God, Sex and Country Music

In recent weeks two of my favourite female singers have separately "come out" revealing that they are lesbians.

Jennifer Knapp was previously marketed as a Christian singer, but it seems her latest album will be marketed differently.

A little more recently country singer Chely Wright has also revealed her homosexuality in her autobiography released early in May. My review of her book can be found here:

Book review of Like Me by Chely Wright

I specifically wanted to write a response to Chely Wright's book because of her constant references to God and her relationship with Him.
Her confession has caused me to consider Christian attitudes to those who are homosexual.
It is easy to condemn homosexuals with scripture as a weapon – and become extremists like the “God hates fags” brigade who wouldn’t recognise God if He hit them over the head with their own bigotry.
Or it would also be easy to be accepting and forgiving, promoting a God of unconditional love who will forgive everything because sin doesn’t really matter that much to Him.

I can’t see that either of these approaches is acceptable.
But what do I make of Chely Wright’s situation in which she claimed to have asked God daily to be delivered of her homosexuality? In that case is it her fault for being how she is? Or is it God’s for not answering her prayer?

Or possibly, maybe, the prayer was unanswered because she was praying to the wrong God – a God of man’s creation. A God based on man’s tradition and cultural conditioning instead of the One true God who hates all sin but mercifully provided mankind a way of deliverance from sin and its penalty – a way that is conditional.

Indoctrinating for heaven or hell?

Some challenging thoughts are expressed here:

http://ceruleansanctum.com/2010/05/indoctrinating-for-heaven-or-hell.html


Have we allowed ourselves to be indoctrinated by the world around us, its standards and expectations?
Or have we really shaped our thinking and expectations according to the word of Jesus and scripture?

review of The Road by Cormac McCarthy

Here is a link to a review I have written on one of my other blogs.
Cormac McCarthy's book The Road received a lot of praise from literary critics and has recently been made into a film.

Without Christ there is certainly no reason for hope in this world.

Review of Cormac McCarthy's The Road

Christians Don't Lie! (part 2)

During my study of “strange phenomena” I continually saw how people maintained belief in some of these things no matter how flimsy the evidence was.
Clearly the desire to believe could overcome almost any obstacle – even confessions of hoaxing were dismissed. Objective truth really didn’t matter. Reality was what someone wanted to believe.

This experience made me increasingly aware of how Christians can also fall into the same trap and their faith becomes more subjective, based on experience and desire instead of on a solid and sure foundation. Even when the reality created out of experience and desire contradicts the claimed foundation of their professed faith, experience and desire are given priority. Excuses are made by applying select portions of scripture in a way that is clearly not appropriate to their context. Verses are used in isolation to mean what is most useful to the one quoting them.

One area that I see regularly stretching the truth is teaching on the last days. A key warning sign regarding this teaching is when the bible has little part to play in the teaching. Yes a verse or two may be quoted – but usually the quotes are taken out of context to support a point already made by the preacher, rather than starting with scripture to see what IT could mean as a stand alone revelation. If it were possible to consider the quote WITHOUT the expectation already created by the speaker we would probably never come to the conclusion he has led us to draw.

So many of the preachers on this topic start with a current political situation and then support it with a few bible verses. Recently I heard a talk about Europe that promotes popular conclusions about the European community being set up as a revived Roman Empire from which antichrist will arise.It was very interesting and very convincing.

The speaker mentioned one of the symbols of this revived Empire – the image of a woman riding a beast, an image straight from the book of Revelation.Unfortunately, being an audio source I wasn’t able to see the visual evidence that the speaker was presenting to his audience and I had to check it later through an internet search.
The results of that search are part for the reason for writing this article.

I found plenty of examples of this “woman riding the beast” and yes, on seeing this evidence the speaker’s claims are quite convincing…UNTIL we turn to scripture itself. Scripture DOES describe a woman riding a beast – but do the European images match the scriptural description?
The European images refer to Europa riding a bull (an image from Greek mythology), a common enough animal with one head and two horns. The beast being ridden in Revelation has SEVEN heads and TEN horns. Surely this is quite a significant difference.

This particular speaker is not the only one to link the Europa image to the Revelation reference. In my search for photos I found that some of them were provided by sites devoted to “end time prophecy”. While Europe does make use of an image of a woman riding a beast, linking this with the description in Revelation is a clear case of misusing scripture. I would even go as far as saying it is an ABUSE of scripture.

