Saturday, October 31, 2015
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Is being gay a choice?
In order to answer this question, we need to separate the feelings from the act. By "feelings" I mean the emotions of same-sex attraction, and by "act" I mean the actual physical act of intercourse. A person may not necessarily choose to feel a certain way. And there may be environmental factors for why a person is attracted to the same sex, but that is another topic. There are people who don't want to be attracted to the same sex and legitimately struggle with it. That tells us people don't always get to choose how they feel. But feelings are just that, feelings. And Feelings are never the bases for determining what is right and wrong. Having same-sex attraction in itself does not make one gay nor is it a sin
To use a crude analogy, think of it this way. If a person is thinking about robbing a bank, that does not him in a criminal nor does it break any laws. But once the person robs a bank he is a criminal and does break laws. It is the same way with homosexuality.
**I also believe it is environmental\behavioral. I would agree that "feelings" are not always a choice, tho feelings in themselves are never a basis for determining what is right or wrong. I like to separate the feelings from the act, which is where the choice lies. I don't believe feeling a certain way makes one gay no more than thinking about robbing a bank makes someone a criminal, it's only our actions that define us.**
What is a sin is the "act" of homosexuality, because this is where the choice lies. A person chooses to have same-sex relationships and chooses to engage in homosexuality.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Pseudo-Ephraem DOES teach the Rapture!
"For all the saints and elect of God are gathered,
prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they
see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."
-Pseudo-Ephraem
This is in response to Pseudo-Ephraem does not teach the
Rapture! I would like to address some of the statements made by this website.
"The false teachers who believe pre-tribulation Rapture
theology desperately misuse an ancient document called, "Pseudo-Ephraem"
as proof that someone before 1830 AD believed it."
I first want to take issue with calling those who teach the
pre-tribulation rapture "false teachers". The Bible defines a false teacher as 1)One who denies Jesus is Christ (1Jo 2:22), 2)one who preaches a
different gospel, which is defined as the good news concerning Jesus’ death,
burial, and resurrection, according to the Scriptures (Gal 1:19), and
3)Exhibits qualities that are unbecoming of a Christian (i.e. greed, pride,
rebellion) (Mat 8:15-20). Just because someone has a different view or
difference of opinion regarding the rapture does NOT make them a false teacher.
"The Syraic text of Pseudo-Ephraem does not teach
Rapture theology since the saints suffer and die during the tribulation"
There are various texts attributed to Pseudo-Ephraem. The
two Prominent texts are "Sermon Of Pseudo-Ephraem On The End Of The
World (Syriac text)" and "On
the Last Times, the Anti-Christ, and the End of the World A Sermon by
Pseudo-Ephraem (Latin text)"
The mistake is assuming the Syriac text and the Latin text
were written by the same
Pseudo-Ephraem, they were not. They are two radically
different sermons, written in two different languages, translated from
substantially different underlying texts, and likely by two different individuals.
The Latin text is dated between the 4th and 8th century, and unlike the Syraic text,
borrows from Pseudo-Methodius. Because they are so radically different the Syriac text can't be used as context for the Latin text. Therefore the focus should solely be on the Latin text which
contains the rapture quote in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Pseudo-Ephraem
"The Latin text of Pseudo-Ephraem does not teach
Rapture theology since the saints suffer and die during the tribulation:
1. "In those days [during the tribulation] people shall not be buried, neither Christian, nor heretic, neither Jew, nor pagan, because of fear and dread there is not one who buries them; because all people, while they are fleeing, ignore them. (Section 4)"
2. "Then, when this inevitability has overwhelmed all people, just and unjust, the just, so that they may be found good by their Lord; and indeed the unjust, so that they may be damned forever with their author the Devil (Section 9)"
This is not a problem for pretribulationists since they believe the saints mentioned in Revelation will be converts to Christianity after the rapture.
1. "In those days [during the tribulation] people shall not be buried, neither Christian, nor heretic, neither Jew, nor pagan, because of fear and dread there is not one who buries them; because all people, while they are fleeing, ignore them. (Section 4)"
2. "Then, when this inevitability has overwhelmed all people, just and unjust, the just, so that they may be found good by their Lord; and indeed the unjust, so that they may be damned forever with their author the Devil (Section 9)"
This is not a problem for pretribulationists since they believe the saints mentioned in Revelation will be converts to Christianity after the rapture.
"The Latin Pseudo-Ephraem teaches the resurrection of
Christians at the second coming when the devil will be destroyed, not the
rapture: "Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because his hour of
judgment has come! Then Christ shall come and the enemy shall be thrown into
confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by the spirit of his mouth. And he
shall be bound and shall be plunged into the abyss of everlasting fire alive with
his father Satan; and all people, who do his wishes, shall perish with him
forever; but the righteous ones shall inherit everlasting life with the Lord
forever and ever. (Section 10)"
Two points, a resurrection isn't explicitly mentioned in the
text and second, it is an assumption that the "sleeping ones" are
connected to the unburied Christians mentioned in Section 4. Regardless,
Pretribulationists also believe in a resurrection of tribulation saints at the
end of the tribulation.
Regarding the "first resurrection", it is not one
event but a series of events. We know this because after Jesus was raised from
the dead so to were the saints with him (Mat 27:52-53), also the two witnesses
will die and be resurrected (Rev 11:11-12). So we will all share in the first
resurrection of Christ (Col 1:18).
