The Christian Business Model

May 24, 2015Christian Business, Christian Theology, Grace vs JudgementChristian Business, Christian Theology, Politicstruetruetrain

Introduction

To establish a context for this article, I remind you of the bakery that refused to bake a cake for a wedding reception for a homosexual couple, and of the florist who refused to prepare floral arrangements for a similar such wedding. This article is not an attempt to be judgmental, nor is it an attempt to defend the choices of these business owners, nor is an attempt to explain sin. However, it does build on the concept that those who approve of sin share in the guilt of the sin (Romans 1:32). So, if one decides to stand against one sin, then he/she should stand against them all.

More to the Point

Think about it this way: adultery is a sin, and remarriage after divorce to someone other than the original spouse is adultery, per Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:31-32. If all sins have equal penalties (Romans 6:23a), then condoning this sin would make one guilty of the same sin. Additionally, murder is sin (Exodus 20:13). If killing another person in a premeditated fashion comprises murder, then abortion equates to murder. According to several Biblical passages (including 1 Corinthians 6:18), fornication (a form of sexual immorality) – sex outside of marriage – also constitutes sin. Therefore, unwed mothers have committed sin. I remind you, that I am not trying to judge anyone, I am not perfect, neither have I ever, to my knowledge, claimed anything other.

Why bring these up? I mean the sin du jour is homosexuality, so why bring these up, especially since they have been argued and discussed years ago, each one in turn? How many florists would willingly arrange flowers for a divorcee whose ceremony does not celebrate a reunion with her first husband? How many online sources for “happy abortion” cards exist? Even one of these, in my opinion, is too many. How many bakeries would bake a cake for an unwed mother’s baby shower – no questions asked? Again, I am not judging any bakery, nor anyone who may find that they have committed these sins; I, too, have shown a propensity to disappoint my Heavenly Father.

My real question is not, should a Christian business owner take a stand against sin, but how should a Christian business owner stand against sin? After all,the Christian business owner started his/her business to make money, if the business does not make money, then it will go out of business. Not making cakes, or floral arrangements, for most situations, even for the morally questionable ones, will end the business, and would cause other people who work at these businesses to lose their jobs.

This does not comprise the only possible result of turning business away. In states like, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, a business has a legal obligation to not discriminate against a customer, even on the basis of religion, and as set forth in the Civil Rights movement, separate but equal is illegal. So, having “Gay only” or “Unwed only” or whatever falls into a category of unacceptable ideas, even in the eyes of the Gospel. Further, refusing to do what the customer has asked for would constitute a crime with some severe civil penalties. Christians, therefore, can no longer stand up for their faith, without suffering the wrath of law.

I think that the Bible has an approach that would work. Consider Romans 1:14, where Paul says that he is “obligated … both to the wise and the foolish.” The next verse makes it clear that Paul’s obligation consists of sharing the Gospel. Therefore, I propose that all Christian business owners stop turning business away as an act of judgment, and begin to share the Gospel with every business transaction. Make it a clear stipulation in the contract that specifies the services that the business will provide that the business will talk (or provide literature) about Jesus to everyone – so it is not discrimination – and that, the customers could have chosen to have taken their business elsewhere, but have entered into the contract knowingly and willingly, having had the opportunity to read the contract. Every business may not have the freedom to deny services in America, but the customer does have the right to refuse to buy the services provided by the company. Not a fan of contracts? Ok, then make it a standard practice to about Jesus and the Gospel in the Christian owned business with everyone who walks in the door. In either of these ways, Christian business owners take a stand in love, do not condone any of the sins of others, and share Christ.

There’s a bigger picture, that so much coverage of recent events has omitted, but which should arise in the conversation. No one, not even the Christian business owner, stands completely innocent in the conversation. Are we willing to face that, and move to a better solution, whatever that may be?

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or research paper.

Should I Join The Apostate Church?

March 1, 2015Apostate Church, Christian Theology, Secret SocietiesApostasy, Apostate Church, Christian Theology, Freemasonrytruetruetrain

Should I Join The Apostate Church?

Introductory Remarks

Some may say that I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist. If by that you mean someone who sees an emerging pattern and investigates until the root cause for such a pattern becomes clear, and one who recognizes that those patterns sometimes point to the organized activities of groups who would use malicious, subversive and obfuscatory practices to accomplish their purposes, then yes, that description would fit me. If, however, you mean a paranoid nut job who believes that everyone should wear aluminum foil hats to prevent the government from infiltrating our minds, then you have the wrong person.