A few years ago I bought a DVD from a visiting speaker at a local church. The DVD was about “The End Times”, and I was interested to see what the speaker had to say on the topic. I shouldn’t have been surprised to find that there was little (actually I don’t recall ANYTHING) that addressed scripture. The speaker concentrated on some allegations he had read about Mikhail Gorbachev that supposedly had something to do with end time’s prophecy.

And I can’t claim innocence in this matter. In the late 1980s, exposure of the “New Age Movement” was becoming popular with many Christian communicators. Several books were released and I collected a few recordings of preachers speaking on the dangers of the New Age. I became extremely interested and when I had the opportunity to preach at my local church, I made this the subject of my sermon. It made a fascinating study and the congregation were very interested in what I had to say – but in reality, what relevance did it all have? At the most it gave a highly speculative view of the end times that had a very tenuous connection to what is revealed in bible prophecy. Even saying there was a tenuous connection is being far too complimentary – in reality there was NO real connection at all between scripture and the content of my talk. The same can be said of the majority of popular “End Time” teaching that I’ve come across.

There is a very well known quote attributed to Benjamin D’Israeli and popularised by Mark Twain:

“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics”

I would add another that Christians should be wary of: “Speculation” dressed up as Biblical truth.

Christians Don't Lie! (part 1)

Many years ago I met a former school friend in the street. He had strong socialist leanings and admired the Cuban leader Fidel Castro Being a Christian I brought up the issue of the Communist persecution of believers. My friend expressed doubt about the truth of persecution and I responded by asking why the Christians experiencing persecution under Communist regimes should lie. They were Christians and lying was contrary to their faith.

Now in THAT case I have no doubt at all that my reference to Christians telling the truth was valid. Christians were (and ARE) being persecuted under various political and religious based regimes. However, I later learned that not all “Christian” claims are trustworthy and the truth is not guaranteed from all sources professing to be Christian.

In my younger years I was extremely naïve, perhaps even gullible. I gave people the benefit of the doubt and trusted that the majority of people (especially Christians) were basically truthful. I easily believed what I was being told.
When I read or heard of fantastic experiences I didn’t doubt that the stories were true.

From early childhood I had a fascination with UFOs and read as much as I could find on the subject – but NEVER did I think that any of the stories may have been made up. This attitude remained with me after becoming a Christian – and if possible I had more reason to trust what I was told by other Christians. The truth was important to Christians, lying was strictly forbidden so why would any Christian disobey God by lying?

Even today I probably don’t realise how vulnerable this outlook made me. Whenever I read or heard Christian testimony I believed it without question. Why would a Christian lie?

In the church I attended I heard about a congregation member rising a foot off the floor during worship. I heard about angelic singing in a friend’s home. I heard the story of a group of ministers saved from a certain head-on collision when their car was instantly transported past the on-coming vehicle.
Why shouldn’t I have believed these stories – they were told by people I knew, about people I knew, and those people were Christians and Christians don’t lie.

There were also books giving amazing testimonies of God’s miraculous intervention in the lives of Christians. There were books of people literally set free from Satan’s power – being turned from practising witchcraft to having faith in Jesus, books that showed the reality of “both sides” of supernatural reality.

And I believed it all.
Why would Christians lie?

I’m not sure now when the cracks started to form; when I started to see that Christians are not always as truthful as they should be, and not everyone who professes to be a Christian is a genuine follower of Jesus.

I have written elsewhere about my “crisis of faith” that started in the late 1980s and lasted around 15 years. Maybe it was during this time that my eyes were opened. I had maintained my interest in UFOs and other strange phenomena and read widely on these subjects, and for the first time I started to come across some sceptical voices from those who had an interest in these subjects but also questioned the validity of many of the claims being made.

In my reading I was particularly interested in stories that had a “Christian” element and through this I became aware of investigation into stories I’d lapped up years before. Mike Warnke was a Christian with amazing testimonies. He was an excellent communicator using humour to reach people with the gospel. He did this through personal accounts of his involvement with the occult (published in his book “The Satan Seller”) and also through experiences in the Vietnam war.
His experiences in the occult did a lot to convince me of the reality of the powers of darkness. Some of his experiences could have been from a horror novel – but they were true. He was a Christian and Christians don’t lie.

BUT - I started to read claims that he HAD lied, that his stories were all false. And these claims were not from some antichristian group, they were being made by a Christian magazine. Now I had a dilemma. Who should I believe? Two separate Christian sources were contradicting each other over an issue of truth. They couldn’t BOTH be telling the truth – but surely Christians don’t lie.

