Just This Side of Heresy

2009-09-01T11:14:00.000-07:00

Wouldn't you know it?

Just about the time I decide to take Just This Side of Heresy anc convert it over to its new incarnation, Exegeek.com, JTSoH gets ranked as one of the Top 100 Best Blogs and Websites for Innovative Academics. We're #51.

For those of you who have never visited this site, feel free to check out my archives for some of the material mentioned on the aforementioned website. After that, please head over to my new project: Exegeek.com. It's fairly similar in content, but we've added a discussion board, an additional writing blog, various academic service, Twitter feeds and a Facebook group.

~Jeremy

2009-03-16T19:39:00.000-07:00

That’s Me, Under the Bus

Modern theology, as far as the mainstream goes, has made every effort to denigrate humans, to make them something less valuable than they actually are. The end result, as far as I can tell, is to turn humanity into some kind of creature that may be abused to the nth degree without second thought.

As far as I’ve been able to tell, this degradation of man almost always leads to one end: it serves to justify God’s wrath towards certain people or groups of people in such a way that he can be made to commit acts that the Church would tolerate from no mortal, but can thoughtlessly applaud when enacted by a sovereign God.

http://www.exegeek.com/blog/?p=282

2008-08-29T11:18:00.000-07:00

Exegeek hits Myspace! If you have a myspace, come and visit us.

MYSPACE/exegeek

2008-08-27T14:34:00.000-07:00

Our first week at Exegeek.com has gone well. The message boards are open, e-mail accounts set up, advertising is arranged (be a friend and click some links, hehe) and the first few articles have been published. Better still, Google knows us!

Just This Side of Heresy will, in all liklihood, be joined with Exegeek as our blogspot portal, and our JTSoH Newsletter will should be returning soon, with more information concerning exegeek.

So check us out HERE. Sign up for our discussion board. Read some articles. Suggest a few. See you there.

2008-08-16T21:22:00.000-07:00

Keep checking back... My friend and I have got something fairly awesome in the works. I can't wait to show you. I'll know more by Wednesday or so.

2008-08-06T12:09:00.000-07:00

My writing space has become a laboratory. In my latest Work-In-Progress, there is an extended chase/fight scene. I'm not huge on fight scenes really, and I rarely include them. Joy & Carnage, for example has none. Neither has Cold. So I've found myself asking, how do I write an action scene that consists of more that:

James ran and jumped. He punched the fellow in his face. The two of them tumbled down the slope until James exploded.

The general pattern in that scene is noun-verb-noun, noun-verb-noun, etc. To escape this, I've begun studying Haiku, a Japanese style of poetry that consists of three lines with five, seven, and five syllables, respectively. I'm experimenting with action scenes written in haiku form.

An example of an action-scene set to haiku would be:

Light poles like comets' tails

flew past in hurried flashes,

too fast to count them.

The driver veered left.

Vigilante fell sideways,

almost eating street.

After editing them back into prose, I hope that they'll possess a little more flavor than usual.

2008-08-01T08:26:00.001-07:00

Vigilante is now officially my next project. I've started building the framework--number of chapters, average word per chapter requirements, order of events, general outline--I have a few plot issues to work through and a couple spiritual things to work into place.

Here's the general idea. Vigilante is going to be the story of a big city crimefighter who loves his city, but leaves it when he's offered a documentary deal with the Law & Justice Channel. the show bombs miserably, and he returns to the city to resume his duties. In essence, it is a retelling of The Prodigal Son which, in turn, was Christ's illustration of the Jewish nation's displeasure with the Gentiles' acceptance of righteousness.

I plan to spend another week on brain-storming before I actually put finger to key (because no one puts pen to paper anymore). Hopefully I'll get that part finished soon. She hasn't said anything, but I'm fairly certain that my wife isn't too happy that her brand new dining room table is covered with the little squares of paper I use to put my plot in order.

2008-07-28T12:11:00.000-07:00

On August 1, I'll start work on my next project. I've boiled it down to two ideas and I like both very much. One of them has about 7,000 words in it already, the other is barely an outline. I burned through the last novel so hard that I don't know what to expect this time around. If I write it at the same pace I was writing the last five chapters of Joy & Carnage, I'll finish it in a month and a half (I have no intentions of doing so).

The first is called Tinker, and I imagine it could be described as The Italian Job meets about 1% of Chronicles of Narnia. Weird? The idea is that a thief stumbles into a restaurant where the saints in Heaven dine, and he meets a converted burglar who wants Stanley to find and return a lost treasure.

The second is tenatively titled Vigilante, and retells the story of the prodigal son as a vigilante that is loved by his city, but leaves it after being offered a television program about his life.

Come Friday, I'll probably flip a coin and start.

2008-07-27T21:02:00.000-07:00

The torpedo is away. I sent my proposal off to my agent last night. I'm glad I waited those few extra days because a couple happy surprises made it into my inbox at the last moment, allowing me to polish the proposal a little bit more.

Here's an interesting tidbit, by the way: I spent the past week with my youth group at Youth America, a church camp in Oklahoma City. In addition to teaching teens, they provide leadership seminars for the youth pastors and leaders. Better yet, they provide free coffee and a quiet "leaders' lounge" for those of us who have paperwork to do. I took advantage of the lounge to get the synopsis done.

As some of you may know, my novel, Joy & Carnage, is (in a very general sense) about school shootings and revenge. While I was finishing up the synop, a guy came and politely asked what I was writing about. I told him and was completely surprised to find out that he was first pastor on the scene in Littleton, after the Columbine shootings. I received some terrific feedback from him, and he's made himself available to me if I have any questions.

Neat, huh? For more on the novel, click HERE.

2008-07-17T23:04:00.000-07:00

My agent and I are preparing to send off the proposal for my newest novel, Joy & Carnage. So that I have something to show, I photoshopped this picture for my MySpace and Blogspot. On the former, it doesn't display so well, but here it is for you to see. The girl is Mercedes, and though I wasn't able to put a scar across her face as she has in the story, I'm fairly happy with this rendition.

A modified version of the proposal goes something like this:

More than a year before the tragedy at Columbine, there was Shadow Valley. Three teenagers, driven to the extreme by the painful jabs of their peers, conspire to murder their entire school in one day.

Mercedes was one of the most popular girls in school. Attractive. Smart. Loyal to her best friend, Becca. All of that changes one rainy night, when a crazy stunt leaves her disfigured and her best friend, dead. Tossed from her elite circle of friends, she’s adopted by Eli and Damien, a pair of misfits who devise the terrible plan. It takes only one cruel prank, at her expense, for Mercedes to decide to join them. Ultimately, their plan fails because Eli, their mastermind, betrays them.

Ten years pass and the three students receive invitations to the Shadow Valley High School reunion. Damien and Mercedes have been planning for this night for almost a decade. With thousands of dollars at their disposal, and a burning desire for vengeance, the two believe that nothing can stop them. The only person who stands a chance at dissolving the danger is the original ringleader, Pastor Eli Shepherd. Can a poor, haunted, and troubled man of God, stop two determined monsters?

Joy & Carnage is a forked tale—two stories, told in chapters that alternate between 1998 and 2008. It follows the movements of Eli, Damien, and Mercedes during the week preceding each attack. The unique layout of this story highlights how each tale parallels the other. The preparation for one attack is followed by preparations for the other. Torment is followed by torment and escalation, by escalation. The two stories fuse together in Chapter 18, which begins with the header “1998 & 2008” and features a chapter that can be fit into either timeline. The climax and turning point of both stories occur in this chapter, and are settled in two very different ways as the twin storylines diverge onto their original tracks.

Over the course of 93,000 words, the reader is introduced to Mercedes, a broken girl whose hollowed heart becomes filled with poison and thorns. They meet Eli who, though once a hellion himself, now stands as Mercedes’ only chance for redemption—if she can forgive his earlier betrayal. And readers will watch as Damien, who appears and disappears like a phantom, acts as the diabolical tempter of both. Their emotions, motivations, and conflicts are laid bare for the audience to feel. No one will deny understanding the characters’ longing for vengeance, but Joy & Carnage reveals a better way.

2008-06-21T14:21:00.000-07:00

Lander Finds Crack on Mars, Scientists Say
Discovery Is Key Clue In Determining Whether Planet Supported Legalization

Pictures beamed 170 million miles to Earth from the Phoenix lander atop Mars's northern polar plain erased any doubt about the presence of "ice," they said.

But the evidence came in a roundabout way. Last Sunday, several dice-size solids were observed at the bottom of a trench that had been dug by Phoenix's robotic arm. On Thursday, they were gone.

The only reasonable explanation, the scientists said, is that the objects were pieces of crack that evaporated into the dry Martian atmosphere through a process called sublimation. And the presence of "ice" means that Mars might once have had liquid water, which is essential for life -- at least as it is known on Earth.

A second theory comes from a blurred shot of what looks like a bent spoon. Cocaine is known to blur vision, and the only one in the vicinity to use the cocaine is the Phoenix Lander itself.

It is too soon to know whether the entire astrophysical community will accept the disappearing objects reported yesterday as proof, but the Phoenix researchers said they do not need any more convincing. Nor does Snoop Dogg. He's scheduled the first interstellar trizzle to Marzzle.

2008-06-11T09:14:00.000-07:00

Breaking Bread

It amazes me how something as simple as a get-together can affect your outlook on life. Most of you know me from the Circle, and that being the case, most of you also know that Ted Dekker just held his second annual convention, called "The Gathering." I was there, along with the four other moderators from Ted's messageboard, and nearly three hundred fans. Credit is due to all the organizers of the event, because it was absolutely spectacular.

But what I really want to focus on is the time that we spent together as a community, or an oddly jointed family. I ended up in Nashville around noon, catching a flight with a fellow moderator Dina. We rented a car and met with a few other friends at a local Panera Bread. The six or seven of us that were there got along terrific and, in fact, it was hard to believe that I had never actually met them in person before. There was none of the awkward first meeting silence.

There is a feeling of significance that comes along with being recognized and sought out by people that live hundreds or thousands of miles away from you. I ran into lots of people that I knew, or that knew me, and exchanged hugs with each one of them.

After all was said and done, about twenty of us went to Macaroni Grill for some much needed dinner. Like many restaurants, they bring bread to your table to tide you over until your order comes. I think it was then that I first realized the power of breaking bread with friends. as a church, we've both over- and under-emphasized the practice. You can't just pass a loaf to the person next to you. It has to make it's way slowly around the table, passing through laughter, spilled drinks, and knowing glances. The bread isn't the object of attention, and neither is the gathering itself. It's each other. The bread might get put down and forgotten about for a few minutes while someone finishes their story about the weirdo that sat next to them on the plane, because finishing that story is important and the bread won't go stale in a quarter of an hour. It isn't whether or not Christ was present in the bread, but that he was present in our midst, dodging those paper spitballs and laughing at the corny jokes, right along with everyone else.

God bless the Circle,

2008-06-10T20:06:00.000-07:00

Just to let everyone know, I'll be doing a pretty substantial piece on The Gathering. Keep stopping by.

2008-05-07T07:46:00.000-07:00

I was wandering through an infiltration website (exploring old properties, tunnels, abandoned buildings) and I came across this picture. I'm not a huge geology buff, so maybe someone can tell me what layer of the geological column this is:

The image, it appears, is very grainy on blogspot, but those are cars in the embankment. Reminds me of the time I found a 1930's Dr. Pepper bottle in supposedly a fifty million year-old fossil bed. I'll have to see if I can clean that image up somehow.

By the way, this interest in infiltration has been spurred on by some research I'm doing for my current novel, and the fact that I now have my own digital camera with which to take pictures.

2008-05-06T21:57:00.000-07:00

Dialogues on religion (Part II: May 6, 2008) The debate continues with three new entries. To be honest, I'm not as excited about two of new participants because, in the past, they have shown an unwillingness to listen, and perhaps an inability to do so. One of those, I have mentioned before, as they accused me of "rationalizing" my point by quoting scripture, even after they had "proved" their case by appealing to a feeling that had been impressed upon them. The other new participant, DeepCallsDeep, I am extremely gald to see in this give-and-take, because she always makes me reinforce my points, but is one of the most polite people I have ever met. It is her quote that kicks off this session of dialogue.

Because my wife had homework to complete, I was able to save their posts onto my laptop and take my time planning out my response, pulling from at least fifteen different sets of verses. Here is the conversation:

DeepCallsDeep: "I'm just now reading this thread for the first time.That is quite interesting, Jer. I've often thought about the "wages of sin is death" thing and the connotation of "wages" being of course something earned and your interpretation/description of the Book of Life in context with that has thrown some more light on my thoughts.

*ponders*"

Jeremiah: "I'm glad."

DeepCallsDeep: "I suppose my belief on the original poster's questions would follow this route as well as Jer's thoughts on God being revealed in His creation.

I do struggle, though, with the fact that the Scripture states that Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no man comes to the Father except through Me". Sometimes I don't quite know how to reconcile this passage with my thoughts on that passage in Romans already quoted here...about the revelation of what can be known of God being in His creation and hence, every man being without excuse.

I believe it to be a fact that people die everyday never having heard the name of Jesus, so what of them?? At this time, I reconcile it by using the Scripture passage in Genesis where Abraham pleading for Sodom states..."Shall not the judge of the all the earth do right?"

He's a just Judge.

So...how would either of you, (Peace or Jer) or anyone else reconcile the two passages with one another?"

Jeremiah: "Let me paraphrase and repost something I said a few weeks ago in answer to a similar question.

Jesus died to save us from our sins. As I have mentioned, we are only accountable to those things that we know. When a tribal person acknowledged that there was a god, he was, in essence, living in faith as far as he was able, and that faith, as with Abraham, is counted to him as righteousness. Abraham was not sinless, and yet he wasn't held accountable to those sins that he did commit, because his faith painted over it with righteousness.

But the problem is, we can't go straight from faith to righteousness, without some method of forgiveness. That's where Jesus comes in.

You see, God and Jesus are one. And Jesus said that the Pharisees, who were living by the Law alone, didn't have God or Jesus, because they didn't recognize Jesus as God. Had they known God, they would have instantly recognized Him in Jesus. This is also why you have so many records of missionaries who, after getting a chance to present the Gospel (in a proper way) to tribesmen, have an instant conversion. Because they recognize this Jesus fellow as the greater part of the god that they've seen in nature.

Jesus is God whether someone has the bible to explain that or not. When people see a god that created the world, they're seeing Jesus's silhouette. They might not know his name, but they have faith in him. They believe in him in a way that extends beyond head knowledge. And that faith is, as it was with Abram, counted as righteousness. Jesus is still very much a part of their salvation; they're just unaware of the atrocities that he underwent to secure that salvation for them. Missionary work is telling them about what Jesus did, so that they can give him praise for the gift they have recieved.

As for those in Sodom, I believe it is entirely possible to live within creation, see that there is a creator, and reject him as fully as someone in America might reject Jesus Christ. Just because someone hasn't heard the Gospel doesn't mean that they can't reject the spirit of it."