As such a person who investigates root causes of emerging patterns, it has come to my attention that the church has many wolves who masquerade in sheep’s clothing. They live off of the fat of the lambs (Ezekiel 34 and Jude v. 4 back me up). This trend reaches deeper than the ever lying televangelist who wants your money. It has become true of the average, everyday, run of the mill pastor who “preaches what God lays on his heart.”

I do not intend to question all of the motives of these individuals, most of them probably feel that they are doing God’s work. However, I wonder how much they question what they have been taught throughout their lives. Have they examined everything they teach and found it to be true before espousing it as true, or have they only considered the thoughts of others on the subject at hand? Have they considered the merits of other perspectives and interpretations? Do they teach the entire counsel of God, even the parts with which they may disagree or with which they may struggle the most? Do they teach in a transparent manner? Do they teach to protect the flock, out of love? If not, then, “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock … I will search for my sheep and look after them” (Ezekiel 34:10 – 11, NIV).

More To The Point

What do I mean by apostasy? Merriam-Webster defines apostasy as, “renunciation of a religious faith” and “abandonment of a previous loyalty” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostasy, 3/1/15). Certainly the church still stands on and for the Gospel, right? How much Contemporary Christian Music emphasizes the cross, while neglecting the very Son of God who died upon it? I have personally had ministers in the church wrest control of a ministry that God started through me from me, which one could construe as tantamount to theft. I have seen Christians live like Hell-bound heathens (pardon this expression, it is not intended to judge anyone, only to make the point without being loquacious), only to dust off their “halo” in time to show up for Sunday worship services. Does the church teach that such sinful living should pervade the life of one who has become a child of God? If it does not teach against such activities, then it has condoned that behavior, and has departed from sound Biblical doctrine (Revelation 21:8). Not to say that Christians are justified by their deeds, but their deeds reveal them as being justified.

People may say, “Don’t you go to church to serve God?” While church does provide such an opportunity, if my service to God remains within those four walls and never extends beyond them, then am I really building His kingdom? If my service has no impact beyond those walls, then could I really be building the preacher’s kingdom, or maybe even my own? For that matter, if my work does extend beyond those four walls, only to have that work collapse back to those walls (say by bringing people to those walls), only to hear a message that would try to coerce people into belief with the truth that an unrepentant soul will spend eternity in Hell, while also promising that the people of God will not have to endure persecution because Jesus will return before the end to claim His bride (and this in contradiction to 1 Thessalonians 5:3), then does my work have any effect beyond those walls? No, because my work would center on those walls. For that matter, did He tell us that we should bring about His kingdom on earth, or did He say that His “kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36, NIV)? Additionally, how many times does God spare His people from persecution before it starts (throughout history or in the Scriptures)? Not once that I can find.

Deception has crept in subtly, and a key point has become devalued to think that I can only serve God by knocking on doors or attending church. Who has brought such doctrine? Divisions throughout the church’s history, allowing the world to interpret Scripture (through literary analysis and an unbelieving segment of archeology), and allowing freemasons to function, even lead, in the church. Think masonry does not have at least some influence over what gets preached and presented? Consider this: the Southern Baptist Convention has reported:

“U.S. membership [in the Masons] is claimed at about three million, with about five million worldwide… The official magazine of Masonry in the U.S. is titled New Age. Some church denominations are also led by avowed Masons. For example, a 1991 survey by the Southern Baptist Convention Sunday School Board found that 14% of SBC pastors and 18% of SBC deacon board chairs are Masons. It is also estimated that SBC members comprise 37% of total U.S. lodge membership. (A 2000 updated SBC report found that over 1,000 SBC pastors are Masons.)”

37% of 3,000,000 would have been 1,110,000 Masons who held membership in the SBC. This estimate was for 1991. (http://watch.pair.com/sbc.html, 3/1/15).

Why do so many churches have columns as prominent features? Standard architecture for stately buildings? Who set the standard? The Greeks and Romans with structures like the Parthenon, a temple to a false god. The Egyptians to symbolize Osiris’s phallus. Of those churches that have these architectural features, why do so many have four columns? To have three “entries,” and thus create that number that has so much importance to masons: three. Some churches use pyramids in their worship services, and pyramids have some prominence in Egyptian mythology; the three great pyramids are placed so as to coincide with the stars that comprise Orion’s belt. Don’t miss the point: the occult has infiltrated the church. One of two things needs to happen: first, every Bible believer should get out of it, or, second, Bible believers should begin to take back their minds and hearts from the apostasy that threatens sound doctrine. Joining and supporting the apostate church is wrong.

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.