I use that case as merely one example. Since then I’ve had reason to doubt many claims made by Christians and I have come to see that “Christians” are not always the most trustworthy sources of information. The situation is made worse by the same kind of gullibility that I displayed and people pass these stories on to others without giving due consideration for their reliability. We’ve all heard of urban myths – those stories with no basis in fact that become “true” through constant retelling. I’m sure that a lot of favourite Christian stories are the same.

How many have heard of the prayer meeting where armed soldiers barge in threatening to kill all Christians. And when the fearful have departed the soldiers put down their guns and ask to hear the gospel from those who REALLY put their trust in God. Is that story really true? Maybe – but it would be more credible if various facts (location and identity of the soldiers) remained consistent.

---
Re. Allegations against Mike Warnke.


http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_index.htm

http://www.mikewarnke.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=60
Go to link re. "tribunal hearing"

Romans 9 - 11

Links to David Pawson sermons on Romans 9-11

Romans 9

Romans 10

Romans 11

Parts of Romans 9-11 have been adopted by various theological groups to support their chosen doctrines. But what is the context of ALL of these chapters and what is Paul REALLY addressing.

Sin, Judgement and National Idolatry

Today, on another blog I came across an article with the title “Why do So Many Bad Things Keep Happening to the U.S?” Comments on the blog then go into the reasons why this is the case – mostly suggesting it is due to America’s disobedience to God.

I wasn’t sure of how to respond to the question in a polite way. Is the writer ignorant of the rest of the world? When did a single “bad thing” in America result in the loss of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousand of lives as has often happened elsewhere?

Compared with many areas of the world America has barely suffered in any way. Nothing worse is happening in America than anywhere else.if anything America is getting off lightly compared to most of the world.

One of the common mistakes made when people raise issues like this it that they confuse America with Israel and apply what God said to Israel to the USA. America is not God’s chosen nation and the blessings/cursings applicable to Israel were NOT directed towards America.To see God’s word to America, or any other nation, we need search the scriptures for God’s word to the nations.

When scripture mentions “the nations” then America is included as ONE of those nations.
If people are concerned about America’s sinfulness before God, I suggest that one of the worst sins of the American people is NATIONAL IDOLATRY.

Predestined by God

Here is an excellent article covering predestination, Foreknowledge, OSAS, Romans 9, Free will and many other issues that have been distorted by the theologies of men.

This article brings a BIBLICAL view of these issues.

Predestined by God



.

Why such a brutal death?

There is a very insightful article on the death of Jesus here:

http://thenface2face.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/the-cross-a-spectacle-of-evil-and-the-triumph-of-love/

Grace or Man’s Effort: Where does Salvation Start?

I recently came across the claim on a Christian forum, making a distinction between the “true gospel” believed by a particular Calvinist forum participant and the “false gospel” of other forum members:

“In one [gospel], Salvation starts and finishes with God and His Grace, in the other Salvation starts and finishes with man himself”

As is often the case, this Calvinist claim is a total distortion of the facts. Nothing could be further from the truth and it is merely the blind repetition of a clichéd lie.

If the Calvinist claim is a lie, what IS the real belief of the majority of bible believing non-Calvinists?

God and God alone made it possible for man to be saved. God and God alone provided the means for man to be saved. God and God alone can save man.

The salvation that God has made possible is obtained through means that God and God alone established according to conditions that God and God alone determined.
Those conditions are clearly set out in scripture and they require certain things of man.

The salvation God has ordained is not according to a unilateral decree made prior to creation, in which He determined which individuals would be saved.
Before creation God determined that salvation would be through His Son and His Son alone, and that whoever trusts in Him will not perish but will have everlasting life.

THIS is what salvation starting and finishing with God's grace is about. It is about His super-abundant grace extended to all of mankind, offering redemption to all of mankind.
It is not a limited grace extended to an elite few.

What could be a more glorious demonstration of God’s grace than the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ, in which salvation has been opened up to all - not through any complicated and unattainable process of works, but through simple trust in Jesus.
Not through some unchangeable decree which excludes the majority of mankind, leaving them entirely devoid of hope, but through simple faith in Jesus.

What a joy it is to realise that that God isn't against any of us - but He wants everyone to come to knowledge of the truth and everyone to find salvation?

And salvation is obtained through?

- Simple trust in Jesus.

----------

This issue is closely related to one of my earlier blog entries, “Parrot is not a God ordained ministry function” in which I addressed the Calvinist claim that non-Calvinists believe they contribute to their own salvation.

What does SCRIPTURE say without our added interpretation?