"1. This is the one sentence that Rapture advocates say teaches the rapture. In fact we learn from the Syriac text that these saints escape the tribulation by death not rapture! "For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."
As noted above the Syriac text is incomparable with the Latin text and should be excluded. "Taken to the Lord" can't imply death because if they are already dead there would be no need for them to be "gathered" and "taken to the Lord" if they are already in Heaven. By faith Enoch was “taken away” so that he did not see death (Heb 11:5). Clearly then, “taken” by the Lord does not always result in death.
"1. This is the one sentence that Rapture advocates say teaches the rapture. In fact we learn from the Syriac text that these saints escape the tribulation by death not rapture! "For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."
As noted above the Syriac text is incomparable with the Latin text and should be excluded. "Taken to the Lord" can't imply death because if they are already dead there would be no need for them to be "gathered" and "taken to the Lord" if they are already in Heaven. By faith Enoch was “taken away” so that he did not see death (Heb 11:5). Clearly then, “taken” by the Lord does not always result in death.
"Pseudo-Ephraem is a forgery: There was a Christian
named Ephrem or Ephraim who died in 373 AD. Pseudo-Ephraem is an 8th century or
later pseudepigrapha falsely claiming to be written by the real Ephrem or
Ephraim who had been dead for 400 years."
Correct, however Pseudo-Ephraem was no doubt greatly
influenced by the actual work of Ephraem. The point that cannot be missed however is that it represents an early
version of the pre-trib rapture at least as far back as the 8th century.
"False teachers of the Rapture will have to keep
looking for any scrap of evidence that any Christian believed this heresy
before it was invented by John Darby in 1830 AD."
Actually, Morgan Edwards (May 9, 1722 – January 25, 1795)
taught a pretrib rapture some 86 years before Darby. Edwards wrote:
“II. The distance between the first and second resurrection
will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more—, because the
dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s “appearing in
the air” (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before
the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the
air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those
many “mansions in the father’s house” (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the
foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to
judge the risen and changed saints; for “now the time is come that judgment
must begin,” and that will be “at the house of God” (I Pet. iv. 17)...(p. 7;
The spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized.)” - Morgan Edwards,
Two Academical Exercised on Subjects Bearing the following Titles: Millennium,
Last-Novelties Philadelphia:
self-published, 1788).
While it's possible to find elements of every rapture position
in the writings of the early Church fathers, they did not have a codified doctrine\consensus regarding the rapture.
All rapture positions are fairly modern, for example:
Mid-tribulationalism emerged in 1941 with the publication of
the book, "The End: Rethinking the Revelation" by Norman B. Harrison.
Prewrath was conceived in the 1970's by Robert Van Kampen and only came to public attention in 1990 with Marvin Rosenthal's book "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church".
There are a number of posttribulation views developed in the 19th and 20th centuries:
Prewrath was conceived in the 1970's by Robert Van Kampen and only came to public attention in 1990 with Marvin Rosenthal's book "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church".
There are a number of posttribulation views developed in the 19th and 20th centuries:
Classic post-tribulationism (J. Barton Payne, et al); (1855
– 1935)
Semi-classic post-tribulation ism (Alexander Reese);
(1881-1969)
Futuristic post-tribulationism (George E. Ladd); (1911 –
1982)
Dispensational post-tribulationism (Robert H. Gundry). (1932
– Present)
Rather your pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, or post-trib they
were all conceived during the last two-centuries. However age in itself is not
a determining factor is something is wrong or not. This should be remembered
before bashing someone else rapture beliefs. For more of my thoughts on this
see "Defending the pretrib rapture".
Monday, April 20, 2015
Defending the pretrib rapture
There are many accusations against the pre-tribulation rapture, everything from people calling it lies to heretical. Some even going so far to say that if someone believe in the pretrib they are not saved. This is nonsense. It appears to me this sort of venom is directed almost exclusively towards pre-trib believers and is unbecoming of how Christians should behave toward one another.
One common accusation is that John Darby got his ideas from a vision of a 15 year old Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald. Let's put this myth to rest once and for all. Firstly Morgan Edwards suggested a pre-trib rapture some 86 years before Darby*. If you want to go back further, Pseudo-Ephraim made a pre-trib statement in the 4th to 8th century**. The concept of imminency, a crucial feature of pretribulationism, was spoken of by many Apostolic Fathers including Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Shepherd of Hermas.
Second, John Darby coalesced his ideas about the rapture in a period of from December 1827 through January 1828, some three years before MacDonald's vision in 1830. If one actually read's MacDonald's vision it doesn't sound like a pre-trib rapture at all. In anything it sounds like a post-trib statement. She specifically says, "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist." and "This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus." That is not pretrib, moreover Darby considered MacDonald's vision to be demonic in nature.