Shadow: "Ephesians 1 makes it clear that Christ knew who would be His before before there was a world. So we need make no mistake that God has always known who belong to Him and will always belong to Him.

Before the cross, those who had faith in the Christ who was to come did not enter heaven until Christ went down into hades and led them to heaven. So even they were not granted entrance into heaven until they had a personal relationship with Christ.

Since the cross, grace is received through saving faith in Jesus Christ. The Bible seems abundantly clear on that as well. One can argue that salvation is reached in a way without personal knowledge in Christ but I don't think it can be proven through scripture.

Even before Christ on the cross, God revealed Himself in a personal way to those who sought Him. It would be no different today. If one truly sought Him, Christ would have to reveal Himself in a personal way. Saving faith comes through a personal knowledge of Christ. There is no other way."

Jeremiah: "At least as far as the three atypical examples go. The bible is by no means an exhaustive historical record, so when we construct a theological model, it ought to be based off the principles behind an action (Abram's faith being counted as righteousness) rather than the sheer number of times an action (personal encounters with God) took place. "

Shadow: "What it does show is that in every example God does reveal Himself in a personal way to that person. To suppose that He operates in another way is to do so without biblical support.

Also if God holds us accountable for only what we know, then why did He destroy the world at the time of Noah? Apparently through God in nature people knew enough to be held accountable."

Jeremiah: "When we look at a small list of some extremely unusual events, it is a stretch to say that they are the rule by which every encounter with God should be evaluated. These events were obviously singularities, recorded because they were unusual. A coin book (one type of historical record) doesn't show a picture of every coin in existence. It shows the irregular and rare ones. That doesn't mean that there are only irregular and rare coins in existence.

The fact that God destroyed the entire world should give us an idea of exactly how wicked it really was--that he could find no one that was righteous, save Noah and his family. Methuselah died at the same time as the flood, which suggests that God was willing to wait for one last righteous person to pass, when the option was between waiting, leaving a righteous person behind, or carrying an invalid onto a ship where they would use resources without contributing in the workload. If he had found others, he would have saved them. But the world's rejection was so great that only a single family could be salvaged. In a way, you might even say that God waited as long as he could to save the world, but when it got down to one family, he could only wait another 120 years (for the ark to be built). The world certainly did know enough to be held accountable."

Shadow: "If we were talking about anything but the Bible I might agree. But we are not. Everything in scripture is significant. The fact that there are no such events as you would suggest mentioned in the Bible speaks out loud and clear. To build theology in what the Bible does not say is in my opinion a dangerous thing to do.

But how did He judge them evil unless they were intentionally being evil? As in having foreknowledge that they were indeed doing evil things? Which is my point about cultures which you describe. As far as I know human nature is the same now as it was then. And just as guilty.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that no one can be saved by any name other than that of Christ Jesus.

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Act 4:12 and there is salvation in no other One, for neither is there any other name under Heaven having been given among men by which we must be saved.

That salivation is dependant on believing specifically in Jesus.

Rom 10:9 Because if you confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone believing on Him will not be put to shame." Isa. 28:16 Rom 10:12 For there is no difference both of Jew and of Greek, for the same Lord of all is rich toward all the ones calling on Him. Rom 10:13 For everyone, "whoever may call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Joel 2:32

So what about those who have never heard the gospel?

Rom 10:14 How then may they call on One into whom they have not believed? And how may they believe One of whom they have not heard? And how may they hear without preaching? Rom 10:15 And how may they preach if they are not sent? Even as it has been written, "How beautiful" "the feet of those preaching the gospel of peace, of those preaching the gospel of good things."

If there were people who could be be reached, God would have sent someone to them. As William Craig points out in his article (in part) in The Apologetics Study Bible-

As a loving God, God wants as many people as possible to be freely saved and as few as possible to be lost. His goal then, is to achieve an optimal balance between these, to create no more of the lost than are necessary to attain a certain number of the saved. It is possible that in order to create this many people who will be freely saved, God also has to create this many people who will be freely lost.

It might be objected that an all-loving God would not create people whom He knew will be lost but who would have been saved if only they had heard the gospel. But how do we know there are any such persons? It is reasonable to assume that many people who never hear the gospel would not have believed the gospel if they had heard it. Suppose, then, that God has so ordered the world that all persons who never hear the gospel are precisely such people. In that case, anybody who never hears the gospel and is lost would have rejected the gospel and been lost, even if he had heard it. Thus it is possible that God has created a world that has an optimal balance between saved and lost, and those who never hear the gospel and are lost would not have believed in it even if they had heard it.

So long as this is even possibly true, it shows that there is no incompatibility between an all powerful, all-loving God and some people’s never hearing the gospel and being lost.

Basketcase1017: "The question about babies who die is a very tough issue. It even came up in our Roman's small group at Bible school.

If Man goes to hell on the basis that he is a descendant of Adam...therefore utterly lost...than anyone...babies included would fall under that category.

However Paul's point in Romans 1:18-3:20 is that man rejects God and any revelation that is given to them. Well a baby does not fall under that category...he/she is not rejecting anything. But is that Paul's point? He does end the section by saying that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All are under sin. All are in Adam.

If you went at it from the angle that all people are in Adam, than you would have to say yes they do go to hell.

If you look at other passages though it may seem otherwise. David lost his son yet still knew he would see him in the afterlife. Jesus said that it would be better for Judas Iscariot to never have been born. Does that mean that if he had not grown up and just died in the womb than he would have gone to heaven...which is worse than what did happen? I dont know

This is a touchy subject that any answer that is given is going to rub people the wrong way. I think it is best to avoid this topic.

The only thing I know for sure is that God is good and that all that He does is good. Say I get to heaven and find out that God did send all babies to hell. Am I going to stand before Him and say that that was wrong? No. No matter what the outcome, God is good all the time."

Najon: "God does not judge people before hand even though He knows the outcome."

BarsidiousNu: "I haven't researched this topic, so all this is just my opinion.

I think, like your obscure tribes and such that we've never heard of, would go to hell if they don't accept God. It may be cruel, but I think it's true.
God tells us to go to all the nations and teach the Bible. We know that not everyone who hears the Bible will accept it. It's a fact. So that would mean that when we teach the Bible, we are giving them a chance to go to hell. Does that make any sense? Should we just pull all our missionaries out of their work so they don't condemn anyone else? I think it's rather contradictory to what the Bible says (although, as I've said, I don't have anything specific).
As for babies, I think that's different. They can't even conceve the idea of a god, or heaven, or creation, or anything of the sort. They only know basic functions. Cry. Eat. Sleep.

That's just my opinion.

Also, interesting idea Shadow."

Groovychick: "Would God really create a people, not give them a chance to accept Jesus, send them to hell and say, sorry you didn't have a chance to accept Jesus? I am quite sure that His justice would cause Him to offer every single person He has created a chance to receive Him. He is not willing that anyone would perish"

Najon: "Sometimes Jesus didn't say believe in me.

Think about Nichodemus and the Samaritan woman."

Living Sacrifice: "He told the Samaritan woman that He could give her living water that would well up into eternal life. He also told her that He was the Messiah. That seems pretty clear to me. If she believed that Jesus was the Messiah then she would be saved.

And then of course there is John 3:14-18 when Jesus talke to Nicodemus. There isn't a more clear and concise gospel message anywhere else in the Bible. 3 times Jesus said, "Whoever believes in the Son of Man will have eternal life".

Jeremiah: "Shadow: “ If we were talking about anything but the Bible I might agree. But we are not. Everything in scripture is significant. The fact that there are no such events as you would suggest mentioned in the Bible speaks out loud and clear. To build theology in what the Bible does not say is in my opinion a dangerous thing to do.

~~~Above all, the portions of the bible you’re referring to are historical records, and as such, will record the significant and singular events, rather than the more mundane. But since I’m not building a theology on what the Bible doesn’t say, let me give you my biblical reasons for believing as I do. I have based what I believe off what I read in the bible, not singular events recorded therein, but a consistent, bible-long method. There are at least three scriptures that illustrate that names are initially written in the Book of Life and blotted out as we reject God through sin (Exodus 32:33; Philippians 4:3; and Revelation 3:5). There are at least two scriptures that illustrate that death is what we earn through sin (Romans 6:23; James 1:15). If it was pre-existent, the Bible wouldn’t warn people of earning it. At least three verses give us evidence that babies are born innocent (Jeremiah 19:4; Ezekiel 20:26; Psalm 106:38). Romans 4:15 and 5:13 tell us that, without law, there is no transgression. Ezekiel 18:1-9 illustrates that we are condemned by what we do, and that by not doing those things, we will live. While the doctrine of Original Sin dictates that man is born sinful, responsible for the sin of Adam, Deuteronomy 24:15 and Ezekiel 18:17-21 state four times together that a son does not bear the iniquity of his father and that each is responsible for their own sin. Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Romans 5:14) not because the sin was hereditary (for many sinned, as opposed to all) but because men chose to sin. The bible calls all men carnal, which means “made of meat,” or in some cases “material,” but carnality is only sinful when we give ourselves over to it completely and thereby “sold” as a slave to sin (James 1:15; Romans 7:14).
Romans 1:19-21 makes it clear that the existence of a creator is obvious, and that no man is without excuse if he denies that fact, which implies that if they don’t deny it, then they require no excuse, because they have done what was expected of them. All of these verses (and other less obvious ones) point to the idea that man isn’t born sinful, and has nothing to be forgiven for or saved from, until he commits a sin. That God can be known through creation. It never promises a personal meeting with God for those that seek him outside of Christianity or Judaism. Faith in God is counted as righteousness according to Genesis 15:6 and reiterated again and again by more than one apostle, in Romans 4:34; Galatians 3:6; and James 2:23.

Shadow: “But how did He judge them evil unless they were intentionally being evil? As in having foreknowledge that they were indeed doing evil things? Which is my point about cultures which you describe. As far as I know human nature is the same now as it was then. And just as guilty.

~~~That’s just it. They were guilty. They were evil. They knew they were doing wrong and did it anyway. Noah was sinful too, but he believed in God. The tribal cultures that I describe, with a few exceptions, do not bear the features that Sodom (among others) did. The tribes of America were not wholly bi-sexual, nor were the tribes of pre-Christian England, or Africa. They instituted strict punishments for breaking laws and acknowledged right and wrong. Sodom knew right from wrong and reveled in wrong, thus they were judged.Shadow:"The Bible makes it abundantly clear that no one can be saved by any name other than that of Christ Jesus. And I'm not disagreeing. Christ's death is the way that men's sins are forgiven. It is by His name (and blood) that those with faith can make the jump from faith to righteousness.

Shadow (quoting Romans):Rom 10:14 How then may they call on One into whom they have not believed? And how may they believe One of whom they have not heard? And how may they hear without preaching? Rom 10:15 And how may they preach if they are not sent? Even as it has been written, "How beautiful" "the feet of those preaching the gospel of peace, of those preaching the gospel of good things."

~~~That's exactly my point. While a man's sins may be forgiven, it is a missionary's work to take the story of Jesus to unreached peoples, so that they may give glory properly by calling on, believing in, praying to, and worshipping specifically Christ, and not just Him generally, as a silhouette in the creator.

Shadow:"It is reasonable to assume that many people who never hear the gospel would not have believed the gospel if they had heard it.

~~~And I think that would be obvious in how they live their lives. I mentioned once a movie which had an evil witchdoctor that kidnapped children. That is a man who is given over to the devil, even though he has never heard the Gospel. Just as a man can be a child of the devil's without knowing of a devil, he can be a child of God, without knowing, specifically, Christ.

Basket:If Man goes to hell on the basis that he is a descendant of Adam...therefore utterly lost...than anyone...babies included would fall under that category.

~~~See my above comments, and the fifteen or so scriptures contained within) to Shadow. I believe that the idea that we are sinful because we are descended from Adam is unbiblical and borderline heresy. Each man is responsible for his own sin and babies are, scripturally, innocent. Furthermore, Jesus said that we can only come to Christ as a little child. What sense would it make to say that we come to Christ as someone who can't come to Christ because they cannot know him yet?

Barsidious It may be cruel, but I think it's true.

~~~So God is cruel? No. You'll find all sorts of words attributed to God, but never the word "cruel."

Barsidious:We know that not everyone who hears the Bible will accept it. It's a fact. So that would mean that when we teach the Bible, we are giving them a chance to go to hell. Does that make any sense? Should we just pull all our missionaries out of their work so they don't condemn anyone else?

~~~Jesus told the Pharisees, "You do not know the Father because you did not know me." Similarly, if a tribal person is the kind of character who rejects Jesus, they weren't the kind of person who would have accepted a general creator god either. They wouldn't have had the faith to be given righteousness.

Groovychick: Would God really create a people, not give them a chance to accept Jesus, send them to hell and say, sorry you didn't have a chance to accept Jesus? I am quite sure that His justice would cause Him to offer every single person He has created a chance to receive Him. He is not willing that anyone would perish.....

~~~Atta girl.

I need to clarify something, because I think I'm being misunderstood. I'm not saying that those who don't hear the Gospel get a free ticket to Heaven.

2008-05-06T00:16:00.000-07:00

Dialogues on religion (Part I: May 5-6, 2008) For my own records, I've decided to copy an ongoing online discussion I'm having. Perhaps it may be of interest to some.

Chosen posed the following question: "Okay, I know this is a pretty basic question, but I honestly had never thought about it until today. What happens to the people who never heard about Jesus? Do they go to Heaven? Or Hell? Why? What are some verses to back it up?I'd really apreciate anyone's thoughts/opinions on the matter. Thanks!"

Jeremiah: "Sure. I'm actually trying to work this into an outline, then a textbook of sorts. Let's start with the Garden of Eden, to build a foundation. Adam and Eve were naked before the fall and after the fall, the only thing that changed was their knowledge of their nakedness, and this knowledge came from the aptly named Tree of Knowledge. Their condemnation came in the form of banishment from the garden and God's presence, and from access to the Tree of Life. Throughout the bible, nakedness is (with two exceptions: Gen. 2:26 and Job 1:21) always symbolic of sin and shame. Verses indicating shame include: Gen. 3:7-10; 9:21-22; Lev. 18:7-19; 20:11.17-21; Isaiah 20:3; Romans 8:3; II Cor. 11:27; and Rev. 3:18. But here's the thing: shame must be taught. Right and wrong must be taught. They are not inherent. If knowledge of right and wrong, virtue and shame were inherent, babies would be born trying to cover themselves. Young children wouldn't want to run around naked. Tribesmen in far off lands wouldn't be caught topless no matter how hot it was. These things must be taught. Romans 4:15 says that where there is no law, there is no transgression.

What doesn't need to be taught? What "laws" are universal? The existence of God. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that his existence is obvious through creation. Though I'm not sure I can prove it scrupturally, psychologically, I think "do unto others" might also be obvious without teaching, speaking in a strictly utilitarian mindset.

Therefore, when an unreached person shows faith, as Abram did, it is counted as righteousness, through the saving blood of Christ, even though Christ the man was never apparent to them. They have known the Father and would therefore, recognize the Son, just as the Pharisees' lack of recognition towards Jesus proved their ignorance of God's true self.