Recently I have seen a lot of people claiming that we all “interpret” scripture because we all approach it with a particular bias. But is that really the case and to what extent do we “interpret” scripture?
As far as possible I take scripture at face value, accepting what is written without trying to redefine its clearest meaning, as long as its context does not suggest that it should be taken as being symbolic. (Regarding biblical symbolism – rarely is the reader left in ignorance about the meaning of a symbol. The interpretation is usually revealed in the text.)

Let me give you an example of accepting God’s word AS WRITTEN compared to God’s word “INTERPRETED”

BIBLICAL TEXT:

Revelation 20: 1-10 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

How do we address this passage:

AS WRITTEN: After Jesus’ return Satan will be imprisoned and his deceptive power over the nations will be totally removed from the earth. Jesus will reign with his saints for 1000 years. After the 1000 years Satan will be released and will gather an army to oppose the rule of Jesus. Satan will be defeated and thrown into the lake of fire. There will be a thousand year gap between Jesus’ return (and the resurrection of the saints) and a second resurrection (that of the unsaved) which will precede the judgement.

AS INTERPRETED: This 1000 years is a symbolic period representing the church age, Satan was bound by Jesus at the cross and the saints are now ruling with Christ who is seated on His throne in heaven. Jesus’ return will be immediately followed by the judgement because there is no literal 1000 year earthly reign.

This is an extreme example – but it is one that is very WIDELY applied. Am I guilty of “interpreting scripture” because I choose to believe what is actually written instead of trying to explain why it doesn’t really mean what the passage actually says?

Another example:

When scripture tells me that

“God our Savior, … wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men”

And

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is
patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

Why should this mean anything different to what it says?

And yet many add to, change or reinterpret the meaning of these verses because taken according to their literal meaning they totally discredit their favoured doctrines.

When scripture tells me that God desires all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth and that God doesn’t want any to perish – then I don’t try to “interpret” or explain those statement away to make them fit other doctrines.

When I read statements that refer to election – those references to election do not negate the truths about who God desires to be saved. Instead of ignoring or redefining the statements about God’s desires, we should look further and see WHO is said to be elected and under what conditions. Again, when we find the answer to that it would be foolish to ignore that answer because it contradicts a doctrinal bias. Especially when that answer is totally consistent with other references through scripture

Is it “INTERPRETING” these verses when we accept that they mean that God wants ALL MEN to be saved, that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for ALL MEN, that God does not want ANYONE to perish but wants EVERYONE to come to repentance?

Is there anything in the context of these statements that would indicate that a literal meaning should not be applied?

Sometimes the intended meaning of a few verses isn’t always immediately apparent from the content of the verses themselves. If that is the case we must allow scripture to interpret scripture . In other words, what does scripture elsewhere say that will open our understanding?

For example, what are we to make of John 1?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.

What would this mean to us if we were reading it for the first time? There is nothing in these first two verses to tell us what or who this “Word” is. We have to read further into the chapter to see:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "

From this we get a better idea of what the first two verses are about. The “Word”, from the context of the following verses can be seen to be Jesus. This truth becomes even more apparent when we continue into John’s writing.

This is also the case with Ephesians 1 – one of the favourite proof text passages regarding unconditional “election”. Not only is it the case that nowhere in this chapter does it indicate that “election” is unconditional, the chapter actually spells out the condition continually.
That election and every benefit available to “the elect” are THROUGH HIM (Christ) and IN HIM. And the passage also includes the revelation of how people come to be IN HIM.

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.

So to be in Christ someone has to hear the gospel and believe. And then being in Christ we are included in the elect. This is also totally consistent with other parts of scripture that reveal that believing or having faith in Jesus is a primary condition of salvation. (A well known example being John 3:16 – “Whoever BELIEVES will not perish…”).

During many doctrinal discussions I find myself repeating “But what does SCRIPTURE say. What are the words on the page telling us – not how can I manipulate those words to make them fit my doctrine.
Too often we are prone to “interpreting” scripture instead of submitting ourselves to its clearest and plainest meaning because that clearest meaning can be more challenging than we like. Recognising the clearest meaning would require some kind of change, whether in doctrine or behaviour. It is much more comfortable to find a way of “interpreting” the text so that uncomfortable change is not necessary.

“PARROT” is not a God ordained Ministry Function.

One of the most common (and most ridiculous) accusations levelled against non-Calvinists is that they believe they contribute to their own salvation.

Firstly I have NEVER heard any Christian (non-Calvinist or otherwise) suggesting that any action of their own has in any way made their salvation possible.
Secondly the ONLY people I have come across who make such accusations are those who are parroting what others have said – resorting to clichéd responses learned from other Calvinists rather than through referring to the truth of the situation.