Another accusation is that the pre-trib rapture is new. Well the reality is the early church did not have a defined doctrine or census regarding the rapture of the Church. Sure, you can find elements from every rapture position in their writings, from pre to post, but elements does not a doctrine make. The truth is all rapture positions are modern. For example:
Mid-tribulationalism emerged in 1941 with the publication of the book, "The End: Rethinking the Revelation" by Norman B. Harrison. Prewrath was conceived in the 1970's by Robert Van Kampen and only came to public attention in 1990 with Marvin Rosenthal's book "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church". And there are a number of posttribulation views developed in the 19th and 20th centuries:
Classic post-tribulationism (J. Barton Payne, et al); (1855 – 1935)
Semi-classic post-tribulation ism (Alexander Reese); (1881-1969)
Futuristic post-tribulationism (George E. Ladd); (1911 – 1982)
Dispensational post-tribulationism (Robert H. Gundry). (1932 – Present)
So as you can see, they were all conceived in the last century or two. I believe there are several reasons for this. It comes down to literacy and availability. For one, bibles weren't readily available to the lay person for much of Church history. The printing press wasn't even invented until 15th century, even then there were times they were prohibited from translating the bible into different languages. John Wycliffe was posthumously condemned and William Tyndale was burned at the stake in 1536 for translating the bible into English. Illiteracy was high and even when they had access to bibles they weren't always permitted from reading it. One of the reasons the Pilgrims came to America was because public reading of the bible was prohibited in England. So it wasn’t until the translation of the New Testament into the English and German languages in the 16th century did Bibles become readily available. It was only then that ideas about the rapture were able to get fleshed out.
Second sometimes doctrine can take centuries to develop such as the trinity, which took a couple of hundred years after Christ to become an established Church doctrine. Things are never revealed to us all at once but in increments.
Lastly interest of the end-times didn’t really begin until the 19th century and really took off in the 20th century after for formation of Israel in 1948. I do believe God is allowing us insights into the end-times the closer we get to it. When the angel gave Daniel the scroll, he couldn’t understand it. The angel told him it to seal it up until the time of the end when knowledge shall increase (Dan 12). Daniel’s generation couldn’t understand these things but we are gaining insights that they did not have. We gain knowledge and understanding in proportion to the resources and education available to us. The point of mentioning all this is that age should not be a determining factor is something is true or not.
One a final note, the rapture is a non-essential doctrine. Rather one is pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, pos-trib or no-trib, it should not matter because it is NOT a salvation issue. It should not be a divisive issue for the Church. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
*Morgan Edwards (May 9, 1722 – January 25, 1795) was a Welsh historian of religion, Baptist pastor, and notable for his teaching on the 'rapture' before its popularization by John Nelson Darby (1800–1882). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Edwards
Edwards wrote, “II. The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more—, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s “appearing in the air” (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for “now the time is come that judgment must begin,” and that will be “at the house of God” (I Pet. iv. 17)...(p. 7; The spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized.)” - Morgan Edwards, Two Academical Exercised on Subjects Bearing the following Titles: Millennium, Last-Novelties Philadelphia: self-published, 1788).
**Pseudo-Ephraim, not to be confused with Ephraim the Syrian, wrote, “Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.”
Rather “taken to the Lord” implies death or a rapture is open to debate. By faith Enoch was “taken away” so that he did not see death (Heb 11:5). Clearly then, “taken” by the Lord does not always result in death. Pseudo-Ephraim’s statement may not contain all the elements of modern pretribulationism, but it does represent an early version of it and well before any of the other rapture positions.
One common accusation is that John Darby got his ideas from a vision of a 15 year old Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald. Let's put this myth to rest once and for all. Firstly Morgan Edwards suggested a pre-trib rapture some 86 years before Darby*. If you want to go back further, Pseudo-Ephraim made a pre-trib statement in the 4th to 8th century**. The concept of imminency, a crucial feature of pretribulationism, was spoken of by many Apostolic Fathers including Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Shepherd of Hermas.
Second, John Darby coalesced his ideas about the rapture in a period of from December 1827 through January 1828, some three years before MacDonald's vision in 1830. If one actually read's MacDonald's vision it doesn't sound like a pre-trib rapture at all. In anything it sounds like a post-trib statement. She specifically says, "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist." and "This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus." That is not pretrib, moreover Darby considered MacDonald's vision to be demonic in nature.
Another accusation is that the pre-trib rapture is new. Well the reality is the early church did not have a defined doctrine or census regarding the rapture of the Church. Sure, you can find elements from every rapture position in their writings, from pre to post, but elements does not a doctrine make. The truth is all rapture positions are modern. For example:
Mid-tribulationalism emerged in 1941 with the publication of the book, "The End: Rethinking the Revelation" by Norman B. Harrison. Prewrath was conceived in the 1970's by Robert Van Kampen and only came to public attention in 1990 with Marvin Rosenthal's book "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church". And there are a number of posttribulation views developed in the 19th and 20th centuries:
Classic post-tribulationism (J. Barton Payne, et al); (1855 – 1935)
Semi-classic post-tribulation ism (Alexander Reese); (1881-1969)
Futuristic post-tribulationism (George E. Ladd); (1911 – 1982)
Dispensational post-tribulationism (Robert H. Gundry). (1932 – Present)
So as you can see, they were all conceived in the last century or two. I believe there are several reasons for this. It comes down to literacy and availability. For one, bibles weren't readily available to the lay person for much of Church history. The printing press wasn't even invented until 15th century, even then there were times they were prohibited from translating the bible into different languages. John Wycliffe was posthumously condemned and William Tyndale was burned at the stake in 1536 for translating the bible into English. Illiteracy was high and even when they had access to bibles they weren't always permitted from reading it. One of the reasons the Pilgrims came to America was because public reading of the bible was prohibited in England. So it wasn’t until the translation of the New Testament into the English and German languages in the 16th century did Bibles become readily available. It was only then that ideas about the rapture were able to get fleshed out.