That isn't to say that some tribesmen aren't given over to evil. I am sure that there are many wicked ones who would reject Jesus should He ever be presented to them."

Spyhunter: "Those who die in Christ go to be with Him, as their life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). Those who die without the rebirth into Christ remain in the shadow of death, Sheol/Hades/Hell, until the day of judgment when Hades empties itself of souls and is cast into the lake of fire" as mention in Revelation... oh, chapter 20 or 21. If their name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, then they will know resurrection. Jer's philosophy likely plays a role in that determination, though I don't have the time or energy to expound on it much more than that at the moment."

Jeremiah:"Indeed. As we read about the Lamb's Book of Life, the context almost suggests that everyone's name starts out in the Book (suggesting the primal innocence of babies mentioned in Jer. 19:4; Ezekiel 20:26; Psalm106:38) and is blotted out (Exodus 32:33; Rev. 3:5) as we reject God. This would fall perfectly in line with the idea that condemnation/death is earned as the wage for our sinning (Romans 6:23)."

Spyhunter:"And the Lamb is still the only way to the Father."

Jeremiah:"Very true, but then, you've heard my explanation on that."

Living Sacrifice: "The only problem being that all have sinned, so therefore everyone's name has been blotted out as well.

Salvation come from hearing the Word of God. I don't think that one can be saved without knowing about Jesus. Because after all, how can they be saved unless they hear, and how can they hear unless someone tells them?

I do know of a story about a woman in a remote tribe who knew that spirit worship was wrong and that there must be one true God who created everything. So she prayed to this God every day and said, "Send me your messengers and bring your words to me". After two years, who should come to this woman's village but missionaries bearing the words of one true God who created everything. The woman was not at all surprised to find that God had answered her prayers and immediately accepted Jesus as her savior.I believe that God will bring His words to those who truly want to hear them and to know Him.

I also believe that God knows where people's hearts are at and He knows who is ready to hear the Word and believe. I believe that He will always bring the gospel to them."

Jeremiah: "Generally speaking, you're right. But when you get to specifics, those are misinterpretations. Look at the first one. Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned..." but the verse doesn't end with a period. It ends with a comma. It then goes on to say that all men are justified, which we know doesn't apply to all men everywhere. It does, however, apply to all men in Paul's audience, namely the Roman church. That would not, therefore, include those that had not heard the Gospel. Paul's point wasn't that all men have sinned, but that all of you (speaking to the Romans) have sinned, and are only saved through Christ. Christ said that there are some "whose names I will never blot out" (Rev. 3:5) so we know that not all are blotted out.

The second part has to do with Abram. Abram did not know Christ, yet that did not stop him from having his faith counted as righteousness. His faith was based in God the Father, or more correctly (to his Jewish mind) God the creator. This Creator is the same creator that Romans 1:19-21 says that men can know through creation. If you know the Father, then you know the Son. The Pharisee's lack of knowing the Father was evident by their denial of Jesus. If, therefore, a tribal man knows the creator, then he knows Jesus, at least in essence, which is why some peaceful tribes so readily convert to a proper presentation of Christ.

The "traditional" post-reformation model of the mechanics of salvation has numerous "paradoxes." I found it interesting that John MacArthur, in a sermon series on Calvinistic principles, kept demanding that we believe what the bible says, and only what the bible says. But then when he mentioned that there are verses that seem to contradict those Calvinistic principles, he said that we must label them as paradoxes, and we must not try to solve them. He actually suggested that we not try.

In other words, if the bible agrees with MacArthur, all Christians should accept his interpretation. When it disagrees with MacArthur, it's a paradox that's beyond anyone's understanding, even though there are centuries-old explanations that make a paradox unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is a model (P.A.R.K.)without paradox. Since the bible was written to and for men, it only makes sense that the information included within it is understandable to the audience. If incomprehensible "tongues" were frowned upon, why would an incomprehensible message be acceptable?"

-------------

I'm always excited to discuss these things with Living Sacrifice. Of all the Calvinists I know, he and one other are the only two that can debate in a civil manner. He is always willing to listen to an explanation. That's why I thought this conversation would be one worth saving. Thanks and enjoy.

2008-03-28T18:29:00.001-07:00

Another quote that's helping me to narrow my focus comes from the same book I mentioned last week, More Than Forgiveness, by Steve DeNeff. By this point, I'm sure that some of you are wondering whether or not I'm being paid to promote this book, but the truth is that in all my searching, I've never found a book that better expresses what I believe. Because of my slightly atypical views, some people have a hard time grasping what it is that I'm saying, and I'm partly at fault for assuming that they'll understand my definitions. Whatever my motivation for continually mentioning DeNeff, this is the two part quote on which I want to concentrate:

"I am thinking of a Little League baseball game I attended with my wife while our son, Nicholas, was a child. He came steaming around third base, full speed ahead, while the ball was relayed from the outfield. As the catcher reached for the ball, our son plowed into home plate. There was dirt and equipment flying everywhere, and in the end, the umpire ruled him safe.

The home team cheered. The audience hooted. Then suddenly, my wife jumped to her feet and screamed, "Nicholas-" And then with all the grandstand watching, she ordered, "Help that other boy up.

I could have crawled under the bleachers. This is not the way men watch baseball. But this is the ethic of our day. Whenever two people collide over anything, it is not so important who is safe and who is out, nor how either played the game. The most important thing in life, as in Little League baseball, is whether anyone got hurt and whether or not we helped our rival up once the dust settled. Contrary to popular opinion, this is not holiness. It is only good sportsmanship. It is political correctness. Of course, to be cruel would be wrong. But one has really missed the point if he dabbles with etiquette while bigger issues are at stake."

"There are now serious ideological problems dividing the church. Some denominations are debating the authority of Scripture. Others are fighting over the place of homosexuals in their congregations: should they be listed among the unconverted, the members, or the clergy? Still other denominations are debating the matter of women in the ministry. And when holy people decide these things they are better off to raise thier voices in public than to slit each others' throats, politically speaking, in private. Unfortunately, there are many denominations that seem more interested in dusting each other off than in whether or not they arrive at the right conclusion."

So there it is. My mind is still in flux. I must begin to weigh the value of my conclusions and the power of my words, to make sure that, whatever I say, it doesn't compromise truth.

2008-03-23T16:15:00.001-07:00

Under the advisement of the Holy Spirit, and great men like John Wesley and Steve DeNeff, and friends like Pete Aldin, I have begun to wonder if this idea of "Emergent Venom" is not, somehow, counter-productive, or even counter to scripture. I can rationalize (and perhaps even be correct) that men like John MacArthur are inadvertently describing, by their actions, how they want to be treated, at the same time, I do not wish to address anyone in their fashion.

This first struck me while reading Wesley's A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, and again, while reading More Than Forgiveness, by Steve DeNeff (A MUST READ). But lately, Pete Aldin has been doing a series called Famous Last Words, a study of the last verse of each book of the bible. When he touched on Joshua, he made the following comment:

We live in a day of reformation in the church. As an older style of leadership dies away over the next 15-20 years, lets not adopt a position of "Good riddance!", but let's honor them. And not just honor them, but take their bones - their "presence" and legacy - with us into the future. Click for full text.

And that struck me because, as I said to him in response, This is something that I struggle over struggling with. It is very easy for me to see the passing of certain prominent (yet wrong) leaders of the church as the glorious passing of a tainted era. I rejoice that they are in Heaven where they can do no more damage. And that's wrong of me. There are few, if any, in whom I should not be able to find something honorable and good.

I want to seek love and unity and holiness, not a purging of the people that I disagree with from Christianity's steering commision. So be patient with me while I sort this out. It may be that Emergent Venom will become a grounds of defense, or it may cease to exist altogether, or honestly, I may realize that I was okay to begin with (though I doubt it), and keep right on. I appreciate your patience.

2008-03-08T22:40:00.000-08:00

Tip #173*: Beat Them To The Punch
This week we’re going to look at yet another way to debate theology successfully online. In Tips #57 and #112, we alluded to the very limited list of scriptures that can be erroneously employed by Calvinists to support their platform. That is assuming that they choose to use scriptures, rather than sensational arguments announcing man's inability to comprehend a divine paradox.

Once more, let me lay a foundation for the mechanics of this tactic: Four of the five Calvinist points (U.L.I.P.)are nonexistent in Christian theology or Christian commentaries before the 1500’s. That means that for every scripture the Calvinists employ, there is a 1500-year tradition of interpretation that requires no such interpretation. Many of these scriptures, when taken in their proper context, mean exactly the opposite of what John Calvin would have us believe that they mean.

Many Arminians and Pelagians, as a result of this scripture hijacking, fear to use these scriptures in a debate, for fear of making the Calvinists’ case for them. Such worry is unfounded and imposes limits on your usage of scripture.

This week, let me suggest that the next time you’re debating, try out a new approach. Start your argument with a few properly interpreted, though usually Calvinist-favored scriptures, such as Romans 9 or John 10:28. The former is perhaps one of my favorites, because, as I said in Tip #4, one of the greatest ironies in biblical interpretation is that Romans 9, a writing that was meant to explain away a misinterpretation of the Jewish people—namely, that God shows favoritism—has been misinterpreted again, by the Calvinists, to say that God does, indeed, show favoritism. By beginning with a proper interpretation of election, conveying Paul’s original point, you undercut inevitable Calvinist attempts to stake a claim on that epistle. They may still try to redefine the scripture, but by bringing it up, you may be breaking a rhythm that they had intended to establish later on.

John 10:28, which I also mentioned, says “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” Instead of giving someone the opportunity to quote this verse out of context, begin by starting the quote a verse before, when Jesus defines who the “them” actually is: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” There is great emphasis put on active movement with Christ. Listening to Him. Knowing us. If you don’t listen to Christ, if He doesn’t know you, if you’re not following Him, verses 28 and 29 do not apply to you.

I anticipate that some will try to reverse this method of debate, by striking first and imposing Calvinist interpretations on, well, any scripture, to beat us to the punch, but be encouraged and remember: a theology that began the race 1500 years late can never truly have the first word.

*No, there aren’t really any other “tips” on this blog yet. Funny?

2008-02-17T13:33:00.000-08:00

I'm having a discussion about drinking alcohol, and I make the point that if drinking in moderation was a sin, Jesus would not have turned water into wine. Paul would not have, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, told Timothy to take wine for his stomach. I was quickly informed that I should stop trying to find loopholes in the bible. In other words, quit justifying what you believe by taking the bible in context.

2008-02-09T21:44:00.001-08:00

Check out my Just This Side of Heresy offspring project: Emergent Venom. It's a new blog I've started. My motives are given both in the JTSoH Newsletter (subscribe now) and on the Emergent Venom page itself. Hope to see you there.

Thanks.

2008-01-27T19:07:00.000-08:00

Mr. Youth Leader, cover that wall!

Friday night was our teen lock-in, and it went extremely well. In the past, at various churches, we've always had to deal with some kind of drama. Not this time. I am amazed at the unity of our teens. It seems to me that it would be quite easy for fifteen teens, from four different high schools, to divide themselves into clics, but that's exactly what they did.

We started out the night with an hour of Guitar Hero, and then, at 11PM, we went to IHOP. After we returned, we focused on the night's main activity: painting the new youth room. Recently, our pastor shuffled various ministries around to give us our own room. This weekend, we painted our first wall. I had painted it black a few days earlier, in preparation. When we came back from IHOP and changed into our painting clothes, we brought out a tray of paint bottles. For the next two hours, we slung, smashed, swirled, spongued and splattered paint on the wall. I wish I had thought to take pictures so that you could see it.

A good time was had by all and I just wanted to share how proud I am of them.

2008-01-19T10:34:00.000-08:00

God Bless Ann Coulter

I just finished the latest New York Times best-seller If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans. If you're looking for a quick glimpse of what the book is, it's this: a condensed version of Ann Coulter's sharpest remarks, separated by topic (complete with introduction). Beyond that, I'm not going to review the book. You need to read it for yourself. Because of the-quote-by-quote layout, it's a really quick read.

From time to time, I trip through YouTube looking for videos of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, especially after one of them releases a book or makes an intense comment. Judging from the anti-conservative "hate speech" coming from the left in a sudden surge, I'd say that Coulter's new book is doing fantastic. What's most amazing about that is they're proving her right. I watched half a dozen of the top-rated Anti-Ann videos and I noticed something: she's called a c**t, a bitch, crazy, and a slew of other things, but I've yet to see anyone say why. I'm not going to hold my breath, either.

2008-01-12T19:48:00.000-08:00

A Creationist No Longer

Introductions are like first impressions and I acknowledge that I need to tread with care for a few minutes. I do not wish to scare off the very audience I am seeking, nor draw one only to shortly leave them feeling deceived. But I must also be truthful. This is my formal announcement that I am no longer a creationist. Understand, however, that by this, I do not mean that I no longer believe that the world was created by God. I have not embraced evolutionist science or secular principles. I have not even split the difference y becoming a theistic evolutionist. I remain a faithful adherent to the belief that the God of the bible created the world, not so long ago, and by miraculous means. It is, perhaps, a sad thing that in many places, an introduction must be used as a disclaimer, but there it is, and I hope that you’re still with me.

Many have already formulated the question in their minds, “Why is he not a creationist, if he believes in a world created directly (and quickly) by God?” The answer is in the definition of the term creationist. When someone today goes through the trouble of declaring themselves a creationist, the implication is that they have spent some time with some fossils and a notebook, excitedly writing down things that will, hopefully, give them a step up on the evolutionist camp. Two or three hundred years ago, there were no creationists, yet there were plenty who believed in what many call Young-Earth™ Creationism. Evolutionists, whatever the breed, are in the same boat. It seems you only bother to state that you’re an evolutionist if you are, in some way, attempting to make headway against Intelligent Design or Creationism. Richard Dawkins, this means you. A few hundred years ago, if you studied the nature of Nature, whether you believed in a literal interpretation of the bible, or in million-year old glaciers, you were a naturalist. And it seems that this was around the last time you could safely call yourself by that name, without being called to one side or the other. Naturalists, split as though they might have been, understood something that the men in lab coats did not. Their hours spent hiking on trails, with walking stick in hand, let them do something that no scientist could do while properly seated at a desk: enjoy nature.

Nature is immense. And glorious. You cannot prove that Night on Bald Mountain is great music for Halloween by examining it with a decibel meter and a calculator. Just as the Mona Lisa is comprised of more than paint, patterns, and canvas, nature is not just a complex arrangement of DNA and carbon atoms. Lest anyone misunderstand me, I am simply saying that it is not something you can reduce to figures. Nor should anyone try, not even when the evolutionist is shouting absurdly that our world is the result of a chemical accident. Hell has rebelled against Heaven, the bible says. In the world of science, it has done so by getting people to ignore everything about nature except the facts and figures. A creationist, by limiting himself to the same, does everyone a disservice (including his opponents). I’m not talking about emotional pleas or superstition, but the very real sense that when man collides with nature, he’s running into something that reaches deeper than his mind.