It is an accusation I am fed up of refuting because it is so ridiculous it shouldn’t really need a response. I address the issue here merely as a forewarning that any further use of this accusation in any comment will not be allowed passed the moderation stage.

I can no more contribute to may own salvation through an act of my own will than I can become a millionaire by choosing to be one.
However, if a multi-billionaire made a million dollars available to whoever would receive it, then would receiving of the freely offered gift make the receiver a contributor to their newly affluent state? Of course not! They would only be receiving what another had freely given at HIS cost and not at the receiver’s cost.

Neither does receiving God’s free gift of salvation make anyone a contributor to their own salvation. Accepting the gift doesn’t mean someone has any better attributes than the one who rejects the gift. They are merely responding to the grace that God has extended to all of mankind through the giving of His Son.
Why should it be seen that accepting God’s gift requires someone to be better, smarter, and wiser than someone who rejects it? Why not see the rejecter as someone who prefers his/her own independence? As someone who chooses to remain in their rebellious state? Why suggest that having faith in God is more of a “work” than actively resisting Him?

Of course the claim that someone willing to receive salvation must, in some way, be “better” than those rejecting it (and would therefore be contributing to their own salvation) is yet another clichéd response passed on by Calvinist teacher to unwitting student.

Wake up to the truth. Wake up to the Gospel and abandon man’s corrupt theology. Stop basing beliefs on the parrot-like repetition of theological clichés and seek revelation from God through His word by His Spirit.

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS

I’ve probably been around too long to assume that Jesus will definitely return in my life time. In my late teens (oh so long ago!!!) there was a lot of excitement about Jesus imminent return and how the “rapture” could occur at any moment. All of the signs in the world seemed to match Jesus’ prophecies about the signs of the end times and I know friends were not only expecting Jesus to come in their lifetimes, at least one was worried that Jesus might return before his (my friend’s) wedding, so he would miss out on sex.

Now over 30 years have passed and the signs are still there (even more so) and I discovered that the pre-trib rapture has no scriptural foundation. I recognise that before Jesus returns there are many significant things that need to happen. Some of those could happen at any time – others will clearly take longer. The only thing I can say for certain is that they WILL happen at their appointed time and that Jesus WILL return with His saints and for those saints who survive the tribulation.
It is entirely feasible that all of this could happen during my lifetime, but looking back to those teenage years, I know I would have found it hard to believe that I’d be here 30+ years later and that Jesus hadn’t yet returned.

I suppose the thought of surviving until Jesus returns gives me mixed feelings. Firstly, how wonderful it would be to be caught up and whisked off to Jerusalem to meet with Him in the air!!!

But then I realise the hardships and the horrors that would have to be experienced in the preceding years before that glorious day arrived. Who could survive those years without the encouragement and forewarnings given in scripture – particularly in Revelation?
When those days have undeniably arrived, those who witness them will know there are only a few short years to go before our Lord’s triumphant return. How much more will they be encouraged to endure and overcome through those terrible times, knowing how close it is to His return?


I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Election & Predestination in Ephesians 1

What does Ephesians 1 say about election and predestination? Looking at the clear and simple text with emphasis of particular points but without interpretation.

Eph 1: 3-14 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.

And just in case you missed the point, election and predestination are IN CHRIST and THROUGH CHRIST – and we are included IN CHRIST when we hear “the word of truth, the gospel of [our] salvation. And it is Having believed, [we are] marked IN HIM with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit…”

Questions to ponder

When does scripture mean exactly what it says and when does it REALLY mean what we prefer it to say?

To what extent will our answer to the question above affect our understanding and knowledge of God and His ways?

If you seek him, he will be found by you.

Many people seek God but do so on their own terms and make their search conditional upon what they want God to be like.

Many want God to be an all-loving, all singing and dancing being who is so desperate for a following that he will do anything to please those who accept him.
Others seek a God who is like an impersonal fashion accessory that makes no personal demands. Such a God can be brought out in public occasionally and be thanked for helping in our achievements - making a show of our "humility" in thanking him, no matter how puerile our achievement may have been (think of Grammy award acceptance speeches here).
Others seek a God who will promote their own self esteem and make them feel good about themselves, one who will commend them for being such good people compared to the rest of the world.

I could go on...

How many genuinely attempt to seek God according to HIS terms?

I saw the following question and statement on another blog: "Do Jews or Muslims or Baha'is search for God? Obviously the answer is yes."

