communing with Him and enjoying Him, for the simple reason that they love Him.

The fact that Jesus gave His life for us ought to overwhelm us with awe that He loved us when we hated Him, that He would go teach the class for people who wanted to kill Him and give us a better life. It's pretty incredible when people give you money for no apparent reason. The more they gave, the more you tend to feel humbled or awed. God gave Himself. Jesus DIED for me. He took my place of His own free will. If my mother-in-law gave me her china set, I think my mind would be blown a bit. God gave me life - twice.

In closing, Threnody said that "all of that reasoned from the premise that the Bible is true." Just to be clear, she skipped over a lot of the Bible to come up with that reasoning.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

The Difference Between Heart Knowledge and Head Knowledge

First, let's define some terms. What I mean by "the head" - the intellect, the mental process, the ability to observe and draw conclusions. "The heart" - that which makes you you; the seat of your desires and emotions; the thing that interprets what you know and tells you how to act on it.

Here's the post. Oh poetry. . . . I think by now, if you've been reading these blogs much at all, you know how I feel about these things. If you haven't, why are you reading this one before the previous ones? Shoo, shoo. ;) And that's why this post will be going in a slightly different direction than many.

So it might not be clear at first what the first paragraph has to do with the second. Reading that blog post - to me - was like watching that scene in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers where Gollum and Smeagol are arguing with themselves. (If you haven't seen it - it's the same person with two personalities.) There's the one voice that keeps saying Christian things. Then there's the other voice that keeps saying things that are pretty much lacking in foundational faith. And it goes back and forth and back and forth. An example so you know what I'm talking about:

"Oh Father
Be with me
Be near me
Don't leave me
Don't hurt me"

Oh, Father, be with me; be near me. - That's a normal Christian thing to say/pray. I think that's something most of us who've had any kind of hardship have prayed - we pray for God to be EXTRA close; we pray for help, for guidance.

Don't leave me; don't hurt me. - I can honestly say that is not ever something I've thought of saying to God before. Don't leave me? Maybe she didn't know about Hebrews? "I will NEVER leave you, nor forsake you." Don't HURT me? The God I know only hurt One of His children and that was for the sake of redeeming all the others.

But going over her poem is not the point of this post. The point is to draw a distinction between things we know in our heads and things we know in our hearts. And there is a HUGE difference in how we act by where we know a thing. For instance, I know in my head that one day somebody in my immediate family is going to die. But that will probably not be known in my heart until it happens. You see this type of thing a lot, too. Two people who loved each other who argued and fought and then one of them died. And what happens? It's suddenly all "real" to the one left. And often, the one left gets a perspective they didn't have before about just how ridiculous so many of the things that they care about are. Things went from being head knowledge to being heart knowledge and it makes a difference in how they live.

There are a lot of people - particularly in Western culture, I would imagine - who know a lot in their heads about Jesus, about Christianity, about how to live properly in this world. But they don't know it in their hearts. It only makes so much impact, because it's only so deep. It doesn't reach down into their souls and move their very being. It just sits in their head. And that, I believe, is where a large portion of the people who say, "But Lord, did we not do such and such in thy name?" come from. Those people who knew in their heads, but never understood with their hearts - and the head knowledge isn't enough because Jesus says to them, "Depart from Me; I never knew you."

Now I would be loth to bring up such a dangerous topic without offering some kind of idea for how to know. (To be very clear, these are ideas, not a list, not a definition, not a "if this, then this.") First, resolve to be honest, which is harder than it sounds because we have deceitful hearts that like to trick us, like to shift blame, like to get out of feeling guilty or responsible. So resolve to be honest and work at it. And it's work.

Second, take an honest inventory of why you do things. Look through your day and ask yourself, why did I do that? Was there something that made you worry today? Why? Was there a person that showed up and you walked the other way because you wanted nothing to do with them? Why? Did you lie? Did you cheat? Did you slander? Did you gossip? Did you purposefully misrepresent in order to get something or get out of something? Did you shift blame? Did you withhold the truth to save yourself embarrassment? Was it at the expense of someone else? Did you question God why such and such happened to you today? Did you wonder why He "just had to bring THAT person" into your work place? Did you get angry with Him?