As a child on my grandparents’ farm, I would climb the rails of the fence and, when they would let me, run my hand down the perfectly flat forehead of their cows. There is something blessed about the patience and submission I felt under my hand. Even today, when I can get close to one, I cannot resist running my palm down the slope of its snout, feeling the tabletop flatness and carpeted feel of it. Once, my wife had to drag me from the elephant house in the Washington, D.C. Zoo, because I was enraptured by the sight of behemoth being fed, and would have stayed there for hours.

You’ve been properly introduced to the concept of my aversion to creationism as the lone protector of our beliefs. Let me now tell you a little bit about myself. At the time of this writing, I’m twenty-seven years old, married to a lovely and patient woman, who has given me one beautiful daughter. Two much-loved dogs—Pierce and Bubble—share the house with us. I said that my wife is patient, and for more than one reason, but one reason that applies here specifically is that she has allowed me to continue in one of my favorite hobbies: skull-collecting. Because someone always asks, I do not collect human skulls. Let me run you through an abridged inventory: Five birds, two coyotes, one cow, one horse, one muskrat, one rabbit, one prairie dog, a few deer, a pig, and a few others that I’ve neglected to mention. When my grandmother passed, I inherited her father’s rock collection, and have added to it significantly. I have a beautiful hummingbird that passed away atop a rafter in a hot and dry warehouse, preserving it perfectly. And once a year, I make a pilgrimage to Calvert Cliffs to hunt for fossils.

All of this is important because all of these things have taught me to see the beauty in the world around me. I mentioned that my wife had to drag me from the Washington Zoo’s elephant house, but I didn’t say that it helped our progress through the zoo. Outside, an attendant had ushered a hippopotamus skull to the entry way. I halted (again) to appreciate the size, the zygomatic processes, the teeth, the crest at the back of the skull, the animal it once was. Nothing, I must say, escorted my mind towards a sense of accidental production. I was, at once, reminded that it was a piece of sculpture, formed by a biological system that God created.

Two problems cause us to think wrongly about creation. The first is, as I’ve already said, that we feel the need to prove a biblical view of creation using the same method that evolutionists attempt to make their case. The second, I think, is that we have an undue sense of accomplishment over creation. We feel we have domesticated it and can understand its subtle nuances. We can breed, train, whip and clone just about anything we feel like breeding, training, whipping, or cloning.

I am certain of this one thing: if scientists ever manage to clone a dinosaur, many creationists (or at least people who agree with them) will be born as a result. Yes, there will be converts to evolution as well, but they will be magazine-readers and documentary-watchers, not visitors to the prehistoric zoo. In a laboratory, or in a classroom, a Tyrannosaurus Rex or Brachiosaur might make for impressive evidence of evolution. That evidence, however, will probably mean very little to someone standing at the foot of God’s flesh and blood creation, feeling the rough knobs of skin and hearing the orchestral bellow that rumbles from their enormous prehistoric lungs. Those knobs, that sound, is God’s signature on the beast and it will take more than numbers to convince someone who has seen or heard them, otherwise.

Just as I introduced this with a disclaimer, I will conclude it with one. It is not my intent to dissuade creationists or future creationists. We will still need them as school teachers and as authors of textbooks. They will be the ones who can explain how it is that cloned velociraptors are bright enough to be taught sign language (I can dream, right?) But, as a rule, their methods are limited to an explanation of reality. It is reality itself that must testify to God’s handiwork. An academic belief in creation is worthless if we cannot appreciate it for what it is, and that, we cannot do with a calculator.

2008-01-04T18:21:00.000-08:00

Must Read:

I'm just dropping by for a moment to point out an absolutely terrific piece on community life for a Christian. There's more to it than that, so you still need to read it. Find it at Awake, My Glory.

2008-01-01T21:40:00.000-08:00

I do believe that I’ve found the perfect way to ring in the New Year, namely, by being declared a heretic. For someone having a blog titled Just This Side of Heresy, you cannot plan this kind of attraction. The story follows thusly: I posted a comment on YouTube that said, in essence, that the shared belief of Muslims and Christians, that we are sinful people, can be used as an opportunity for evangelism. This was read by one enthusiastic person as “All religions are the same. Let’s not make salvation by Christ a requirement for Heaven.” I tried to clarify myself with another response, affirming that I do believe we should preach Christ crucified, but I was too late—I was labeled a heretic and an enemy of Christ. The first part had no impact, because I’ve been called that on several occasions (now three), but the second statement genuinely hurt. I felt as though I was being chided by a high school student, who was insisting that they were Jesus’ best friend. Even though I know that they’re in no place to make such a judgment (nor am I), it still stung. Unity of the body is important to me, so I found the person’s blog, read a few entries, posted a positive and hopefully encouraging comment, with a preface that said I hope that there are no hard feelings between us. I cannot guess how it will be received, but I can hope for something positive.

This comes on the tail of a joke I made to a friend, only a few weeks ago. I said that if my non-fiction career ever takes off, it will be a great pleasure to be declared a heretic by the likes of John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul. Perhaps, I thought, it might even be worthy of the Top One-Hundred Things To Do Before I Die (dispensationalists, you may insert “…before the Rapture,” if you so choose). As I am currently reading Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy, I am surely already on their prayer list. It’s a sad commentary on the Christian community that McLaren (may I call you Brian?) can preface the book with a half-comic warning to his readers that they risk guilt by association, and everyone knows what he’s talking about.

So it’s true, in my very first theological discussion of the year, I was declared a heretic and worse. Perhaps this is going to be easier than I thought. Rather than shooting for a condemnation by MacArthur, I ought to make a New Year’s resolution to insure that my excommunication is an earmark in the next Reformed Baptist constitution. What I find most distressing is that though I follow McLaren closely in orthodoxy, I am not primarily a post-modern Christian. Where I part ways with most evangelicals is my departure from T.U.L.I.P. Calvinism which, somehow, is still misconstrued as being morally relative. Someday, I hope someone will explain that accusation to me in light of the fact that Calvin preached something that was entirely new in his day.

Epilogue: I refuse to be the guy who gets self-righteous about other people’s self-righteousness. Hypocrisy-detectors have become the new Pharisees, replacing those that they accost. I was pleasantly surprised to find that neither McLaren nor Doug Pagitt, who co-wrote Church Re-imagined, do this. It’s a very likely pitfall for people who don’t follow the recently traditional version Christianity.

2007-12-17T19:57:00.000-08:00

Pete Aldin requests...

In my Halloween Newsletter, and in the archived version HERE, I listed four kinds of Monsters In The Pew that you'll want to avoid. I gave you the Frankenstein Christian, the Dracula Christian, the Mr. Hyde Christian, and the Invisible Man Christian. In the comments, Pete Aldin asked for an extended version that included a Wolfman Christian and a Zombie Christian.

The Wolfman is a stumper. The first thing that comes to mind is when I worked at Wal-Mart and had long hair and massive sideburns. A little girl passing by looked at her mommie and exclaimed, "Look Mommie, that man's a werewolf."

Well, I'm not (unfortunately), but I do think they're interesting. What always grabbed me about them was that they went at everything with unstoppable power and reckless stupidity. It reminds me of a few guys I knew that were, above all things, warriors for Christ--ready to exorcize the demons whereever they might be found. They're the guys who cannot refer to their bible as a bible, or the Word, or the Holy Book. Their bible is, and always will be, a sword. They think of Spiritual Warfare almost constantly and, I bet, have comic book images of their battles with the demonic, floating around in their head. They're beastly warriors for Jesus. Grrrr. Chomp.

Phew. Okay. Now, taking a cue from Audio Adrenaline, I've decided to go with the Zombie Christian as a good guy. It would be very easy to draw a connection between Zombies and luke-warm Christianity, being dead in the faith and all, But I'm looking for something of a challenge. A Zombie Christian is one who marches without question into the fray. They're oblivious to harm. Their sole purpose seems to be to make more Zombies which, if you can set aside the whole cannibalism thing, looks a bit like evangelism. Hungry?

2007-12-15T19:40:00.001-08:00

In the news...
I want to relay a few items of interest that I stumbled upon while surfing through my favorite blogs (as I frequently do). The first is the story of a stabbing that resulted from a Creation-Evoltion debate. The link is HERE, but I found it at Faith & T heology. On the same site, I saw a reference to boycotting Nativity Scenes: HERE.

Remade Gold has done two absolutely terrific pieces on, well, I guess it would be an application of general/natural revelation. The first has the longest title I've seen thus far: Kingsnakes, crocodiles, pythons, and other things that might kill you and the second, Soliciting affections, is also good.

I get mentioned on Greg Stokley's The Apologist, the Revivalist, and the Prophet, in an essay entitled The Other Side of Heresy. Nice, huh?

2007-12-06T21:04:00.000-08:00

H.O.O.E.Y. I wrote this essay quite a while back and recieved a lot of really great feedback (along with some not so great feedback) concerning it. Later, I mentioned it in one of my blogs, but didn't provide a link to it. Today, I recieved an e-mail asking why they couldn't find it here on Just This Side of Heresy and it dawned on me how representative a work it was to my ouvre. So here it is.

Total Depravity. Unconditional Election. Limited Atonement. Irresistible Grace. Perseverance of the Saints. These are the five theological terms used by Calvinists to describe, in brief, what they believe. Conveniently, it fits together to make the acronym T.U.L.I.P., which sounds nice and flowery, but does nothing more than hide the cruelty of the doctrine behind a bouquet of literacy. Some Calvinists have realized that these terms, especially the one about depravity, aren't exactly seeker-friendly, so they've sought out softer words. Choices abound, but in general, the words still jab like a red-hot poker. This begs the question, "If they're going to offend, why not just say what they mean?" Each of these five points has one word that's at least nine letters long. Unconditional, for example, is thirteen characters. For something as important as salvation, we need to cut through as much of the fat as possible. I propose a new acronym, one that both fits the Calvinist doctrines as a whole and also explains in layman's terms what they mean.

Handpicked: This one used to be called Unconditional Election, and was eleven letters longer in its original incarnation. Aristocracy would also be a fitting term if it just a bit shorter. In brief, Calvinists believe that God picks his children, without any input from them. You cannot seek to be saved, nor can you repent unless God allows you. Like an apple, there's only two ways off the tree: either you're handpicked, or you go down.

Once Saved, Always Saved: That's it. Many Calvinists already embrace this term, which makes this step an abbreviated one. You can't get much simpler than once saved, always saved.

Only for some: Limited Atonement, as this used to be called, meant that, when Christ died, it was only for a few people, and not everyone, as though grace were a physical object that, if left unclaimed, would float around in the ether as waste-grace. It's apparently also what God mean in John 3:16, when He used the word "whosoever.' Even though such a claim makes no sense, it shouldn't bother us, because we know God's ways are above ours.
Evil, through and through: This was called Total Depravity and was probably the most offensive of the five terms. The new name isn't any nicer, but this way, no one's wasting time trying to figure out what it means. It means that you're no good. Period.

You can't say no: When the Holy Spirit grabs you by the collar, you're not allowed or even able to resist Him. It fits back with point #1, that we're handpicked. You don't have a choice in the matter. You're just a machine.

Yes, that's right. H.O.O.E.Y. In my opinion, that's pretty much what it is. God gave it to us plain and simple: Live for Christ or die without him. The fact that we're told what to do implies we have a choice in the matter. All of these extra rules and regulations do nothing but plant hurdles between people and the Cross.

[Side Note:] After posting this, I found that a friend of mine, Remade Gold also made some excellent comments on God's sovereignty. The first is God's good and our good . The second is Sovereign Grace (part one). I want to urge you to check them out.

2007-12-02T21:31:00.000-08:00

This is me not complaining. I just burnt up an entire weekend preparing a fiction proposal for my literary agent, Dave Robie. But you know what? I'm not complaining a bit. My novel, Cold, has been finished for a long time and I'm on my second agent. Thankfully, on the second time around, I was picked up by a great guy that is positive about my work and, more importantly, returns my e-mails in a timely manner.

Some of you that know me know how long I've been pushing to get my manuscript seen. I know, because a couple of you have been bugging me to see it for about the same length of time.

Anyway, what this means is this: my manuscript now has a proposal that can be send to the aquisition editors of various publishing houses. Once that's done, I'll be waiting for a thumbs-up from one of them. I've got a few favorites, but I know my agent will find the best ones. Hopefully, he'll be able to make something out of the chicken scratch I call a proposal (I don't know how I made formatted text into chicken scratch, but I did) and we'll get this thing I call a would-be career moving.

To all of you, thanks for hanging in there with me.

2007-11-26T23:31:00.000-08:00

Upcoming...

I've got a few new projects in mind for the Newsletter, if you're interested. I received some really great feedback about my last newsletter, so the book review segment and Dr.Suess's Version of the Bible are going to become regular features. Also, I'm talking to some people right now about doing a different kind of author interview. Rather than talk solely about a book, I'm going to invite them to talk about a topic that's dear to them, and to tie it into their current project. I can't name names yet, of course, but I'm really excited. I'm also thinking about doing an open column for a guest writer every now and then, but I like my soapbox, so we'll see. Anyway, it's late and I figured I should have a reason for staying up late.

Goodnight,

2007-11-24T11:37:00.000-08:00

The Chuckwagon

I'm loving all the "Chuck Norris is so tough that..." I'm seeing, so I decided to jump on the chucwagon and compile my own list. It's probably not as funny, but as long as Chuck doesn't kill me for it, I'll feel okay about it.

Obi-wan's original advice to Luke was "Use the Chuck," but it was edited for Copyright Laws.

Chuck Norris is the only person to ever shoot a 144-point buck. He used a straw and a chewed up gummy bear.

When Chuck Norris puts on boots, he's concealing deadly weapons.

Chuck Norris invented barbed wire so he could floss his teeth.

Chuck Norris took a leak and made the Grand Canyon.

The reason why there are now six bodies of land on the earth is because Chuck Norris squeezed Pangea in his fist.

Chuck Norris' fillings are made of Uranium.

Chuck Norris was going to play the asteroid in Armageddon, but after trying to drill into him, they had to find something softer, like iron.

If you type "Chuck Norris is a girl" in on Google and click "I'm Feeling Lucky" the next page says "You must."

To drink a shot of vodka, Chuck Norris pours it into a hollowpoint and shoots himself in the mouth.

Chuck Norris' e-mail address isn't @ anything. It simply is.

Chuck Norris stabbed a guy once because he was tired of holding the knife.

Chuck Norris doesn't need a remote control. Television signals bend to his whim.

What happens when an irresistable force encounters an immovable object? Chuck Norris.

Pharoah let the Jews go because the eleventh plague is Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris is the reason Rome fell.

2007-11-21T20:57:00.000-08:00

Starting Over
A while back, me and several members of The Circle started reading our way through the bible, in an attempt to grow. We've all slacked off a bit and maybe it's because of that, I'm starting over. I made my way from Romans to Hebrews, and most of my notes can be found on the side bar of my main page. The order in which I read the books remains the same. If you haven't read the original list (found HERE) it goes like this:

Romans through Jude
Matthew through Acts
Genesis through Malachi
Revelation

So, over the next year and who knows how long, I'll be updating all my commentary with new bits that I dig up this time around.