Second sometimes doctrine can take centuries to develop such as the trinity, which took a couple of hundred years after Christ to become an established Church doctrine. Things are never revealed to us all at once but in increments.
Lastly interest of the end-times didn’t really begin until the 19th century and really took off in the 20th century after for formation of Israel in 1948. I do believe God is allowing us insights into the end-times the closer we get to it. When the angel gave Daniel the scroll, he couldn’t understand it. The angel told him it to seal it up until the time of the end when knowledge shall increase (Dan 12). Daniel’s generation couldn’t understand these things but we are gaining insights that they did not have. We gain knowledge and understanding in proportion to the resources and education available to us. The point of mentioning all this is that age should not be a determining factor is something is true or not.
One a final note, the rapture is a non-essential doctrine. Rather one is pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, pos-trib or no-trib, it should not matter because it is NOT a salvation issue. It should not be a divisive issue for the Church. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
*Morgan Edwards (May 9, 1722 – January 25, 1795) was a Welsh historian of religion, Baptist pastor, and notable for his teaching on the 'rapture' before its popularization by John Nelson Darby (1800–1882). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Edwards
Edwards wrote, “II. The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more—, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s “appearing in the air” (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for “now the time is come that judgment must begin,” and that will be “at the house of God” (I Pet. iv. 17)...(p. 7; The spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized.)” - Morgan Edwards, Two Academical Exercised on Subjects Bearing the following Titles: Millennium, Last-Novelties Philadelphia: self-published, 1788).
**Pseudo-Ephraim, not to be confused with Ephraim the Syrian, wrote, “Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.”
Rather “taken to the Lord” implies death or a rapture is open to debate. By faith Enoch was “taken away” so that he did not see death (Heb 11:5). Clearly then, “taken” by the Lord does not always result in death. Pseudo-Ephraim’s statement may not contain all the elements of modern pretribulationism, but it does represent an early version of it and well before any of the other rapture positions.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities
Romans 13 tells us to be subject to the governing authorities and then
it goes on to define such a government, "Rulers are not a terror to good
works, but to evil"... For he is "God's minister" to you "for good". To
me God is talking about just governments which would rule out
tyrannical authorities who are a terror to good works. We must not
forget Satan is also in the business of appointing leaders. Just a few
examples, the Prince of Persia, the Prince of Greece, the Prince of Tyre
(Eze 28), the Anti-Christ, etc. This world system is controlled by
Satan.
So how do we respond to tyrannical governments? If we look to the Old Testament we certainly see examples of Godly men and women not submitting to evil authorities:
Mosses mother defied the Pharaoh's command to kill all Hebrew babies (Exodus 1:15-21)
Mosses defied Pharaoh to free his people.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship the golden image. (Daniel 3:18)
Daniel did not obey the decree not to petition any god or man for thirty days, except the king.
Mordecai refused to bow down to the Persian magistrate Haman. (Esther 3:5)
Seven thousand in Israel refused to bow down and worship Baal. (I Kings 19:18)
Likewise in the New Testament they did not blindly submit to the governing powers:
Mary and Joseph did not obey Herod's command to kill the baby boys. (Mat 2:16)
An angel did not obey the governing authorities when he broke Peter out of jail (Acts 12:6-11) or Paul and Silas (Acts 16:25-34)
An angel warns the people not to take the Mark of the Beast even though the Anti-Christ is given authority to cause all to receive his mark. (Rev 13:16, Rev 14:9)
It's true Jesus did not condemn the authorities of his day, but he didn't listen to them either when they told him to stop preaching the gospel. Jesus claim to be the son of God was in fact a direct challenge to the supremacy of Caesar himself and part of the reason why he was crucified and Christians were persecuted. Jesus submitted himself to be crucified not out of blind submission to the governing authorities but because it was his purpose in coming to earth. It should also be remembered that Jesus is just one part of the God head, and while Jesus did not chastise the governing authorities, God certainly did. The apostles followed suit by preaching the gospel in direct violation of the will of the governing authorities which led to their deaths. And not all the early Christians were okay with being persecuted by the governing authorities:
Saint Romanus, right before he was martyred in the early fourth century said, "Never shall I pray for the emperor’s well-being or for his great and brave regiments but that they may be faithful soldiers and in the water of Christ be born again for the Father and receive from heaven the Comforter himself, that they may cast off the darkness of idolatry and see the light of eternal hope which does not flow into the humours of the eyes gleaming through the windows of the body, but shines in pure hearts within. …I assure you I shall never obey one who commands a sin.”
Saint Vincent of Saragossa said, "Torture, imprisonment, the claws, the hissing red-hot plate, even the final suffering of death, are all mere sport to Christians. How vain and futile are you rulers! How senseless Caesar’s decree!"
Saint Eulalia said, "Here am I, a foe to the worship of evil spirits; I trample idols under foot, and with heart and lips I confess God. Isis, Apollo, Venus–they are naught; Maximian himself too is naught; they because they are works of men’s hands, both worthless, both naught. Though Maximian, lord of power and yet himself vassalage to figures of stone, prostitute himself to his gods and make himself over to them, why does he persecute noble hearts?"