Open Letter To An Atheist

February 21, 2015Atheism, Big Bang, Christian Theology, Evolution, Random Chance, ScienceAtheism, Big Bang, Christian Theology, Evolution, Random Chance, Sciencetruetruetrain

Dear Atheist:

I understand that you claim that God does not exist. Without question, you desire proof of something before you believe it; on that basis, you just blindly accept the explanation postulated by many in the scientific community regarding how everything started and works. Like so many, you assume that scientists have all of the evidence. It is true that certain evidence has come to light that seems to confirm their conclusions, but to believe that science has correctly interpreted all of the evidence, and has not excluded any evidence that might point in another direction, would imply that you accept anything they say as true, even without evidence, which violates your desire for evidence.

“Why would they lie,” you may ask. Well, perhaps, to protect their own reputation. Perhaps to continue justifying their own beliefs about how things work. Perhaps just to disagree with religion. Perhaps their parents did not express love to them, and they now have a chip on their shoulders, and now they want to show that their opinions matter. Any number of reasons may exist for anyone to lie. So, what if they are only showing you the evidence that they think confirms their hypotheses?

This may seem like a meaningless train of thought, but follow it, it actually relates. Do you accept that every person in jail is actually guilty? They are there because someone had evidence that pointed to their guilt. Yet, how often does “The Innocence Project,” and similar organizations, find evidence that exonerates these individuals who have been pronounced guilty based on some evidence? According to the Innocence Project, “There have been 325 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States” (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php, 2/14/15). So does evidence comprise the sum total of proof? I would argue that people can, and often do, twist evidence to make it say whatever they want. For example, how many police officers wanted cases off their desks, and saw some evidence that they could make say whatever they wanted it to about whomever they wanted it to say that very thing? Well, at least the ones who worked these 325 cases, and maybe more that no one, except the wrongly accused, has uncovered as yet.

Is science free from such prejudices? Police officers are people; scientists are people; politicians are people; atheists are people, and, yes, Christians are people. Only one person ever walked the earth who anyone would say is perfect, and he has not walked the earth for nearly 2,000 years. “According to a 2002 study conducted by the University of Massachusetts, 60% of adults can’t have a ten minute conversation without lying at least once” (http://mentalfloss.com/article/30609/60-people-cant-go-10-minutes-without-lying, 2/14/15).

Okay, so let’s assume that all scientists fall among the 40% of the population that can have a conversation without lying, and that these highly ethical people would never suppress evidence to the contrary of their theory, and, therefore, exhibit a greater degree of trustworthiness than the remainder of the general public. What do they claim leads the charge for everything to have come into existence as we see it today? Well, “The Big Bang” happened. Alright, where did the singularity that contained the correct ratio of matter to energy come from? Well, according to inflation theory, there were an infinite number of singularities that exploded. So, in all of these singularities, certainly the odds favor one of them having the right ratio.

Now we have a universe, so where did life come from? Well, some as yet to be determined random event happened that sparked a random protein strand, probably some kind of RNA, to life. If that random event had happened to another random protein at some other random time, would life exist as we now know it? Then that random protein strand started to randomly mutate in strangely advantageous ways, until, after countless random mutations, life exists today as we know it.

In other words, scientists surmise that random chance is the driving force. So, random chance brings about order? That plainly violates the concept of entropy, which is the second law of thermodynamics. Thus, science presents a god, random chance, which violates its own tenets, and is logically untenable. As such, since you agree with such inconsistent drivel, you can’t even see that you do have a god, the god of random chance, which is the author of chaos – according to both science (remember entropy) and plain reason. The Biblical name for this individual is Satan.

Yes, entropy can be counteracted, but only by something outside of the system exerting some energy on the system. So, what exerts that energetic influence to bring order instead of the chaos? Well, science, conveniently has no answer, so in the absence of an answer, you would say, “Nothing.” I would say that the very absence of an answer indicates that the answer is not to be found by science, and therefore, has an alternate explanation. By Occam’s Razor, the one answer, the simplest answer should be chosen, the simplest answer is God. Even by Spock’s logic, the last remaining answer, although you consider Him to be improbable, is God. You can turn to Him, or you can continue believing complete inconsistency, as you desire.

Sincerely,

The Bema Sheep

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.

Open Letter to Stephen Fry

February 1, 2015Christian Theology, Stephen Fry, Suffering, TheodicyChristian Theology, Homosexuality, Stephen Fry, suffering, Theodicytruetruetrain

Dear Mr. Fry:

I have heard of your atheism. I have heard your statements about God. I understand that you look around and think that the Christians have closed their eyes to reality, that you think that they lack the mental faculties to comprehend the self-perceived immensity of your intellect, that you think that they cannot form a logical argument.