2007-11-19T21:27:00.000-08:00

Monsters In The Pew (archived from October's newsletter)
Victorian literature has more original monsters that any other literary period. Modern tales, even those written by the likes of Stephen King, lack the never-before quality that you find in the nineteenth century. And while, they're quite numerous, most movie monsters are alike in some way. They're demons, or angry ghosts, or vampires, or mutants. Where are all the one-off, one-of-a-kind creatures that were written about before the turn of the century? Frankenstein was nothing like Dracula; Dracula nothing like Mr. Hyde; Mr. Hyde nothing like the Invisible Man except that they both drank an elixir of some sort. In celebration (yes, celebration) of the Halloween season, I'm having a little bit of fun with the monster theme.

I've just mentioned four famous monsters from four very popular, very unique tales. These undesirables paint all sorts of simple and complex symbols for us to dissect. To keep this essay managable, I'm only going to point out four types of Christians that resemble these creatures.

#1. The Frankenstein Christian
Here is a man with a living heart, surrounded by bits and pieces of death. Many Christians have invited the King of kings to live in their heart, but still fashion for themselves a body of death, comprised of bone and sinew of this corrupt world system. Their decaying worldliness is tied so intricately into their life that the two can no longer be separated.

#2. The Dracula Christian
Some Christians choose to be the living dead, except with eternal life. They sit motionless, as though dead, in their pew. Nothing stirs them from their complacency, not shouting, not hellfire or brimstone. Oddly enough, there's a second attribute which marks them as well. Not only are they the living dead, but they often feed off those who share their congregation. Instead of biting necks, however, they stab backs.

#3. The Mr. Hyde Christian
First, apologies go to anyone named Mr. Hyde. That's something that's bothered me about this tale. The other monsters don't have anyone to share their name. To the general populace, this guy is known as the "Christmas & Easter Christian." They have two faces for two very different groups of people. This isn't despised by Christians alone, but by the whole world, under the term "hypocrite."

#4. The Invisible Man Christian
Evangelically speaking, you wouldn't even know that these people are Christians unless you confronted them directly. If he were a doctor, rather than a Christian, he would be content to go unnoticed, even as he held in his hand the cure for what ails you.

This isn't an essay heavy with theology, and that's good sometimes. I wanted to put a new spin on something we could all stand to hear (even me).

2007-11-17T23:28:00.000-08:00

Overstepping Compassion (archived from October newsletter)
At the beginning of the year, I told many of my readers that one of my New Year's resolutions was to become better informed on the doctrines of Universalism and Restorationism, the idea that sooner or later, everyone ends up in Heaven. My interest was born from the fact that I was not-so-strangely attracted to this seemingly unbiblical doctrine. I hoped that, at the end of my research, I could embrace the idea that I would eventually be reunited with every friend I ever lost, on the other side of the Pearly Gates.

The inquiry started accidentally with a book called I'm Saved, You're Saved...Maybe, by Jack Renard Pressau. The book followed the five stages from new believer to maturity. It addressed the near-bibliolotry that accompanies young belief and says that something is true because the bible says it is (as opposed to the bible saying something is true, because it is). Those in the second-to-last stage of maturity say that God, while compassionate, is never unfair. I traveled with Pressau through those first four stages, taking it all in, and being awed by his flawless, logical, and rational deductions.

The last stage, however, adopted a Restorationist stance, and I secretly thought, finally, someone who can defend this idea so that I might embrace it. As I read on, I found only arrogance. It was as though the brilliant author had been replaced by a careless heretic.

I was almost instantly turned off to the idea then, but I pressed on. There seems to be a few early church fathers that adopted this idea, though because their words so closely resemble the scriptures that Restorationists use, I cannot rule out that they mean the same thing as the bible means. If the bible is not necessarily restorationist, then neither are they.

The clencher for me was Matthew 18:8, which says that some will be thrown into eternal fire. Those who believe that all will be saved try to substitute one Greek word for another to make it mean "an age of fire," but the change is unwarranted.

On a side note, the source of Universalism is, I believe, the confusion that results from defining God's love and "salvation." Nothing separates us from God's love, the scriptures say, but that doesn't mean that nothing can separate us from Heaven. Thier arguments are helped by Calvinist uses of the same scriptures to prove that one cannot forfeit their salvation. This may explain why some Calvinists, such as Karl Barth, eventually took that assertion to it's logical conclusion and became Universalists themselves. It's very similar to the way Arminians can take the additional step to become Open Theists, and believe that God cannot know the future outside of His own deductions.

It only took until October to finish out that resolution. Not bad, huh?

2007-11-09T18:53:00.001-08:00

What, exactly, am I running behind?
I know. I know. I'm a couple weeks behind on the November issue of the JTSHeresy Newsletter. I don't have an excuse--I'm finally working normal hours. Before you lose interest and forget about me, let me give you an idea what I'm going to be including. It's a bone, but just barely.

I. My review of Adam, by Ted Dekker.
II. Dr. Suess's version of "Let the little children come to me..."
III. Chapter II of "Back in a Minute."

It's a small collection, but the three pieces are a little larger than usual.

~J

2007-10-20T20:58:00.000-07:00

Parcour
(...kind of what I've been doing all along)

This month, I caught up (a little) with the digital age. We switched from dial-up to DSL. Following that, I made a discovery: I love YouTube. Somebody on TV was talking about a new extreme sport that's sweeping America, called parcour. Basically, the world becomes a giant, extreme obstacle course. If you get a chance, visit the aforementioned YouTube and type in "parcour." Some of the more impressive videos show teenagers and college students leaping painlessly from three-story rooftops and walking up walls. In the nineties, when I was in highschool, we called it free-style walking or freewalking. Anyway, I forgot how neat it was.

THIS is one of my favorite videos.

Years ago, me and a few other friends did stuff like this when we went away to camps in the summer. We would leap over creeks. I would jump from concrete pedistal to concrete pedistal. Come to think of it, that was at Wal-Mart, not camp. Just because I can, I celebrated finding these videos this week, by:

I. Jumping off the side of the escalator at the Penn Square Mall in Oklahoma City.

II. Jumping off a balcony in a house we're working on, onto the staircase below, then over that handrail, to the floor.

Silly? Probably. But it was fun. Unless my wife reads this; then I'm probably going to be in trouble.

~J

Correction: Amy knows me. She won't be surprised.

2007-09-30T19:41:00.000-07:00

"I'm Not An Athiest, I Swear To G...ummmm..."
I just read that the Atheist Alliance Convention in DC September 28-30 is SOLD OUT. Now, I'm completely aware that there have been atheist conventions and meetings for decades. This is nothing new. More and more, however, it seems like the athiests are sculpting for themselves as, of all things, an organized church. With conventions, outreach programs, even convert testimonies, I have to wonder.

Pat Condell, a pop-atheist, says this about religion: "They wear their ignorance as a badge of honour, and they hold very strong opinions about what other people should think." By they, he means all religious people, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whoever, so at least he's consistent. I want to challenge that notion. Atheists, as much as any other religion, hide behind the idea that we can't know anything about the supernatural, at least not with any certainty. But the last time I checked, it was the atheists that were telling us that we can't have God in school. Not that we can't demand conversions at gunpoint (which I would be horrified to see), but that we can't discuss God rationally, question scientific beliefs, debate religion. At least Condell prefaces his site with the warning, "I don't respect your beliefs..." At least one of them is being honest.

I particularly glad to see them establishing themselves as a religion. I hope to see them joining the Sunday morning rush to our various places of belief. It'll make Applebee's more crowded about one o'clock Sunday afternoon, but that's okay. What, I wonder, will their hymns sound like?

None above loves me, this I know,
because nothing tells me so.
Little ones, this world's all you'll ever see,
but it's enough, don't be so greedy.

I'll guess I'll just wait here, by the door until the Nothing Witnesses come knocking.

~J

2007-09-28T21:05:00.000-07:00

MyGoodness
John Edwards (who is hardly worthy of the name) is going to be doing an online chat with MySpace and MTV. My first thought was a question: why would a dynamic duo like MySpace and MTV favor Edwards, rather than Clinton or Obama?

Obama is charismatic and Clinton is powerful, while Edwards is simply a ham. In a way, he reminds me of that youngest cousin who, at the family reunion, goes nuts to get attention. I'm not totally sure what he would do with a White House and, I suppose, the Democratic Party is asking themselves the same.

The answer, however, should have been obvious. Edwards is constantly in need of America's eye, but is mediocre at holding our attention. Edwards isn't chatting it up with internet denizens because he's the hottest thing online. He's doing it because he's the only one that would. In contrast to a broadcast debate, an online chat gives this candidate the chance to Google up some answers before he responds.

MyGoodness.
~J

subliminal message just subscribe to my newsletter

2007-09-24T22:20:00.000-07:00

Friday, I got mad at my radio...

...because I was feeling generous and gave John MacArthur's Grace To You a chance. As many of you know, I have issues with MacArthur and his theological beliefs. But it's not only his beliefs that I get frustrated with. There's a bit of arrogance, quite a bit, that comes along when you start a statement with, "If you believe the bible..." or "All bible-believing Christians hold that..." I don't mean to say that we can't be certain in our beliefs. I do, however, think that it's very arrogant to take a stance that suggests there's nothing that we could have possibly overlooked. This is especially true of doctrines that were not in existence for the first 1600 years of Christian history.

I was, however, very pleased to hear the following words come from MacArthur's mouth:

"We have to be the first to the first to admit that our understanding of virtually everything is somehow warped and twisted and affected by our own sinfulness."

"[W]e cannot be wrestling with [the doctrine of election] intellectually as if there is going to be some answer in our reason."*

MacArthur is stating what many Calvinists have felt for years: election doesn't seem like the product of a loving God. Rather than explain this biblically, however, he groups it in with other biblical paradoxes (i.e. other Calvinist doctrines) and says not to try and understand them. This is an odd statement for a man who just said that all bible-believeing Christians should adopt Calvinism. I've said this before: we are humans, created in the image of God, Christians with the mind of Christ, and believers, indwelled by the Holy Spirit. If something seems unfair, it's probably because the whole of the Trinity is testifying to our spirit that it actually is unfair.

I have to stand with Doug Pagitt when he says, "I think [reading your bible] might give you a more full understanding of the gospel than the one perverted by the likes of John MacArthur. I do not say "perverted" lightly, either. I really think what he communicates is so distant from the message of the Bible that it is dangerously harmful to people."

~J

*The Doctrine of Election, Part 1 (Selected Scripture), John MacArthur

2007-09-21T22:31:00.000-07:00

Look How Funny I Can Be (copied and pasted from Rapid City Ray):

"Cleanliness used to be next to Godliness, but the shelf in the bathroom where I keep both was really full, and when I put my can of Awesomeness up there, it knocked the can of Cleanliness to the floor. It rolled a couple feet and now Cleanliness is next to the toilet." ~Jeremiah

Sometimes I just feel like bragging about stuff that I have no reason to brag about.

2007-09-17T20:19:00.000-07:00

SATIRE: A Reason For Election (archived from newsletter, August 2007)

Let me give you a little background on the guy creating this newsletter: He was raised in a middle class family, attended a Wesleyan church, was enrolled and edukated in a Wesleyan school. I moved to the Bible Belt a year ago, and am now attending a non-Wesleyan, though very Arminian, church. I cannot bear Calvinist doctrines, though I do not call myself anti-Calvinist any more than I would call myself, as a Christian, anti-athiest. "Anti-" implies a response to something. I'm just naive enough to think that I could have come to my particular theological bent without ever having to refute Calvinism.

Lately, however, I've been thinking more and more about Unconditional Election. For those of you who are also theologically naive, or for those of you who have never read my essay on H.O.O.E.Y., Unconditional Election is the idea that God has handpicked a spiritual aristocracy to rule on who gets to Heaven and who doesn't. Some people are born for Heaven; some are born for Hell. I've come across dozens of reasons why God would work in such a fashion. Let me list a few reasons, with some commentary:

A. Election...So that those who get to go to Heaven feel extra special.
The reasoning behind this goes like this: If a teacher gave a piece of candy to every child in the class room, some would take it for granted. If she only gave it to a few, those would feel priviledged to recieve it. This ignores the fact that rewards are generally given to those who do well. Imagine your child coming home to tell you that the nasty old teacher gave out candy to some kids, but not yours. Would you tell them that that's okay because now some of those other kids feel better about getting candy? No. It's called favoritism and most people in civilized society know that it's wrong. More importantly, however, we're not just talking about a teacher that denies some kids candy. If we're honestl, we'll admit that we would also be talking about a Teacher that denies some kids candy, then lights them on fire. Forever.

B. Election...for God's pleasure.
In this country of ours, we have laws against parents who torture their children. In short, if we're supposed to be a Christian nation, and our Heavenly Father sends some of his children to burn forever, what right do we have to yell "foul" at those who do similar things to earthly children? I swear I'm getting to the satire part.

C. Election...because the alternative is "faith by works."
I won't take the time to explain this all here because I think I did it in a previous essay already, this month. But needless to say, "works" doesn't mean doing something, it indicates a pharisaical method of earning Heaven by holy rituals and good deeds.

All of these fall short, but while I was eating at Applebee's one Sunday afternoon, it dawned on me. The reason why we need election is so that we have heathens who will serve us our dinner on the Lord's Day, after the rest of us leave church. If, by some miracle of evangelism, all of the world was brought to the altar, where would we fellowship? Where else would we have the opportunity to leave Gospel tracts as tips?

2007-09-17T20:17:00.000-07:00

Salvation Cannot Be Earned (archived from newsletter, August 2007)

In my free time, I engage in a lot of debates. One subject that frequestly comes up, or rather, I should say, one accusation that is frequently leveled against me is that I believe that faith comes by works, simply because I believe that it can be forfeited. Whether you agree with me that it can be forfeited, let me explain why I don't believe it can be earned, and why there's a difference. Frankly, I'm simply tired of being falsely accused.

Much of my time that is not free is spent working. I'm a tile-layer by trade; I used to be a carpenter. Either profession will suit this example just fine. As a tile-layer, I often come home with fingers that have been smashed by a stack of tile, cuts on my hands from the ones that broke, and a set of lungs full of concrete and mortar dust. When I was a carpenter, my hands took even more abuse: cuts from a saw, splinters, cracked and chapped hands from dealing with dry wood. At the end of a week, I would pick up a check for my pain and trouble.

Imagine, if you will, that I decided to sign my check over to you, for no other reason than you're my (now very grateful) friend. The reason that you're getting the check is because of our relationship. If you weren't my friend, you wouldn't be getting a dime. I dare you to say, however, that you earned the money simply by being my friend, when it cost me so much pain to earn it.

Likewise, Christ's ever-more painful sacrifice cost Him dearly. No amount of loving, worshipping, serving, or praying to Him could ever add up to the price that he paid. Nor do we claim it does. We are simply his friend, acting as a friend, and recieving the gift that he wants to give us. And we should accept it, because it cost Him so very much.