Here in the United States the Christians during the 18th century obviously didn't see a problem with rebelling against a tyrannical government. The seeds of rebellion were preached from the pulpit some two decades before the American Revolution, so much so that King George called it a "Presbyterian Rebellion". One such example is The Reverend Nathaniel Whitaker. Citing Joshua 11 he wrote:
"While all the peace in his kingdom, for aught we find, God commands Israel to raise an army, and invade the tyrant’s dominions. The moral reason for this is obvious. For usurpation or oppression, is offensive war, already levied. Any state which usurps power over another state, or rulers, who by a wanton use of their power, oppress their subjects, do thereby break the peace and commence an offensive war. In such a case opposition is mere self-defense, and is no more criminal, yea, as really our duty to defend ourselves against murderer, or highway robber. Self-preservation is an instinct God implanted in our nature. Therefore we sin against God and nature, when we tamely resign our rights to tyrants, or quietly submit to public oppressors, if it be in our power to defend ourselves"
One important detail in the United States is we elect our officials, unlike the despots in biblical times. That means the people are supposed to be the governing authorities and the politicians are here to serve us. So much so that the Founding Fathers put a rebellion clause in the Constitution by adding the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Hint, those arms were not just for hunting. Thomas Jefferson said "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." As such we have every right and duty to castigate our leaders when they no longer serve the public good.
I do not purpose to stop paying taxing or to take up arms against the government, such actions should not be taken lightly. I'm saying evil should be opposed with appropriate force. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. Yes presidents come and go, but all the while we are losing our freedoms as we are being dragged into a one world system. We should do all we can now, in a civil manner, so it doesn't get to the point where it becomes physical. And if the first shot is fired, I guarantee it won't be by us. Yes I know this world is headed in that direction no matter what we do. But we are supposed to be the salt of the the earth and it is our job to occupy until He comes. Then means we should do what we can to delay the decay.
So how do we respond to tyrannical governments? If we look to the Old Testament we certainly see examples of Godly men and women not submitting to evil authorities:
Mosses mother defied the Pharaoh's command to kill all Hebrew babies (Exodus 1:15-21)
Mosses defied Pharaoh to free his people.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship the golden image. (Daniel 3:18)
Daniel did not obey the decree not to petition any god or man for thirty days, except the king.
Mordecai refused to bow down to the Persian magistrate Haman. (Esther 3:5)
Seven thousand in Israel refused to bow down and worship Baal. (I Kings 19:18)
Likewise in the New Testament they did not blindly submit to the governing powers:
Mary and Joseph did not obey Herod's command to kill the baby boys. (Mat 2:16)
An angel did not obey the governing authorities when he broke Peter out of jail (Acts 12:6-11) or Paul and Silas (Acts 16:25-34)
An angel warns the people not to take the Mark of the Beast even though the Anti-Christ is given authority to cause all to receive his mark. (Rev 13:16, Rev 14:9)
It's true Jesus did not condemn the authorities of his day, but he didn't listen to them either when they told him to stop preaching the gospel. Jesus claim to be the son of God was in fact a direct challenge to the supremacy of Caesar himself and part of the reason why he was crucified and Christians were persecuted. Jesus submitted himself to be crucified not out of blind submission to the governing authorities but because it was his purpose in coming to earth. It should also be remembered that Jesus is just one part of the God head, and while Jesus did not chastise the governing authorities, God certainly did. The apostles followed suit by preaching the gospel in direct violation of the will of the governing authorities which led to their deaths. And not all the early Christians were okay with being persecuted by the governing authorities:
Saint Romanus, right before he was martyred in the early fourth century said, "Never shall I pray for the emperor’s well-being or for his great and brave regiments but that they may be faithful soldiers and in the water of Christ be born again for the Father and receive from heaven the Comforter himself, that they may cast off the darkness of idolatry and see the light of eternal hope which does not flow into the humours of the eyes gleaming through the windows of the body, but shines in pure hearts within. …I assure you I shall never obey one who commands a sin.”
Saint Vincent of Saragossa said, "Torture, imprisonment, the claws, the hissing red-hot plate, even the final suffering of death, are all mere sport to Christians. How vain and futile are you rulers! How senseless Caesar’s decree!"
Saint Eulalia said, "Here am I, a foe to the worship of evil spirits; I trample idols under foot, and with heart and lips I confess God. Isis, Apollo, Venus–they are naught; Maximian himself too is naught; they because they are works of men’s hands, both worthless, both naught. Though Maximian, lord of power and yet himself vassalage to figures of stone, prostitute himself to his gods and make himself over to them, why does he persecute noble hearts?"