You suppose, axiomatically, as so many do in the question of theodicy, that all suffering is bad. Your train of logical thought builds upon that assumption. You suppose that because suffering feels bad when one is going through it, that nothing good comes from suffering. You suppose that lessons are not learned, that growth does not occur, and that lives are not changed for the better due to suffering. You suppose that all pain, difficulty, and suffering spring forth from the senseless and selfish motives of an unjust God, who does not care about humanity. Suffering remains incomprehensible for you.

I remind you that you are an atheist, and that since you do not believe in God, any commentary that you have about God only expresses your lack of belief in God and serves as continued self-serving justification to continue in your disbelief. To address your specific objection – the one related to childhood cancer – does childhood cancer always only lead to horrible consequences? Does childhood cancer never lead to parents loving their children more deeply? Does childhood cancer never lead to people appreciating life more deeply? Does childhood cancer never lead to better treatments for disease? Are these negative consequences?

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28, NIV). “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything” (James 1:2 – 4, NIV). I don’t expect one who values his own ideas over what anyone else has to say to understand these concepts.

Considering your general attitude of arrogance as one who believes that he has cornered the market on both wisdom and understanding of all things, I would encourage you to consider that “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for a lie … Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.” (Romans 1:22 – 27, NIV).

I know that you see this as something that you should ignore, again, you are wise in your own eyes, and you seek to justify yourself, so you call things that you do not and cannot understand, “Evil,” yet all the while, you yourself harbor evil in your own heart. To be brief, God says to you, “I made you, gave you life, gave you my Son, and gave you a choice. I have not forced you to worship me, nor do I desire worship from someone who resents me. I have done all of this for you, and you insist upon calling us selfish.” In short, go ahead with your self-deception, you desire to go to hell, your wish will be granted if you do not repent.

With all sincerity,

The Bema Sheep

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.

Is God a God of Extremes?

January 17, 2015Christian Theology, Grace vs JudgementChristian Theologytruetruetrain

In today’s postmodern society, people often claim that God is a God of great love, grace, and mercy, while down playing His justice. If you listen to sermons from just 20 years ago, you will hear that many preachers emphasized God’s judgment and justice with “Hellfire and Brimstone” preaching. This had been a tradition for many years, certainly made famous by Jonathan Edwards sermon called “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Theology has swung to the extremes, which raises the question: is God a God of extremes?

Consider the Biblical examples of Noah and Jesus. Genesis records the story of Noah. It says, “The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, ‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created from the face of the earth … for I am grieved that I have made them.’ But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:6 – 8, NIV).

In the story of the flood, God seems a little upset with the man because, “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5, NIV). Reading the story shows that God had to both judge man and cleanse the earth that man’s sin had corrupted. The Bible also says, “…God patiently waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being built” (1 Peter 3:20, NIV).

Let us arrive at a conclusion to this story. God shows the greatness of His justice and judgment. However, we also see that He spared eight people, plus a pair of unclean animals and seven pair of clean animals. In this true story, we meet a God who majors in judgment and justice. It seems that He shows no mercy, no grace, no patience, only vengeance. Yet, a closer look shows that God has provided a second chance by sparing sufficient resources to repopulate the earth, even repopulating mankind which has shown itself to possess only the capability to sin. Thus, in great judgment we can see God’s great grace and mercy.

All Christians should all have some familiarity with the story of Jesus. God in the flesh, who walked the earth teaching many people and doing a great many wonderful miracles only to die a horrible, gruesome, and excruciating death, and rise from the grave three days later. “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit …” (1 Peter 3:18, NIV). “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24, NIV). “Since we have now beeen justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” (Romans 5:9, NIV).

Christ took our sins upon Himself – took the punishment due us – to restore us to God. This part of the story is often emphasized by the church leader of today. The greatness of God’s grace and mercy to us is often expounded upon and held up as the ideal, but the wrath the He poured out upon His Son is glossed over. Make no mistake, Jesus’ death on Calvary’s cross showed God’s wrath that all humans, even believers, should receive – although God will spare the believers.

Throughout history, depending upon the time period, man has swung the pendulum of their perception of God between the two extremes of grace and mercy on the one hand, and judgment and justice on the other. Every time mankind does this, the pendulum always ends up on one extreme or the other. Yet, He does not show Himself to reside at any of the extremes. In the flood, He tempers his wrath with grace and mercy; in the cross, only through wrath does He show His grace and mercy. God does not dwell on the extremes, but always somewhere in the middle. Make no mistake, God gives mankind second chances, and while we may misconstrue those, He does still show judgment.

This understanding of Him must change how we interact with Him and with others. Easy believe-ism shows potential for great apostasy to occur, and hellfire and brimstone shows no hope of restoration. God is not in either of them. I encourage you to be mindful of the truth, and let the truth inform you. Just because something sounds good does not mean that it is good or true. God bless you.