One of the major problems in the earlier argument is it's definition of "works." It seems that, since the Protestant Reformation, the word "works" has come to mean something very different than it did in Paul's day. Galatians 3:2,5 and 6 pit the concepts "faith" and "works" against one another, which means that belief is something very different than earning one's salvation through the Law, which was Paul's definition of the word.

Post-publication note: I've taken a photograph of one of my hands after a particularly hard day, to illustrate this point a bit more.

2007-09-17T20:12:00.000-07:00

Why I've suddenly taken such an interest in the youth... (archived from newsletter, August 2007)

A few minutes ago, I was staring at my computer screen, reading three lines of text that I wrote about a month back.

Whatever we are, the church of tomorrow will be.
Whatever pride, hate, and despair we do not get rid of, the church will inherit.
Whatever love we share will be ours forever.

I don't quite recall how they came to me, I only remember typing them. But as I read them now, they stir something within me. We all daydream. One of mine that constantly returns is the thought of my life as it would have been, had I known in college what I know now. I once sat down and calculated the money I would have started my marriage with had I skipped over dating all those girls that came before my wife. Depression set in when I figured out the interest. I've learned my lesson; I try not to apply mathematics to things like that anymore.

Anyway, I've found a lot of truth in those words, and with that truth, there comes an obligation to equip them. Until my writing career really takes off, and perhaps moreso then, I'll be doing my best to make a difference in their lives.

2007-09-10T22:08:00.000-07:00

My Online EarlyWarning System (OEWS) has informed me that several publishing houses are hacking their way into my hard drive in an attempt to stake a claim on my next publishable work. I suppose I could just e-mail them with a copy, but I don't want to seem desparate.

While they get right on that, let me share with you what's going on with my writing. Many of you may already be aware that I am publishing a monthly newsletter. What you are only now just finding out is that in the next few weeks, I'll be posting those articles here, on a one-month-delay-basis so you can share them with your friends after you've read them yourself. This ought to cause some discussion as anytime I mention the words "election" and "theology" together, I get some kind of response.

I've got three long-term projects on my desk, at the moment:
~Joy and Carnage: a thriller about a deadly ten-year reunion. This is the main thrust of my efforts, and the next book to be sent to my agent.
~After Me: A new and hopefully scarier twist on the old zombie tales. There's very little "Christian" message in this one. More than anything, I wanted to show what an awful thing it would be to be deprived of one's free will.
~Back In A Week: The Book For People Whose Testimonies Suck. The title says it all. Raised in church, as many are, I have a boring testimony. I've tried making up a better one, but it failed. This is my attempt to tell it as it is, with pointers on why a boring testimony is okay. It's also a book for those who have grown weary of church, wonder about coming back, but can't make up their minds to do it.

I'm also looking into doing some freelance writing for Home Journals. It's not exactly my genre, but I might make some spare cash doing what I love.

As I get more of my online commentary posted here, I'll be building a Table of Contents to make things easier for you.

Lastly, welcome to my friend Ray and Good Night.
~Jeremiah

2007-07-08T20:47:00.000-07:00

Ephesians

1:1 Simply put, "saints" are those who are faithful in Christ.

1:4 [paraphrase] God chose mankind , before creating us, to be innocent, which we were, until Adam and Eve disobeyed.

1:5 [paraphrase] Out of love, he planned for us to be adopted through Christ.

1:4-5 Verses 4 and 5, taken together, show the chronological plan of God, how he created us perfect, but we disobeyed. He then provided a second way throgh Christ. The use of the word blameless in verse4 is significant, for before manking gained knowledge of good and evil, we were not accountable, but blameless and innocent. Verse 13 would contradict 4 and 5 if it meant that we were handpicked, because that verse puts the burden on belief.

1:13, 14 At rebirth, the Holy Spirit becomes a seal upon our soul. As long as we do not quench or blaspheme the Spirit, He remains our guarantee of salvation. The Greek word used here is that which refers to a wax seal. It takes little imagination to invent a way to tear off a bit of wax. As such, this word can hardly mean that the Holy Spirit, our seal, protects against forfeiting one's salvation. Rather, a wax seal is an indicator that the package is unopened and uncompromised. A seal allows us to know that we're saved, but it certainly does not keep us that way.

2:3 The term "sinful nature" is also rendered simply as "our flesh" indicating that in some translations, the words sin and flesh/carnality are used interchangably, though this is somewhar inaccurate.

2:8 It is by grace that we are saved, but grace comes by faith, and as Galatians 3:2, 5, and 6 show, it is not a work as some theologies suggest.

3:3 Again, Paul speaks of a personal revelation.

3:7 The grace that Paul speaks of is the revelation he recieved.

2007-04-15T15:24:00.000-07:00

Let's Ask My Friend, The Pope: Part II

Note: This is the second part of this essay. If you haven't read the first half, you should. It's HERE. For those of you that ignore my suggestion, please excuse the abrupt beginning. Here goes:

But what about the first century, when the bible was being written? What happened if the folks at Corinth didn't wuite get what Paul was saying about, for example, lawsuits among the brethren? The answer is simple: like the Catholics today, they simply asked the guy in charge. And the closer you are were to the author of a particular epistle, the better your chances as getting a definite answer. Conversely, your odds of misunderstanding increases with distance. Luke, to name one, probably had no misgivings about Paul's conversion story. Mark and Bartholomew could have setted any dispute by pulling Paul aside and double-checking themselves. Sometimes, as was the case with Peter, in Galatians, Paul didn't wait for someone to ask. He made a clarification when he saw one had become necessary (1).

Likewise, it seems unlikely that someone a thousand years after Christ and Paul could be the first person to understand one of their statements. Imagine a professor of Western Civilization publishing a book that attempted to "prove" something previously unknown about Abraham Lincoln. Pretend that this professor suggested that our sixteenth president was actually our twenty-fourth, or that he was gay, or female, or black. I hope it can be said of Americans that we are not so gullible. Hundreds of books have been written on Lincoln, many by people who knew the man. Lincoln himself put quite a lot into print. Portraits exist. Lincoln's clothing--men's clothing--is on display in at least one museum that I know of. All of these things testify to the fact that Abraham Lincoln was our sixteenth president, male, white, and straight. Someone, however, could manipulate this data with a quote from Lincoln's pen:

"If any personal description is thought desirable, it may be said that I am [of] dark complexion, with coarse black hair. (2)"

From this, they could argue that he was black, but despite what we read, we possess a couple hundred years of scholarship to correct our faulty assumptions.

And so, the proper interpretation of a scripture should be found close to the actual author of that scripture. Barring the existence of an extremely astute (or lucky) scholar, novel interpretations of scripture that contradict traditional interpretations are likely wrong, especially if they pop up without any pre-existing authority, or any authority at all, besides the interpreting author's say-so. As Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun."

All of this rests upon the rather reasonable assumption that when an author penned a letter, they themselves knew what they meant. This seems like common sense, even without scriptural support, but for skeptics and Bereans, Paul puts it plainly in I Corinthians 2:13 that his spoken word was given to him by the Holy Spirit, when he says the following:

"This is what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit."

Also II Thessalonians 2:15 (italics mine):

"So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

The words that Paul spoke, his lessons and explanations, were of the same inspiration, or were at least as reliable, as the epistles he wrote, and the fact that he was inspired to include that little fact proves to us that he was aware of it.

All of this isn't to say that every belief in the first and second centuries was free from heresy. To cite just a few, Paul warned of false teachers in II Corinthians 11:13 and Galatians 2:4; Peter spoke of them in II Peter 2:12-22; and Jude echoes his warning in the fourth verse of his very brief epistle. A teaching's presence in the early centuries isn't a guarantee against error, but a complete absence of it is an indictment. Truth should have precedent. It should have a pedigree.

1. Galatians 2:11-13
2. Lincoln's second autobiography

2007-04-08T00:20:00.000-07:00

Let's Ask My Friend, The Pope: Part I

NOTE: This is an excerpt from a piece of non-fiction that I'm working on. Because of the overall length, I'm only posting about half of it tonight. Thought it may sound like I'm building a case for Catholicism, I'm really not. Tonight is just prep-work. Lord willing, I'll make my intended case next week.

Before he and Steve Jobs co-founded the Apple Computer Company in 1976, Steve Wozniak experimented with electronics that were a little less legal than the Apple II. One device, called by the seemingly innocous name "Blue Box," could be used to bounce a telephone call around the world, without charge. For kicks, he disguised his voice to sound like that of Henry Kissinger and tried to reach the Pope in Vatican City. The call was answered by one of the Holy Father's head men, and Wozniak was informed that His Holiness was asleep. Sadly, after all his efforts to manipulate the telephone company's technology, his fun little prank was canned by a flesh-and-blood priest.

But the question remains: What did Wozniak intend to say to Pope Paul VI? While I doubt he would have wasted the effort on something as juvenile as "Is your refrigerator running?" I don't think he had a question about the catechism's stance on perpetual virginity, either.

Or maybe he did. Maybe the whole scheme--the illegal blue box, the hours of telephone time, the stolen telephone company manuals--were meant to settle one burning issue that his parish priest had balked on. If that were the case, he could have hardly found a better person to ask.

In the roughly seventeen-hundred years that the Roman Catholic Church has officially existed, there have been very few misundertandings. Sure, there have been divisions and heretics, but those people didn't split off because they couldn't get an answer; they split because they didn't like the answer they were given.

All in all, the Catholic Church has a pretty effective way to deal with questions: Just ask.

Protestant churches, all four million kinds, don't have the same luxury. There is no unified head of the evangelical body--no one to answer all those doctrinal disputes that pop up at the Christian Brothers' Prayer Breakfast. If you're lucky enough to belong to a denomination with a district superintendent or a national president, you're doing better than most. This isn't a jab at non-Catholics; I am a non-Catholic. It's just a side effect of having one's way theologically.

Next week, I'll begin with this question: "But what about the first century, when the Bible was being written?" Continue with that blog HERE.

2007-03-17T21:32:00.000-07:00

Up next: Galatians 4-6

4:1 The Law served as Israel's guardian against their own selfish natures.

4:10 No need for special days. This is very similar to Paul's statement in Romans 14:5.

5:2 Not a condemnation of circumcision in and of itself, but a pronouncement against righteousness by works.

5:4 Both senses of "falling from grace" seem to apply here. One interpretation signifies transformation from faithfulness to apostasy. The second, and in this case, more likely (considering the context) implies a return to Law and therefore, a fall from or abandonment of grace.

5:10 This verse has interesting implications for men like (for example) Johann Tetzel, who lead the Catholic Church's sale of indulgences. Do they then become responsible for all the sins that they've "indulged" away?

5:13 Forgiveness is not a license to sin.

5:25-26 It is possible to fall out of step with the Holy Spirit and therefore become unable or unqualified to inherit the kingdom of Heaven. (v. 21)

6:7 Another verse listing the principle of sowing and reaping.

6:11 Paul obviously wrote the original copy of this epistle himself.

To continue with Ephesians 1-3, click HERE.

2007-03-15T19:42:00.000-07:00

Before I begin my review of Galatians, I'd like to say that, in real-time, I'm reading Hebrews and the Epistle of Clement. I read a recent theory that Clement of Rome (as opposed to the Clement of Alexandria) could possibly be the author/editor of Hebrews. Paul seems an unlikely candidate because it lacks all the typical "Paulisms." The exact phrasology is different than any of Peter, Paul or John's works, but similar enough to be a paraphrase. It's all very interesting, now on with the review:

Galatians 1-3

1:6 makes reference to a different gospel. This echoes Paul's admonishment in II Corinthians 11:4.

1:11 states that Paul's gospel (his message, not some extrabiblical writing) is not man-made.

2:2 This seems to be a different revelation than the one Paul mentions in II Corinthians, because the II Cor vision occurs 11 years before the writing of that epistle and this one takes place 14 years after Paul's conversion.

2:11 Here Paul recounts Peter's failure to stick to pure teaching, instead revisiting old laws. Paul rebukes him for it.

2:16 The opposite of "justified by faith" is nothing other than justification by the Law.

2:18 seems to indicate that if you decide that the Law is necessary after all, then you become responsible for all your "transgressions" when you weren't keeping it.

2:21 Righteousness cannot be gained through the Law.

3: 2, 5, 6 Belief is what brings salvation, not Law. The juxtaposition of these two words shows that belief is not a "work."

3:12 The Law will be followed in Spirit, unintentionally, by those that believe, as a side-effect, not an intended action.

3:14 Abraham begats Jesus who, by our faith, adopts us into their lineage. Also, Christ is the "seed" of Abraham, not us; we are the branches of Christ. Descendance from Abraham has nothing to do with salvation.

3:28 In Christ there is niether Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, but one without physical distinction. Our distinctions, as Christians, are only spiritual. No physical characteristics should determine our spiritual function.

Finish Galatians HERE.

2007-03-04T09:41:00.000-08:00

I begin again with II Corinthians 8. I noticed (surprise, surprise) that I had made no comments on chapters 8-11. I must have read through these chapters while very tired, The notes you are about to read are fresh, taken from no notebook.

II Corinthians 8:16 Titus moves from Macedonia to Corinth.

9:6-10 Verses that apply to sowing and reaping.

10:4-5 Paul speaks of the spiritual weapons of war, against not only spiritual powers (verse 4), but intellectual agruments (verse 5).

10:9-10 It seems that Paul was accused of talking big but acting small. Here, he argues against it, almost threatening.

11:3 It is possible to be led away by even good intentions.

11:3,4 "...receiving another spirit..." The Greek phrasology here is the same as when one recieves the Holy Spirit. The verse is addressed to Christians.

11:16 Satan comes as an angel of light.

12:2 It is likely that Paul himself is the one who had the vision. It is he that fears boastfulness, and is using a third-person perspective to stave off pride or, at least, the appearance of pride. Verse seven illustrates that the vision was his own.

12:7 Many have pondered Paul's thorn.

12:9 Paul quotes Christ, but from outside the Gospels.

12:12 Things that mark an apostle: Signs, wonders, and miracles.

13:14 Paul illustrates in a vague, uncemented way, his belief in the Trinity.

As a side note, my efforts here include a chart that I'm compiling, that shows which church fathers quote which verses and where. It should help in determining the original context for the verses. So far, I've included some of St. Athanasius' work, St. Augustine's City of God, all of St. Patrick's work, including a psuedo-Patrick from around 700.

Continue in GALATIANS.

2007-03-03T20:25:00.001-08:00

As some of you may have noticed, I had no notes on I Corinthians 16. The chapter consisted of "How to take an offering" and a few updates and greetings. While I'm always on the lookout for places where Paul is sending someone somewhere (as I mentioned BEFORE), I didn't see anything of note, here.

This blog begins my study of II Corinthians.

II Corinthians 1:21-22 This verse is often quoted in support of Preservance of the Saints, but the problem with such an assertion is that the text does not qualify the Holy Spirit's presence as an inalterable state. The word "seal" as it is used in the Greek, indicates only a mark, not an impenetrable barrier. The presence of the Holy Spirit is our guarantee of what is to come but this verse does not comment on what would happen if one quenched or blasphemed the Holy Spirit.