I don't know what happened today; I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. I know we fail a lot, so we have a lot of opportunities to look at the why. And it's not just looking at what came out - in fact, most of it is looking at what stayed in.

If your reasons are about you first, they're not about God first. If you're always questioning His purposes, His promises, His character, you're not trusting Him; you can't question His promise and rest in His promise at the same time. There are two ways to ask "why?" One, is questioning motives because you think they're off. The other is curiosity, because you want to understand whoever you're asking. Ask yourself "why" the first way. Try to only ask God "why" the second way, otherwise you're saying He's doing something wrong.

And if you're always accusing God - even if you didn't realize it - you're not walking with Him. And it may be you're not walking with Him because the knowledge is only in your head, not your heart.

In closing: If you are a Christian, the best thing to do for this (and pretty much everything else) is lots of Bible study and prayer. And I don't mean Bible reading. I mean study. I mean meditating on things; I mean praying about specific things; I mean looking at commentaries and not being too proud to ask people what they think about it. Ask God for wisdom; He's promised to give it to those who ask.

If you find that you're not a Christian, that you don't really know Jesus in your heart, here are some things you might want to do: Read the Bible, talk to a pastor or two or three, ask people to pray for you, and ask Jesus to reveal Himself to you, so that you can know Him.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Context

I feel this post is going to need a bit of preface. First, here's the original post by Lalaith.

Now for the preface. Quotes are fun things; I like them. However, I can make any person say anything if I just take snippets of what they said and make them into quotes. If you do that, the Bible even says, "There is no God." Of course, the previous part of that is, "The fool says in his heart." Context is extremely important - especially when you're going back in history far enough that you're in a different era and in a different country. Words don't always mean to us what they meant to people back then or to people on the other side of the world.

I'll bet that if I went through Untwisting and took out little snippets of what they've said, I could make up some very funny and insane sounding things (and they could do the same to me). And it would be extremely annoying, if not, downright insulting to do that to them. Now, understand that I'm not trying to say that Lalaith is purposefully taking things out of context to fit her ends. However, if you take things without a context, without looking at a context, you run the very high risk of misrepresenting - and it doesn't seem like she worried about that at all. If she did do research on the quotes, she didn't bother posting anything about it.

Onward, to the actual post. Reading the quotes, I don't really know what Luther was talking about when he said them, and honestly, I don't feel that it's my job to go find out. I do know that Luther engaged in debate - both verbal and written - that when he was told to recant, his reply was that if they could convince him by Scripture and sound reasoning, then he would. So, obviously, either he grew up from his former position, or those quotes should not be taken at face value.

I also know that Luther was known for his hot-headedness, and it would not at all surprise me if he later regretted some of the things that he said in the heat of the moment. Perhaps, not for what he meant, but how he said it. There are also things that I think he took for granted that people would just understand. For instance, the comment about the Pope. Obviously, the Pope couldn't have been the Devil because the Devil is a spirit, not a man. I think Luther understood that that very basic fact and probably could have phrased his words better, but he was not the kind of person to beat about the bush when what he wanted to get across was the that Pope was doing the will of the Devil. Why say with ten words what you can say with five?

I don't know if people weren't as picky back then about using just the right word or if he just only cared about answering the people who were going to put a little effort into understanding what he was saying. Either way, all of those quotes seem to be geared toward specific people, people who have a background, or who are in the middle of a conversation or something. Like, if I were telling my mom a story, I would tell it differently than if I were telling someone I don't know as well. My mom and I know each other really well. I know that if I say something that other people might take a bad way, she knows me well enough to know how I ACTUALLY meant it.

Lastly, though I believe Luther did a lot of good in his life and was very much used of God, he was a man. He had to have said SOME things that were wrong. There is nothing wrong with reason. If that really is what he was trying to say (though I don't believe it), then he was wrong. God gave us the capacity for reasoning and the capacity for faith - the two are not supposed to be parted and there is nothing in the Bible that would indicate that they should. The Apostle Paul REASONED in the synagogues habitually. And that should answer the Ignatius quote as well.