Here in the United States the Christians during the 18th century obviously didn't see a problem with rebelling against a tyrannical government. The seeds of rebellion were preached from the pulpit some two decades before the American Revolution, so much so that King George called it a "Presbyterian Rebellion". One such example is The Reverend Nathaniel Whitaker. Citing Joshua 11 he wrote:
"While all the peace in his kingdom, for aught we find, God commands Israel to raise an army, and invade the tyrant’s dominions. The moral reason for this is obvious. For usurpation or oppression, is offensive war, already levied. Any state which usurps power over another state, or rulers, who by a wanton use of their power, oppress their subjects, do thereby break the peace and commence an offensive war. In such a case opposition is mere self-defense, and is no more criminal, yea, as really our duty to defend ourselves against murderer, or highway robber. Self-preservation is an instinct God implanted in our nature. Therefore we sin against God and nature, when we tamely resign our rights to tyrants, or quietly submit to public oppressors, if it be in our power to defend ourselves"
One important detail in the United States is we elect our officials, unlike the despots in biblical times. That means the people are supposed to be the governing authorities and the politicians are here to serve us. So much so that the Founding Fathers put a rebellion clause in the Constitution by adding the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Hint, those arms were not just for hunting. Thomas Jefferson said "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." As such we have every right and duty to castigate our leaders when they no longer serve the public good.
I do not purpose to stop paying taxing or to take up arms against the government, such actions should not be taken lightly. I'm saying evil should be opposed with appropriate force. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. Yes presidents come and go, but all the while we are losing our freedoms as we are being dragged into a one world system. We should do all we can now, in a civil manner, so it doesn't get to the point where it becomes physical. And if the first shot is fired, I guarantee it won't be by us. Yes I know this world is headed in that direction no matter what we do. But we are supposed to be the salt of the the earth and it is our job to occupy until He comes. Then means we should do what we can to delay the decay.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Why God does allow suffering?
Sometime back I tried to answer this question from a theological standpoint. And while I think some insights can be gleamed from such a perspective, I realize now I overcomplicated the issue. There is a simpler explanation that answers why God allows suffering, why things are the way the are, and why Satan is currently allowed to roam free, and it has to do with the title deed to the earth.
Genesis tells us when God made everything is was perfect, it wasn't just good it was very good. There was no pain, suffering, or death. The earth was perfect, there was no rain, earthquakes, hurricanes, cold, or extreme heat, or natural disasters of any kind. The animal kingdom was also in harmony. Then God handed it over to Adam, to have denomination over the whole earth (Gen 1:26, Psalm 8:4-9). In essence God gave Adam a title deed to the earth.
Pastor Chuck Smith says of deeds, "Under Jewish law whenever you sold property in the deed there was always a redemptive clause. You always had the right to buy the property back within a specified period of time providing you could fulfill the terms and the requirements that were written in the deed.
So wherever there was the sale of property, there was always two
deeds that were drawn up. One deed was sealed and it was put away in a
safe deposit. The other remained open and was kept by the person who
sold the property. And in the time of redemption you would bring both
deeds, the one that was open and the one that was sealed. And by the
open deed you would prove that you were the one that had the right to
redeem it. And in the redeeming of it, you would break the seals of the
closed deed and you would fulfill the requirements therein, and thus,
the property would revert to you."
When Adam sinned he in essence turned the title deed of earth over to Satan. Since that point Satan has been the God of this world (2 Cr 4:4). Likewise John says the whole world is under the control of the evil one (1Jo 5:19). Satan tempted Jesus by showing Him all the kingdoms of the world and said all the authority (of these kingdoms) would be given to Him if He would worship Satan. This claim of ownership was never contested by Jesus and Satan could not tempt Jesus with something he did not have (Luke 4:5-7). Matthew 12:26 acknowledges that Satan has a kingdom. The Book of Daniel (Dan 10:20) describes two spiritual principalities, the prince of Persia (Persia was the dominate power of that day) and the prince of Greece (Alexander the Great became the next power), indicating Satan does have influence over the kingdoms over the earth. In Ezekiel 28 Satan is described as the King of Tyre who was the real power behind the power of Tyre. Satan's man The Anti-Christ will have authority over every tribe, nation, tongue (Rev 13:7). Revelation 13:2 makes it clear this authority comes from Satan not from God, "The dragon (Satan) gave him his power, his throne, and great authority." As such Satan retains some of his old authority, he is allowed to present himself before God (Job 1:6, 2:1), and when Micheal the archangel disputes Satan over the body of Moses he didn't dare to condemn him (Jud 1:9), showing a respect for authority.
When Jesus came and died on the cross, He redeemed the earth back but hasn't taken possession of it yet. Some believe the first seal opened in Revelation is the title deed to the earth (Rev 5), and the point at which God fully takes it back. After the seven years of tribulation and the removal of Satan and those who have taken his mark, there is a partial restoration that takes place. Life span's are restored to pre-flood conditions, everyone will eat under there own vine meaning no one will go hungry, and animals will no longer eat one another or harm us. After those 1000 years death, the final enemy, is destroyed and everything is made new and perfect once again.
In conclusion, there is evil and suffering in the world because Adam opened the door to it when he gave the title deed to Satan. That means even God is not legally bound to intervene until the title deed is taken back. Yes God can do anything, but He does have self-imposed limitations. If God violated his word then He wouldn't be a just God. But He has a plan to bring everything back into perfection, we are merely living in the intermediary period until then.
Genesis tells us when God made everything is was perfect, it wasn't just good it was very good. There was no pain, suffering, or death. The earth was perfect, there was no rain, earthquakes, hurricanes, cold, or extreme heat, or natural disasters of any kind. The animal kingdom was also in harmony. Then God handed it over to Adam, to have denomination over the whole earth (Gen 1:26, Psalm 8:4-9). In essence God gave Adam a title deed to the earth.