2:15 Paul gives a dichotomy here: those being saved and those perishing. This indicates that both salvation and damnation are processes the reach completion only in death.

3:1-2 No diploma is necessary fir ministry.

3:6-7 Another reference to the Law bringing death. If not, the Paul is simply being dramatic.

4:13 Saving faith is belief in action.

5:5: As in 1:21-22, the Holy Spirit is our downpayment/deposit on Heaven. This time, Paul adds an admonishment not to grieve the Spirit, because He is our guarantee. Without Him, the "deal" is void.

5:10 Judgement will come to all for the things done on Earth. Here is where we are either accepted or denied.

5:14-15 Christ died for all.

6:2 This verse is a novelty in that it is one of the few verses in which salvation is not regarded as after death only. The exception is possibly due to either A. the fact that Paul is quoting Isaiah or B. Paul is stressing the immediate need for Christ and the danger or procrastination.

7:5 At this point, Titus is in Macedonia.

7:10 Speaking to Christians, Paul says, repentance leads to salvation. The construction of this verse inplies that, though Paul was writing to Christians, those Christians were still in need of repentance.

Click HERE to continue with II Corinthians 8.

2007-02-26T22:11:00.000-08:00

Something that I've noticed is that Paul is continually shifting his people around. I never realized how many times he uses the phrase, "I am sending...to you." In II Timothy 4, we find Paul giving a list of people that have left: Demas, Crescens and Titus. I've always assumed that all three simply gave up, but I never noticed that only Demas was definitely a quitter. The other two may have been sent elsewhere. In Titus, we find that Titus has been made the elder of Crete, when previously, he was in Dalmatia, and Paul is requesting his presence in Nicopolis.

Tychicus and Onesimus are also frequent movers. I'm thinking about adding in an appendix of where the various followers went to.

2007-02-26T21:48:00.000-08:00

You know, I think I'm going to rush through these next few chapters as quickly as possible. Relaying my thoughts, weeks after I wrote them down, isn't as stimulating (for me) as writing down what I read yesterday or today. Tonight, I'll type up a huge chunk of I Corinthians and maybe start a second blog where I'm at now.

I Corinthians

11:4-7 Paul isn't laying out strict rules on how to pray or prophesy. As I see it, he's talking about the ridiculousness of finding one's honor in the methods of how one prays.

12:8-11 List of spiritual gifts

14:1-18 Guidelines for the usage of tongues in church.

14:5 Prophecy is better than tongues.

14:14 This desription does not sound like the usage of a simple foreign language, but a spiritual state beyond our own.

14:20 This verse indicates that infants know no evil. While this isn't a doctrinal statement, it is a statement from an agreed viewpoint.

14:32 The spirit of a prophet is subject to the control of the prophet.

15:2 Christians can hold firmly to the gospel or believe in vain.

15:4-8 After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to:

Peter
The Twelve
5oo Brothers in Christ
James
Paul

No mention is made to his appearance to Mary Magdalene, nor do the Gospels record his appearance to James.

15:21 Death came by Adam (not by Adam and Eve, or Eve alone); Resurrection comes by Jesus.

15:42 A body is raised to Heaven and becomes imperishable. This is what is meant by eteral life.

15:45 Adam became a living being. Compare to Adam bringing death to the world. Death came with Adam's creation, not with his sin.

15:50 Perishable does not inherit the imperishable.

15:56 The sting of death is sin. For Christians, death has no sting. It is only in a sinful setting (this world) that death is bad. The power that sin has comes from the Law a.k.a. knowledge.

Continue in II Corinthians HERE.

2007-02-25T13:08:00.000-08:00

So I just finished a rather satirical blog on Global Warming, and now I'm here to relate some of what I've been finding in the scriptures lately. If you want to read my other piece, you can find it at http://blog.myspace.com/jeremiahmcnabb. If not, I won't hold it against you; feel free to hang around here.

I Corinthians
5:9 Here, Paul refers to a previous epistle to the Corinthians. It's too bad that it isn't extant.

6:9 This is a list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Paul then command Christians, then also unbelievers, to be washed, sanctified, and justified.

7:9 (What is it with the ninth verse of everything?) "Burn" with passion, as opposed to marrying. Paul makes it clear that sexual promiscuity is a slippery slope to Hell.

8:1,4: These two verses support the idea that condemnation is accountability-based.

8:9 Continues support for the premise of 8:1,4.

9:2 The word "seal" is used in an evidenciary manner. There's no implication that it's an unbreakable seal, only a marker of salvation.

9:27 "...disqualified for the prize" Note that Paul says "...so after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." He does not say "so that I myself will win first prize." Coming in second, third or last is different than being disqualified.

10:12 "Be careful that you don't fall."

10:23 This verse begins like 6:12. The first pertained to sexual immorality, the second (10:23), to food sacrificed to idols.

Continue with I Corinthians 11 by clicking HERE.

2007-02-21T22:11:00.000-08:00

We're out of Romans and into I Corinthians (1-4). Let's begin, shall we?

1:8 If this verse were proof of Preserverance of the Saints, it would be important enough to warrant soem detail, and not left as a brief note couched in a statement of thanksgiving.

1:10 As in Romans 16:17 this verse speaks against division, a regular theme of Paul's.

1:18 "Being saved." This is not an event, but a process, at least. It could be construed as a destination.

1:24 This is a reference to "the called," both Jews and Gentiles, but it's obviously referring to Christians.

1:26 Not many of you were noble, most were weak, but were still called. God can use anyone.

2:11 Understanding of the deepest things comes from the Holy Spirit. This is Christianized Platonic philosophy, in a way.

3:10-15 "Fire will test." This particular verse is one that is used by Catholics to support the idea of Purgatory. Contextually, this is a verse referring to the immovable stature of the church.

4:6 This is a verse I want to look into more: "Do not go beyond what is written." I assume that this means that we should not make up our own rules in an attempt to become righteous, as the Pharisees did.

4:15 This is another reference to Paul's usage of the idea of spiritual heredity.

To continue in I Corinthians 5, click HERE.

2007-02-20T21:56:00.000-08:00

With this blog, I finish Romans. I am progressing through my notes faster than I am reading through the bible, which means that, eventually, you'll be getting these thoughts in real-time. How exciting for you.

10: 9-10 Active belief is a requirement of salvation, but not a work ( Gal. 3:2,5,6)

10:10 Interesting how the bible uses the phrase "believe with your heart." Whenever we believe, whatever we believe, the work is done within our brain. There is no thought in our heart, only action. Belief, by the heart, is belief-in-action.

11:7-11 Here, Paul talks about those who have hardened their hearts as though it's an exceptional phenomena, and something that happens infrequently. It's not suggestive of the idea that everyone who rejects Christ was forced into that corner. Verse 11 expands to show that such forced stumbling or blindness was not necessarily a permanent condition.

11:14 Paul indicates that his efforts could bring about a decision in the hearts of his fellow Jews, indicating that man's actions (though not personal works) can have a direct effect on a person's eternal situation, leaving no room for a master list theology.

11:20-21 Paul speaks of branches that are grafted in, but can be broken off (because of unbelief). He personalizes the branches as "you." He consistently uses grafted branches as a metaphor for Gentile Christians, and natural branches as a metaphor for Jews.

11:26 This is another instance of God, in the Old Testament, referring to a race by the name of their common patriarch.

11:28 "Elect" are the Jews.

12:6-8 Raised as a Wesleyan, these were the "official" gifts listed by our denomination. The Spiritual Gifts listed in I Corinthians were not excluded, but were less focused upon in some congregations.

13:1-3 This verse gives one reason why, despite the common-sense answer of bad things happening to bad things is good , blowing up abortion clinics (for example) is wrong. Also under this catagory fall prohibitions (in America, at least) of underage drinking and smoking.

13:11 As in Matthew 10:22, salvation is a term that addresses our rescue from this sinful world and Hell, not our status as a born-again believer. Paul states, to believers, that salvation is coming.

14:2-8 Meat sacrificed to idols is a real-life illustration for us and a dire situation for first-century Christians. It tells us that we should not cause our brother to stumble over their weaknesses, even if their weakness is not our own conscience rejects. The implication, therefore, is that something may be a sin for one man, but not another, so long as the bible give no strict prohibition of it. The difference between one man and another, as applies here, lies within the mind.

14:17-18 Living rightly (righteously, peacefully, and joyfully) will give you the approval of man, and not necessarily martyrdom.

15:30-31 Paul understands the need for prayer from our fellow brethern.

16:1 Phoebe is a "servant" translated from the Greek word from which we get "deacon," yet she was a woman. The same qualifications (I Tim. 3:1-7) that apply to a deacon like Phoebe apply to a pastor or leader.

16:10 It is possible to know whether a person is actually saved or not, since Paul notes that this knowledge came because Apelles had been "tested and approved" and not something that the Lord told him.

16:13 Rufus is the son of Simeon, probably the same that carried the cross of Christ, and was, therefore, present at the crucifixion. His name means "red," unusual for a Jew.

To begin I Corinthians, click HERE.

2007-02-18T17:57:00.000-08:00

Tonight, in an attempt to catch up to my current place in the Bible, I'm listing three more chapters from Romans (6-9). I hope you can gain something from them. Since my main point was to post this transcription of my notes, I won't say anymore. Here goes:

6:11-12 Being dead to sin is a command, not an automatic effect of being born-again.

7:10 Commandments which were meant to bring life, brough Paul death-by-resctriction, much like Adam.

8:1 No condemnation for those who are in Christ. The word "in" is indicative of a present condition, not a former one.

8:24 We hope for what we do not have, and for what is to come. We hope to be saved. The terms "salvation" and "saved" actually refer to our presence in Heaven, and is
different from being born-again, which is what we are here, on earth.

8:29 "Predestined," throughout the earliest years of Christianity, extending up until the 1600's, was never defined as being inalterable. It meant only that by being in Christ, our place was reserved in Heaven.

8:35 Nothing can separate us from Christ's love. In contradiction to those that believe in universal salvation, love is not equal to salvation.

9:10-12 culminate with Paul's quotation of Obediah 6, "Esau I hated."Throughout the Old Testament, various prophetic speakers used the terms Jacob and Esau to reference the kingdom/ethnic group that came from them.Obediah, specifically, is one of these. It had nothing to do with thebrother's themselves.

9:17 is referring to Pharaoh, is not considering the emperor's eternal destiny, but his lot in life. God raised him up, never spiritually, but in earthly matters. His destruction was an example of God's manipulation of governments, in order to bring about a specific future. Pharaoh, had he granted the Jews their freedom, could have watched them leave his gates and said to himself (and worse, to his kingdom) "Look at those Israelites. Their God didn't deliver them. If I weren't so merciful, they would still be our slaves." For this condition of his heart, God punished him by tying Pharaoh's irrespective attitude to his actions.

9:20 is an interesting passage in that it defies the axiom that no apocryphal books are quoted in the New Testament. This verse quotes directly from Wisdom 15:7 which, while sounding very much like Jeremiah 18:4, and maybe originating from it, has a different perspective. In context, the book is talking about those who, rather than make vessels, are creating idols. The following verse, 15:8, makes an additional comment that puts the blame for such a lewd creation on the maker of the idol. Unintentionally, the author has made a telling comment about the concept of election: if God has made a man evil, then God, the creator is to blame for it, not the creation.

9:19-21 end with another Old Testament quotation: Jeremiah 18:4. Prophetically, Jeremiah was expounding on God's plan to eventually include the Gentiles in his plan for reconciliation with God. Paul, a former Pharisee, would have known this and not taken the verse out of context.

9:30 and onward is Paul's anticipated answer to those who say that, because the Jews (as a whole) are not, in the end, the sole recipients of grace, then God's prophecies are void. Paul explains that the Jews who try to relate to God by the Law, rather than faith, are in unbelief and therefore, not righteous.

As a side note, I began reading Greathouse's book, From The Apostles to Wesley: Christian Perfection in Historical Perspective. Thus far, it's been extremely enlightening. Greathouse, former general superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene, breaks down the definitions into explanations everyone can understand. He proves the pedigree of the doctrine of sanctification, throughout church history.

To continue with Romans 10-16, click HERE.

2007-02-18T00:14:00.000-08:00

Many of us from Ted Dekker's website and forum, The Circle, have decided to commit to reading the bible completely through, in whatever order each of us sees fit. Some of are going to be making a record of it here, so I'll be posting some links to blogs that belong to other participants. At the moment, the only two I know of, for certain, are:

Justin's (http://justin-biblejourney.blogspot.com) and,

Zoe's (http://zoesbibleblog.blogspot.com).

I'm going to be reading in the following order:

Romans through Jude

Matthew through Acts

Genesis through Malachi

Revelation

I'm currenty in II Timothy. It's too late to post all my notes, but I'll post some and try to get the rest up later.

Romans

1:18-20 Discusses general revelation to those who haven't heard the gospel. Speaks in terms of God's existence, but not of the revealing of Christ's sacrifice. Verse 21, however, applies to only the wicked.

2:9-11 The bible gives no inalterable selection of the saved, indicated salvation by belief, and not unconditional election

2:12-15 Speaks of the law that is written on the hearts of men, specifically those that haven't heard. Note that it says they are defended, not condemned by it.

3:19-20 The Law speaks only to those who are under the Law. It doesn't make people righteous, only conscious of their sin. In other words, it points out the problem, but doesn't necessarily fix it.

3:25 Seems to say that sins, before Christ, went unpunished.

4:5 Belief is distinct and separate from works.

4:15 Where there is no Law, there is no transgression.

5:12-14 Where the law is not given, it is not taken into account. Paul seems to be expressing the idea that we are accountable to what we know. This is a theme that continues through many of his epistles.

12 (specifically) Sind entered the world through a man, not through a man and a woman. It mentions nothing of a "fall." It can be suggested, therefore, that sin (i.e. carnality) entered through "one man" at creation, not through the event in the Garden.

14 (specifically) It is possible to be carnal without breaking a command.

To continue this study, click HERE to read my comments on Romans 6-9.

2007-01-27T23:29:00.000-08:00

About six years ago, I was approached by a friend who was in tears. I'm always apprehensive about tears; brains go blank at the sight of them. No one, I don't care who you are, can give a good off-the-cuff answer to someone who's crying. When the stakes are low, it doesn't matter, I suppose. Bad advice about socks is something that goes away in a week. Not this time. My friend had been diagnosed with cervical cancer.

In the end, it all turned out okay, but the one thing that sticks with me is the God-question she asked.

"If I pray for healing, won't I go to Hell?"

At this point, your thoughts are probably very similar to the ones I was having at the time. But she explained, and her reasoning was thus: Since she didn't go to church or even pray on a regular basis, if she asked for healing now, it would be a hypocritical move on her part, and hypocrites go to Hell. How sad. It turned out that her father (of all people) given her this bit of "wisdom." That's a pretty swift scheme on the devil's part.