The implication here is that they have sought God and found one who is different to the Christian God, so who was to say which “god” was the right one, if any?
But how many of those people are actually searching for something other than God, something more selfish? How many are really interested in a genuine encounter with the creator of the universe? Are they genuinely looking for the one who has the ultimate authority over what He created whether we like it or not?

"the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever."

Returning to the blogger’s question :

“Do Jews or Muslims or Baha'is search for God?

I said that many seek God but on their own terms. This can be seen in the case of the Muslim and Baha'i. Both of these accept the reality of Jesus and recognise Him as a prophet and/or teacher – as do MOST other religions. But they only pay lip-service to those parts of His teaching that appeal to what they want to believe. They ignore His claim that HE exclusively is the way to God. They ignore His teaching on hell. They ignore the reason for and the significance of His crucifixion and resurrection. In other words they seek His teaching ONLY when it conforms to their own desires.

The Jews are a little different. They recognise the one true God, the very same God worshipped by the Christian. The significant difference is their failure to recognise that Jesus is the Messiah they have been waiting for. They do not recognise that Jesus’ life death and resurrection were the fulfilment of the word of their prophets because Jesus did not bring about the deliverance of Israel from the oppression of Rome. They fail to see that the prophesied glorious future for Israel that their Messiah will bring will come about when Jesus returns as foretold in the New Testament.
While the Jews currently reject Jesus, the bible predicts a time when they WILL recognise Him as the King they have been waiting for.

Looking at the matter openly, the very fact that the Jews are still around today, and that Israel is once again on the map, is a very convincing reason to recognise the reality of the God of Israel who is also the God of Jesus Christ.

What other ethnic group has remained recognisably intact after 2000 years of exile from their land - and has returned to that same land as a powerful and influential nation.
Of course it must be coincidence (not!) that the long exile and the return from nations around the world was predicted by their prophets hundreds of years before that exile took place.

How to approach the Bible (a personal account)

Part one: How NOT to approach the bible.

In my early days as a Christian, the Bible tended to be experienced through the handful of verses quoted by a preacher in church during his sermon. When I was feeling diligent and more “spiritual” than other occasions I would even go home and read over those verses again to make sure the preacher had really been quoting scripture. If the verses were there I was satisfied that the preaching had been “scriptural”.

Some times I would recognise that I needed to study scripture more for myself. So I bought myself a study bible and found myself studying the notes in the margin more than I actually read the text of scripture.

Eventually I started to notice a bit of a discrepancy between the Christian life being promoted by the preachers in church and the actual Christian life being lived and demonstrated within the church and of course by myself. Something was definitely missing between professed faith and experienced/demonstrated faith.

Friends of mine came up with the answer, shared it with me and eventually my eyes opened to the truth of what they had been sharing. Christians did not REALLY believe the word of God. We were swayed by everything around us, by experience by emotion by circumstances even when those things contradicted what God had revealed in His word.

I suppose part of this problem stemmed from the fact that most of us had never really understood what God’s word was saying because we had neglected it. All we knew was what we were being taught in church and it was clear that the church had no more insight than we had.
My friends started to lend me tapes of sermons that concentrated on the importance of knowing God’s word and believing it. The teaching was revolutionary and exciting. It all made complete sense and I could see that a diligent application would help me experience the same dynamic Christian experience recorded in the book of Acts.
I soaked up the teaching and studied the many scriptures I was learning through the teaching, memorising what I could and “confessing” them regularly.
I became very adept at having a “scripture” for every occasion and situation. If I started feeling unwell I knew that “By His stripes I was healed” and that illness was subject to the truth of God’s word. What would I believe – the evidence of my flesh or the word of God Himself?

But again it should be noted that my relationship with scripture was mainly second-hand, coming to me selected and interpreted by the people whose teaching I found appealing. I knew a lot of scripture, but my knowledge didn’t include its intended SCRIPTURAL context. My knowledge and understanding came from the context it was given by the teacher.

I’ve written elsewhere how this house built on sand came crashing down and how it took over 15 years to recover so I won’t repeat that here. I’ll just move on next to what I have learned since then and how my understanding and approach to scripture has changed.

Part 2 Starting With Foundations

Firstly I refrained from any attempt to STUDY scripture. In the past, when I had taken the time to turn to the scriptures for myself it was usually to study a particular topic or a selected portion of scripture. But in doing that I had no idea of how that topic or that portion related to the Bible as a whole. I came to realise that I didn’t understand the very basics of how the different parts of scripture fitted together, how one part related to another.
How did the books of law, the books of history, the prophets, the psalms and the other miscellaneous writings of the Old Testament all come together?