Pastor Chuck Smith says of deeds, "Under Jewish law whenever you sold property in the deed there was always a redemptive clause. You always had the right to buy the property back within a specified period of time providing you could fulfill the terms and the requirements that were written in the deed.
When Adam sinned he in essence turned the title deed of earth over to Satan. Since that point Satan has been the God of this world (2 Cr 4:4). Likewise John says the whole world is under the control of the evil one (1Jo 5:19). Satan tempted Jesus by showing Him all the kingdoms of the world and said all the authority (of these kingdoms) would be given to Him if He would worship Satan. This claim of ownership was never contested by Jesus and Satan could not tempt Jesus with something he did not have (Luke 4:5-7). Matthew 12:26 acknowledges that Satan has a kingdom. The Book of Daniel (Dan 10:20) describes two spiritual principalities, the prince of Persia (Persia was the dominate power of that day) and the prince of Greece (Alexander the Great became the next power), indicating Satan does have influence over the kingdoms over the earth. In Ezekiel 28 Satan is described as the King of Tyre who was the real power behind the power of Tyre. Satan's man The Anti-Christ will have authority over every tribe, nation, tongue (Rev 13:7). Revelation 13:2 makes it clear this authority comes from Satan not from God, "The dragon (Satan) gave him his power, his throne, and great authority." As such Satan retains some of his old authority, he is allowed to present himself before God (Job 1:6, 2:1), and when Micheal the archangel disputes Satan over the body of Moses he didn't dare to condemn him (Jud 1:9), showing a respect for authority.
When Jesus came and died on the cross, He redeemed the earth back but hasn't taken possession of it yet. Some believe the first seal opened in Revelation is the title deed to the earth (Rev 5), and the point at which God fully takes it back. After the seven years of tribulation and the removal of Satan and those who have taken his mark, there is a partial restoration that takes place. Life span's are restored to pre-flood conditions, everyone will eat under there own vine meaning no one will go hungry, and animals will no longer eat one another or harm us. After those 1000 years death, the final enemy, is destroyed and everything is made new and perfect once again.
In conclusion, there is evil and suffering in the world because Adam opened the door to it when he gave the title deed to Satan. That means even God is not legally bound to intervene until the title deed is taken back. Yes God can do anything, but He does have self-imposed limitations. If God violated his word then He wouldn't be a just God. But He has a plan to bring everything back into perfection, we are merely living in the intermediary period until then.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
How religion and atheism are similiar
"Religion" comes from the Latin word "religare" which means "to bind". It basically means something to which someone is devout to. We tend to think of religion as the worshiping of a deity and that athesim is the antithesis of religion, but this is not necessarily so. Religion is merely a set of beliefs or a worldview. In this regard atheism shares many attributes to religion:
*They both revolve around a central figure whose births are celebrated. For Christians its Jesus, for atheists its Charles Darwin.
*They both have their preachers to preach their gospel. For atheists it's people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, etc.
*As with all religions, non-believers are treated like heretics.
*They both require faith. Yes even evolution requires faith. It remains a theory and the changing of one kind into another kind, as Darwin described, has never been observed in nature or recreated in the laboratory. And let's face it, none of us where there at the begging.
More to come...
*They both revolve around a central figure whose births are celebrated. For Christians its Jesus, for atheists its Charles Darwin.
*They both have their preachers to preach their gospel. For atheists it's people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, etc.
*As with all religions, non-believers are treated like heretics.
*They both require faith. Yes even evolution requires faith. It remains a theory and the changing of one kind into another kind, as Darwin described, has never been observed in nature or recreated in the laboratory. And let's face it, none of us where there at the begging.
More to come...
Sunday, February 8, 2015
You don't need religion to be moral?
"Some moderns with no religious beliefs, of course, have high ethical standards and often show humanitarian concerns quite independent of Jesus' teachings. Professor Schmidt, however, tellingly shows how such secular morality could hardly have been possible without prior Judeo-Christian ethic that influenced generation after generation. Any "noble pagan" today recoils, for example, from the thought of killing babies, but "noble pagans" of antiquity prior to Christianity did not so recoil."
"People who today see murder and mass atrocities as immoral may not realize that their beliefs in this regard are largely the result of their having internalized the Christian ethic that holds human life to be sacred. There is no indication that the wanton taking of human life was morally revolting to the ancient Romans. "
"When modern secularists show compassion today upon seeing or hearing of some human tragedy-for example, massive starvation, earthquake disasters, mass murders-they show that they have unknowingly internalized Christianity's concept of compassion."
"As Josiah Stamp has said, "Christian ideals have permeated society until non-Christians, who claim to live a "decent life" without religion, have forgotten the origin of the very content and context of their decency."
"During World War II on a remote island in the Pacific, an American solider met a native who could read, and the native was carrying a Bible. Upon seeing the Bible, the solider said, "We educated people no longer put much faith in that book." The native, from a tribe of former cannibals, replied, "Well, it's good that we do, or you would be eaten by my people today," this is only one illustration of how Christ's magnanimous influence has taught people that human life is sacred. It is one of Christianity's outstanding legacies."