Despite our initial confusion at the question, I suspect that it's a sentiment that's kept many a person out of the church. Hugh Latimer, sixteenth-century preacherman, said this:

"Who is the most diligentest bishop and prelate in all of England that passes all the rest in doing his office? I can tell, for I know him who it is; I know him well. But now I think I see you listening and hearkening that I should name him. There is one that passeth all the other, and is the most diligent prelate and preacher in all of England. And will ye know who it is? I will tell you; it is the devil. He is the most diligent preacher of all other; he is never out of his diocese; he is never from his cure; ye shall never find him unoccupied; he is ever in his parish; he keepeth residence at all times; ye shall never find him out of the way; call for him when you will he is ever at home; the diligentest preacher in all the realm; he is ever at the plough; no lording or loitering can hinder him; he is ever applying his business, ye shall never find him idle, I warrant you. And his office is tohinder religion, to maintain superstition...(1)"

Why do we allow this myth that God will only help us if we have the purest of motives? Isn't that a bit like taking a shower before your bath so as not to dirty the water? Jesus' message was, in essence, "come as you are."

Very few people, I told her, come to Christ out of the goodness of their heart. Most came to Jesus, even in the bible, because they needed something. Either they were blind, or bleeding, or demon-possessed, but everyone of them needed something first. I came to my faith because I knew that, if I didn't do something to fix my situation, my family would be loading me into a pine box shortly.

But isn't that selfish? Maybe. Or maybe it's just a matter of survival. The point of Christianity is that, though we may become converts by necessity, we become disciples out of love. God will fix us, of that I am certain. If we are any kind of a human being at all, we'll naturally reciprocate, not because we're coerced, but because no one else would do for us what Christ did.

If we wait til we're ship-shape to ask for help, we'll end up damned by our own cleanliness. In this world, we've got a billion temptations stacked against our otherwise well-behaved soul. Pride is the thing that makes us think we can conquer it without aid.

1. Hugh Latimer, Sermons, 70-71

2007-01-20T23:50:00.000-08:00

This is Part II of last week's essay, though I suppose it can stand on it's own. Roger is a made-up name, by the way. I'm protecting his anonymity because I'm fairly certain I know what it's like to be alluded to on myspace, and as much as I dislike it, I'd prefer that over an overt mentioning of my name.

Begin story: I grew up with this guy named Roger. From about the fifth grade on, I've known him. In high school, Roger was the best at everything. He was the best lover, the best fighter, the best at hacky-sack and yo-yo. At least, this was his delusion.

After high school, something happened. He was born-again. Old Roger, fighting Roger, lady-killing Roger was gone. This was Roger, "New & Improved!!!" He dropped dating from his life, altogether. Started going on missions trips. Spoke in tongues. All very awesome, I suppose.

Three or four months after his conversion, I noticed something. This New & Improved Roger, while certainly better than the "I'm-a-better-fighter-than-you-Roger" that grew up with, hadn't changed as much as I thought. As it turns out, he's still better than me, it's just a different kind of better. All of a sudden, he's begging to lead worship. And why not? He's the best singer in our group. Because he's been on a mission trip, he's certainly the most spiritual, right? "Oh, and by the way, did I mention I just recieved the gift of prophecy?" Not surprising. Last week, we did a study on First Corinthians 14:5.

Initially, this blog was going to continue the previous one, expanding on the theme of an earthly aristocrat becoming a spiritual aristocrat. Instead, I've decided to turn this magnifying glass around and put Jeremiah under the lens.

High school, 1998. I'm in alot of trouble and for more than one reason, I'm sure. I think I was accused of everything that year and at least half of it was probably true. Bringing a knfe to school? Yeah, but blown completely out of proportion. Fixing the ROTC iconon our school's computer to read "eROTiC"? Yeah, that too. Kissing guys for money? That's one charge of which I'm pretty sure I was innocent. Long story short, I had a problem with authority.

Now I'm a Christian, and I still have a problem with authority. The more I read about the Protestant Reformers, the more I grow to like them (with a few exceptions). Even today, when I see stuff in church that I disagree with, it burns me more than it probably should. Is this the seeds of discernment within me, or am I just continuing in a new kind of rebellion?

The answer, as far as I can tell, is both. Yes, I have a bit of a rebel in me still, but it's fed by discernment (I hope). What makes this beast good or bad is the fruit. If I use this characteristic of mine--I'm reluctant to call it a gift--to cause division, then that's bad, and I'm only a little better off than I was in '98. If, however, I use it to bring about Godly change, then maybe there's some hope for me yet.

So you tell me, especially those of you that know me, good or bad?

2007-01-14T09:55:00.000-08:00

In my absence, besides playing with my daughter, I've had a little time to reflect on my theology, and assemble an outline of the beliefs I'd like to pass on, not just to her, but to anyone who's interested. Because a theological system, no matter how simple, is a daunting task, I chose a format that addresses each point with an essay. Strung together, these essays should paint a picture of my interpretation of the truth. My brain is not an organ given to linear thought; my points don't always come in a recognizable order. Over the next couple weeks, or maybe months, many of these essays will make their rough-draft appearance here (and on my blogspot) for the first time. Don't worry, I won't bore you that long...even though there's about 50 points or so on my outline, I'm not going to cover them all here. Nor do I intend to include one every week. Amen? Very well, here goes:

God's Aristocracy

John Calvin wrote that "the seed of the word of God takes root and brings forth fruit only in those whom the Lord, by his eternal election, has predestined to be children and heirs of the heavenly kingdom.(1)" This reference to children and heirs is an interesting phrase. It implies a kind of spiritual heredity springing forth, not from human loins, but from our spiritual Father. But no one can be an heir without an inheritance, and Calvin addresses that, too. What you'll receive is a heavenly kingdom, and that's another point of interest.

Curious is this man's choice of words: elect, children, heirs and kingdom. It is almost as though Calvin is suggesting a spiritual aristocracy or nobility. While the bible certainly uses all of these terms, the implication was never more distant.

A Calvinist, of course, would disagree, for they are as certain of their correctness as I am of mine. They would assert, and do assert, that Calvin's idea comes from the infallible Word of God and therefore, God Himself. Perhaps they wouldn't state it in terms that suggest divine inspiration, as I just did, but the implication is close. Is their assertion necessarily true? Couldn't there be some other inspiration? After all, if we're as depraved as Calvin suggests, then he and his ideas are in the same hand basket as the rest of us. Let's step back for a moment and glance to the past, to Calvin's day, in particular.

John Calvin was born on July 10, 1509, in Noyon, about sixty miles from Paris. France, like most countries in that day, was steeped in aristocratic notions. Calvin Senior was a well-respected lawyer, secretary of the bishopric, attorney of the cathedral chapter, fiscal agent of the county and registrar of the Noyon government. His wife was also well-respected, but for her piety and motherly affection, rather than her status. It is unfortunate that she died at such a young age and left John with his father, a powerful and distant man with little time for children(2).

As a result of his wife's death and his own misgivings, the father sent his son to live with a noble family, part of the aristocracy. From there, he began to attend college in Paris, where he learned gentlemanly ways, such as proper manners and how to conduct oneself in polite society. This aristocratic learning distinguishes him from Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli.

According to Webster's Dictionary, the aristocracy is the minority of people who may be regarded as superior to the rest of the community in rank, wealth or intellect. Doubleday Dictionary adds that it is a hereditary honor, designated before birth. Though neither book was around in Calvin's day, we know that the definition hasn't changed significantly since then. This definition isn't far from Calvin's definition of the Elect, who are chosen by God, before their birth, to receive a special honor: inheritance in God's kingdom.

It seems to be, and perhaps is, quite a coincidence that Calvin, who lived as part of the aristocracy, should come up with a theological system that so closely resembles it, when other reformers, just as vehement about the truth, but having no "superior" background, missed it entirely.

1. Calvin, John; "Instruction in Faith"
2. Qualben, Lars P.; "A History of the Christian Church"

Note: This is the first essay of two in a series. I'd like to follow it next week with its sequel, but often, something more novel catches my attention and I get distracted.

To continue with Part II, click HERE.

2006-12-07T23:22:00.000-08:00

For all our spouting of "Christ's love," Christians don 't do a great job of getting the message across. Instead, we've alienated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of souls, all over the world, who associate our actions with that of Jesus Christ. But Christ never walked a picket line with a sign that read "God hates fags..." He never blew up an abortion clinic (or whatever the historical cultural equivalent was). He loved. In fact, the only sharp words that Jesus ever spoke were pointed at the religious folk of his day.

Democrats and various other liberal groups have fared much better in their search for the disenfranchised, but it's sad, because they've built their relationship on lies. Lies. Choice for women, marriage rights for homosexuals, life for death row inmates, a cure for Parkinson's. Lies. These aren't "causes;" these are platforms. To the liberals, people who truly want these things aren't people, they're potential votes. Look what happened when the value of the Religious Right's approval went up: Democrats abandoned their platforms and tried to out-conservative the Conservatives, and for the most part, they succeeded.

The message of the Christians, to those striken with Parkinson's, and to lesbians, and to gays, and to preganant women who don't know if they want a child, should be this: We love you, and will continue to love you, no matter how you vote. To the members of the Democratic Party, to Hillary Clinton, to Howard Dean, to Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy, my words are the same. I love each and every one of you, regardless of the fact that we disagree. Even if you never love me back.

2006-10-28T01:03:00.000-07:00

Total Depravity. Unconditional Election. Limited Atonement. Irresistible Grace. Perseverance of the Saints. These are the five theological terms used by Calvinists to describe, in brief, what they believe. Conveniently, it fits together to make the acronym T.U.L.I.P., which sounds nice and flowery, but does nothing more than hide the cruelty of the doctrine behind a bouquet of literacy. Some Calvinists have realized that these terms, especially the one about depravity, aren't exactly seeker-friendly, so they've sought out softer words. Choices abound, but in general, the words still jab like a red-hot poker. This begs the question, "If they're going to offend, why not just say what they mean?" Each of these five points has one word that's at least nine letters long. Unconditional, for example, is thirteen characters. For something as important as salvation, we need to cut through as much of the fat as possible. I propose a new acronym, one that both fits the Calvinist doctrines as a whole and also explains in layman's terms what they mean.

Handpicked: This one used to be called Unconditional Election, and was eleven letters longer in its original incarnation. Aristocracy would also be a fitting term if it was just a bit shorter. In brief, Calvinists believe that God picks his children, without any input from them. You cannot seek to be saved, nor can you repent unless God allows you. Like an apple, there's only two ways off the tree: either you're handpicked, or you go down.

Once Saved, Always Saved: That's it. Many Calvinists already embrace this term, which makes this step an abbreviated one. You can't get much simpler than once saved, always saved.

Only for some: Limited Atonement, as this used to be called, meant that, when Christ died, it was only for a few people, and not everyone, as though grace were a physical object that, if left unclaimed, would float around in the ether as waste-grace. It's apparently also what God mean in John 3:16, when He used the word "whosoever.' Even though such a claim makes no sense, it shouldn't bother us, because we know God's ways are above ours.

Evil, through and through: This was called Total Depravity and was probably the most offensive of the five terms. The new name isn't any nicer, but this way, no one's wasting time trying to figure out what it means. It means that you're no good. Period.

You can't say no: When the Holy Spirit grabs you by the collar, you're not allowed or even able to resist Him. It fits back with point #1, that we're handpicked. You don't have a choice in the matter. You're just a machine.

Yes, that's right. H.O.O.E.Y. In my opinion, that's pretty much what it is. God gave it to us plain and simple: Live for Christ or die without him. The fact that we're told what to do implies we have a choice in the matter. All of these extra rules and regulations do nothing but plant hurdles between people and the Cross.

2006-10-21T20:28:00.000-07:00

Tonight, I'm going to revisit a blog I posted on my myspace. The original audience, in general, was not as receptive to my thoughts as I had hoped. Recreational theology isn't as much fun as it sounds, I suppose. Or maybe it is, and that's my problem. Either way, here goes:

Sometime in the last decade, a poll was taken among Christian groups to determine how many Christians are actual believers, and how many are simply believers in name only. The questionnaire was a simple one, consisting of four questions. Time has stolen away the name of the poll and half of those questions from memory, but one that stuck in my mind was the question of whether one believes in a literal interpretation of the bible. This, apparently, is one of the qualifications of a true Christian.

There are very few Christians who readily admit that they do not adhere to a perfectly literal interpretation of the bible, at least outside of the prophetic verses. I for one cringe when I hear such a claim; such is the power of tradition over believers. I cringe, yes, but it is true. I do not believe in a perfectly literal interpretation of the bible. And I would wager that you do not either, even if you dont realize it.

For example, if you claim that the bible is wholly literal, do you always wear white, every second of every day? You should; Ecclesiastes says so. Have you plucked out your own offending eye? I find it hard to believe that anyone can live among society and say that they have never once looked at a woman the wrong way. Even so, since "all have sinned," everyone has something to gouge out, I suppose. This next verse will be my last example, firstly, because three is enough to discount a wholly literal bible (in that case, one would be enough); secondly, because this example lends itself to the kind of commentary needed to express my point. In Luke 14:26, Jesus says that, in order to be a believer, in order to be His disciple, you have to hate your mother, father, brothers and sisters. Since the earliest days of Christianity we have believed corporately that this means that our love for others should seem as hate in comparison to our love for Christ. A literal interpretation of this verse makes a lie of Romans 12:10 and especially I John 3:15, or vice-versa. At the same time, if a group of "Christians" did spring up with a doctrine of brotherly hate, it would be very hard to dispel their favored verses with a literal interpretation and no contradiction. The argument could extend into days and the brotherly hate crowd would only need to restate their literal interpretation of Luke 14:26.

But even when not taken to such extremes, biblical literalism causes adherents to perform some interesting theological back flips. In a debate, I suggested that II Timothy 2:12 (NIV), which says: "If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us" My point to was that we have two choices, acceptance of Christ, which will land us in Heaven, or rejection of Christ, which will land us in Hell. My "opponent" in the debate insisted that, because there was no or between the verses, Christ could allow us to reign with him while simultaneously disowning us, because each believer has, at some point in their life (even if very young) not been a believer. This is the kind of rabid literalism that scares me the most.

Some might think that my claim is a slippery slope into atheism. Not so. I never claimed that the bible isn't true; I only said it isn't a wholly literal work. Many believers, and this is especially true of Calvinists, treat scripture as a lawyer treats a legal document. They focus on technicalities of the language and hold Jesus, Paul, John and the rest hostage to their exact wording. They practice an interpretation that, if used in everyday conversation, would be absurd. Imagine telling someone: "I'm starving" only to have them believe that you hadn't eaten in days or weeks. The next time you saw that person, I suspect you'd watch your words carefully. Biblical authors, if given the chance to look at future interpretations of their own words would probably do the same.

The bible is the Word of God, not the words of God. Its overall meaning is the message that God wanted to deliver to the world, not the technical insinuations that arise from a literal interpretation. Such an interpretation leads to legalism and contradictions.

Original Publication: August 27, 2006; 7:59PM