How could I expect to understand what I was studying if I had no overall foundation to build upon? Before I could get anything of value from studying PARTS of scripture I needed to get the overview. The only way of getting that was to read scripture without getting distracted by things I didn’t understand. I needed to see THAT things fitted together and HOW instead of trying to make a piece from here join up with a piece from over there whether they ought to be joined or not.
I also couldn’t expect to understand everything on my first reading. I had to be willing to put some things aside and move on.

Scripture was written in whole books and not in convenient sound bites. Our ideas of “study” tend to make us concentrate on little bits of information rather than the big picture. Often “study” is little more than a demonstration of our impatience. We want answers NOW and so dig into the targeted area to find out as much as possible as soon as possible.
The problem with this is that we may not be ready to understand that issue. Sometimes we may be lacking a more foundational area of understanding and that lack will hinder out ability to correctly comprehend the subject of our study

I use the example of mathematics. We will not understand advanced concepts of algebra if we have never learned the basic truths of arithmetic. And yet, as Christians we try to rush ahead to understand the complex before we’ve grasped the basics of faith. This is why so often we turn to the teaching of others and so easily we get caught up in man’s ideas at the expense of the truth we need to learn.

Reading rather than study helps us to build up those foundational basics. We pick things up as we go along – those things that we are ready to understand instead of trying to force ourselves to pick up things that we are not ready for. This is why subsequent readings often bring new light. Each reading will add to our foundations and will make us ready to add more. I experienced this recently while reading Zechariah. Some things made much more sense this time than previously – in fact it was like reading a new book. This was because my reading elsewhere in the prophets had added a layer of understanding that helped me to see things in Zechariah that I’d missed before.

Part 3. Practical issues.

One of the most valuable bible reading aids that I’ve come across is a volume called “The Books of the Bible”. No it isn’t some kind of commentary; it’s an edition of the Bible without Chapter and verse divisions. It is also presented more or less in chronological order. For example, all of Paul’s letters appear in the order they were written instead of according to length (as in the more familiar order of other Bibles). The Old Testament is also re-ordered so that the prophets also come in chronological sequence. Other books are grouped to match the order of the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is hard to describe what a difference it makes to avoid the distractions of chapter and verse numbers. Those manmade divisions have made it very easy to pull sections from their context and apply them incorrectly. They also cause unnatural breaks in the flow of the text. Some of the chapter divisions occur on the most inappropriate places.

Another useful aid I have is a dramatised bible on CD. After reading a book through for myself I find it helpful to read along while listening to the recording. However, not all audio bibles are of the same quality. I’ve heard some from readers who seem to have no understanding of what they are reading. Their emphasis and intonation is all wrong and it becomes a hindrance rather than a help. The particular version I have is excellent.

Many people try to devote a little time each day to reading a portion of scripture. My personal preference is to devote a larger block of time to reading, even if it’s not possible to do so every day. That larger block of time makes it easier to keep things in context and with some of shorter to medium length books it allows the reading of a whole book in one sitting. This of course is rarely practical for the longer books. While on some days there may not always be the opportunity for those longer reading periods, I regularly spend time thinking over and discussing what I’ve read and how it fits together with the rest of scripture.
And remember, the Psalms are ideal to read when time is more limited.

God's Future for Israel

Some disagreements in doctrine are understandable. None of us have perfect knowledge or understanding of scripture and there are some parts of scripture that are ambiguous enough for us to come up with vastly different interpretations until further understanding is gained.

However, some truths could not be made clearer and I don’t know how wide sections of the Christian community can dismiss them.

One of these relates to Israel’s place in God’s purposes and in particular their future.

I don’t have to the time to go through all of the evidence, but scripture could not be more clear about the issue.

One day in the future Israel as a nation will recognise that Jesus is their Messiah and they will be saved under the new covenant in the same way that every other believer becomes saved under the new covenant.

When the future of Israel is revealed in prophecy, scripture is not referring to a “spiritual” Israel – meaning the church, as replacement theology insists.
Those prophecies are referring to NATIONAL Israel, physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to whom the physical land of Israel was promised.

If there was no other prophecy in scripture related to this matter, Ezekiel 36 should establish this truth once and for all.

This portion makes it absolutely clear of whom the Lord is referring.

“24 " 'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will save you from all your uncleanness.

He is referring to a people who have been scattered among the nations and whose forefathers had been given a land. They will be returned to that land and live in it. And they will be cleansed and given a new heart and a new spirit. This clearly refers to the new birth – a fact recognised even by the replacement theologians who apply those references to themselves but ignore the fact that the context here in Ezekiel is specifically and CLEARLY referring to Israel.