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Stephen Fry explains what he would say if he was 'confronted by God'
"Stephen who?" was my first thought when I saw this story trending on Facebook. Apparently he's a British actor, writer, and comedian who also happens to be a homosexual atheist. Gee, no wonder he has a problem with God. When asked what he would say if confronted with God, he says:
“I’d say, bone cancer in children? What’s that about? “How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil."
Yes, God is so evil that he gave his only begotten son to be brutalized and crucified so that everyone, even Stephen Fry, could go to heaven. These accusations against God have been posed and answered so many times as to be unoriginal, most recently by the likes of Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. He goes on to say:
“Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That’s what I would say. ”
Except God didn't. All it would take is a cursory reading of the first couple of chapters of Genesis to see God made everything perfect. There was no death, or sickness, or pain. But God gave man free-will, and with choices come consequences. It was the first man's free-will choice to reject God that sin entered the world and those consequences have reverberated down throughout history. Mankind is very much the cause for his own misery. Stephen conveniently overlooks this fact and the amount of injustice and pain man himself has caused. Why isn't he blaming mankind then?
God has promised to make everything perfect again, but it's a process. I'm not to go into a long theological explanation here as to why God is doing this way, but suffice to say I believe God is working on man's free-will and teaching us some important object lessons along the way. Namely what happens when we don't think we need God and think our way is better. He goes on to say:
"But I wouldn't want to (go to heaven)," Fry insisted. “I wouldn't want to get in on his terms. They are wrong."
I would add here this is the reason why Hell must exist, because not everyone will accept God. He has given us free-will and with it the ability to accept or reject Him. He does not force anyone to go to Heaven, or Hell for that matter. That decision is left entirely up to us.
"Now, if I died and it was Pluto, Hades, and if it was the 12 Greek gods then I would have more truck with it, because the Greeks didn’t pretend to not be human in their appetites, in their capriciousness, and in their unreasonableness… they didn’t present themselves as being all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all-beneficent, because the god that created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac… utter maniac, totally selfish."
So he would he prefer pagan gods who are just as flawed as human beings rather than a righteous God, because in his limited perspective he can't rationale how a righteous God would permit pain and suffering. My contention is He would, for a finite period of time, if it produced a greater good.
“We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that? So, atheism isn’t not just about not believing there’s a God, but on the assumption there is one, what kind of God is he?”
I find it interesting that a self-proclaimed atheist who doesn't believe in God has such visceral feelings concerning Him. If he truly doesn't believe in God why does he need to rationale it at all? Could it be that in his limited intellect and perspective he don't know everything. And if he doesn't know everything how can he make a judgement call towards God? May I suggest the reason his heart is so callus towards God is in part to do with his homosexuality, which ferments a spirit of rebelliousness. I sincerely hope he sees the error in his ways, before it's too late. You can read the full article here.
“I’d say, bone cancer in children? What’s that about? “How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil."
Yes, God is so evil that he gave his only begotten son to be brutalized and crucified so that everyone, even Stephen Fry, could go to heaven. These accusations against God have been posed and answered so many times as to be unoriginal, most recently by the likes of Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. He goes on to say:
“Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That’s what I would say. ”
Except God didn't. All it would take is a cursory reading of the first couple of chapters of Genesis to see God made everything perfect. There was no death, or sickness, or pain. But God gave man free-will, and with choices come consequences. It was the first man's free-will choice to reject God that sin entered the world and those consequences have reverberated down throughout history. Mankind is very much the cause for his own misery. Stephen conveniently overlooks this fact and the amount of injustice and pain man himself has caused. Why isn't he blaming mankind then?
God has promised to make everything perfect again, but it's a process. I'm not to go into a long theological explanation here as to why God is doing this way, but suffice to say I believe God is working on man's free-will and teaching us some important object lessons along the way. Namely what happens when we don't think we need God and think our way is better. He goes on to say:
"But I wouldn't want to (go to heaven)," Fry insisted. “I wouldn't want to get in on his terms. They are wrong."
I would add here this is the reason why Hell must exist, because not everyone will accept God. He has given us free-will and with it the ability to accept or reject Him. He does not force anyone to go to Heaven, or Hell for that matter. That decision is left entirely up to us.
"Now, if I died and it was Pluto, Hades, and if it was the 12 Greek gods then I would have more truck with it, because the Greeks didn’t pretend to not be human in their appetites, in their capriciousness, and in their unreasonableness… they didn’t present themselves as being all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all-beneficent, because the god that created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac… utter maniac, totally selfish."
So he would he prefer pagan gods who are just as flawed as human beings rather than a righteous God, because in his limited perspective he can't rationale how a righteous God would permit pain and suffering. My contention is He would, for a finite period of time, if it produced a greater good.
“We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that? So, atheism isn’t not just about not believing there’s a God, but on the assumption there is one, what kind of God is he?”
I find it interesting that a self-proclaimed atheist who doesn't believe in God has such visceral feelings concerning Him. If he truly doesn't believe in God why does he need to rationale it at all? Could it be that in his limited intellect and perspective he don't know everything. And if he doesn't know everything how can he make a judgement call towards God? May I suggest the reason his heart is so callus towards God is in part to do with his homosexuality, which ferments a spirit of rebelliousness. I sincerely hope he sees the error in his ways, before it's too late. You can read the full article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)