Paul also makes Israel’s ultimate future clear when he writes in Romans 11:

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

“But”, say the replacement theologians, “Paul has already said that ‘not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.’” As if this statement is enough to deny that ANY descended from Israel are Israel and that the statement overturns all prophecy that promises Israel a future with God.

What does that statement mean? I think it is explained towards the end of Amos (chapter 9):

9 For I will give the command,
and I will shake the house of Israel
among all the nations
as grain is shaken in a sieve,
and not a pebble will reach the ground.
10 All the sinners among my people
will die by the sword,
all those who say,
'Disaster will not overtake or meet us.'
11 "In that day I will restore
David's fallen tent.
I will repair its broken places,
restore its ruins,
and build it as it used to be,
12 so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear my name, "
declares the LORD, who will do these things.
13 "The days are coming," declares the LORD,
"when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills.
14 I will bring back my exiled people Israel;
they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,"
says the LORD your God.

This section of scripture echo Ezekiel’s prophecy about Israel being returned to the land and adds NEVER AGAIN TO BE UPROOTED* (obviously referring to a time AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersal and exile of Jews from the land for almost 2000 years).
It also gives us a hint of who God considers to be the true Israel. Firstly taking into account OT prophecy there should be no doubt that Israel is ALWAYS national Israel because of the references to the land of their forefathers. Secondly we take into account Paul’s statement that not all descended from Israel are Israel. Thirdly we see in Amos that a shaking of Israel will take place in which sinners among God’s people of Israel will not survive. Therefore it will be the remnant of national Israel who will survive the shaking who will be that “All Israel” who will be saved in the end times.

It is probably not surprising that those who reject Israel’s future place in God’s plans, also deny the literal millennial reign of Jesus from Jerusalem. And to deny that its necessary to ignore or distort what is clearly revealed throughout the majority of scripture, in particular the Old Testament prophets and the writings of the apostles.


----
* I think it would be a mistake to assume that the establishment of Israel as a nation in 1948 HAS to be the return being prophesied in scripture. It could well be - but personally I wouldn't take it for granted. I see the possibility of a further exile (possibly short term) in which Israel is again subjected to extreme persecution (possibly the sifting mentioned by Amos) after which the final and permanent return occurs.

Who has God elected or chosen to save?

This is a link to the second part of a series examining the foundational doctrines of Calvinism from an Arminian point of view.
Its author, William Birch, is a former Calvinist.


AN EXAMINATION OF TULIP THEOLOGY: "U" FOR UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

An excerpt from the article.

Who has God elected or chosen to save? It is explicitly and overwhelmingly clear from Scripture that God has chosen to save anyone who will believe in His Son Jesus Christ (Mk. 1:15; John 1:7, 12; 4:42; 6:29; 11:27; 12:42; 14:1; 16:30-31; 17:20; Acts 8:37; 15:11; 16:31; Rom. 3:22; 4:11; 10:9; 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 3:22; Eph. 1:19; 1 Tim. 4:10) -- the most explicit passage being, "God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21 NASB).

This being the truth of Scripture then election must be viewed as conditional: it is conditioned upon faith in Christ. Thus Arminians believe in the doctrine of Conditional Election; but only in the sense that sinners become elect upon faith in and union with Christ Jesus, and not beforehand. We believe it is erroneous to say that God has unconditionally elected to save or unconditionally saves anyone, since faith is the condition to being justified, regenerated and thus saved.


-----

The first part of the series can be found here:
Examination of tulip

Relativism. On denying God and gravity.

There is an attitude I’ve experienced that I’m having trouble understanding. I think it exposes the depths of human pride and arrogance and is a clear example of the relativism pervading human thought (especially WESTERN thought).

How do I describe it?

Well - it’s the kind of thinking that assumes our own beliefs are what is important and those beliefs make our own reality.

The particular example I have in mind was a discussion with a person who assumed that his non-belief in God excused him from any possible consequences for that non-belief.

There was no recognition of a firm concrete truth that remains firm and concrete regardless of human belief.

Every human on earth could deny God’s existence and that would make absolutely no difference to whether God exists or not.

Likewise, every human could believe strongly in God and that belief would make absolutely no difference to whether God exists or not.

Either he REALLY exists or He doesn't - and it would be foolish to think our own beliefs make a difference to that truth.

I could deny the reality of gravity, but my non-belief would not protect me from the consequences of jumping from a plane without a parachute. Therefore if I intended to jump from a plane I would be wise to check out the validity of my belief before it became too late.