Did The King James Version Come Straight Out Of Heaven?

November 13, 2014Bible Translations, Christian Theology, King James VersionBible Translations, Christian Theology, King James Versiontruetruetrain

Did the King James Version fall straight out of Heaven?

Introduction

There has been much discussion about the King James Version of the Bible as opposed to every other one known to the English language. Some people believe that the King James Version has so much authority that the text upon which it is supposedly based has equivalent authority to the autographs, while all others have corrupted source texts. Which means that if someone can find another English version that has the same text as its source then one would also have to acknowledge these translations as having equal authority, and would logically have to admit that other translations have equal validity and authority with the KJV. Notice, the word “logically,” the argument must be logical, as opposed to emotional, from which so many who hold the view that KJV comprises the only true Bible argue. Alternatively, if someone can show that the source text for the KJV, the Textus Receptus, either has problems with it or that at least one other version has a source text closer to the autographs, then it can be shown that the King James Version did not fall straight out of Heaven.

A Brief Discussion About Translation

Before getting into that one should note that no translation has 100% accuracy, every translation suffers the error of translator bias(for example, the translator believes that one meaning of a word fits better than another meaning of the same word), and vernacular limitations, such as the lack of the existence of an appropriate word needed to adequately and accurately translate the source text. Prime examples of errant translations include: “Taiwan: [Read more about this at Come Alive!⁹] the translation of the Pepsi slogan ‘Come alive with the Pepsi Generation’ came out as ‘Pepsi will bring your ancestors back from the dead,’ Romania: in a Bucharest hotel lobby: The lift is being fixed for the next day. During that time we regret that you will be unbearable, and Denmark: in a Copenhagen airline ticket office: We take your bags and send them in all directions” (All above quotes come from http://www.ojohaven.com/fun/translation.funnies.html, 10/25/14). Certainly these examples have more egregious errors than any translation errors present in the various translations of the Bible, but the fact remains no translation has a 100% accuracy rating. To connect a dot for the reader, Textus Receptus was originally Latin and Greek, which means that any English version of that text constitutes a translation.

A fact should be established: the new testament was originally written in Greek, with Matthew constituting the only possible exception (http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm, 11/9/14). Any English version of the Bible would therefore comprise a translation, whether KJV or otherwise. And the Textus Receptus itself comprises a translation, as wikipedia suggests:

Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the “Majority Text” of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989)” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus, 11/9/14).

Pay careful attention to the first line, “Erasmus … was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek….” So, whether one wants to claim the Latin part of Textus Receptus as the authoritative version, which would make it a translation from the Greek, or the Greek, which contains translations from Latin back into Greek, this source text contains translations. Additionally, Erasmus redacted the Textus Receptus, to dress up Paul’s words, as Wikipedia also indicates, “He declared, ‘It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin’[1]” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus, 11/9/14).

A Word On Source Texts

In addition to Erasmus’s work containing at least segments of translation, if not itself being a translation, Erasmus has edited the text and altered some of Paul’s words to improve it. Improve what God said through Paul? Was Erasmus even a believer? He has made statements like, “My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus, 11/9/14). So someone who has admitted to feeling inspired by something other than God’s Spirit, has made a text, and people trust a translation of this text as the word that God’s Spirit inspired? Can someone who claims to be possessed by “some god,” or demon, really rightly comprehend God’s word so as to rightly redact Paul or emend Jerome? Should the “god” that possessed Erasmus be trusted?

Erasmus has made statements that should discredit his work purely based upon the source of inspiration. This is no different from the reason that so many KJV only people refuse to use any Bible translated from the Westcott and Hort “Critical Text,” on the grounds that evidence has surfaced which links the men who compiled it to the occult (http://www.christiandoctrine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1011:westcott-and-hort-unbelievers-who-influence-millions&catid=175:the-bible&Itemid=551, 11/9/14). So, they classify the source of the Critical text as evil, and refuse to see the evil inherent in the text to which they ascribe such authority. Especially when related to the Bible, one must consider the source.

What about the Nestle-Aland? Some consider this version to also be evil. However, the only real link to the occult or masonry that any reputable source records consists of the fact that this corpus comes after the Westcott and Hart, and not that any of the scholars practiced any maleficence, although the staunch supporters of the KJV – the same ones who refuse to look at the evil inherent in their own source – suggest that the Alexandrian texts used in Nestle-Aland suffer from Gnostic corruption (http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html, 11/9/14), though these consist of only suggestions and implications at best. So which translations come from Nestle-Aland? These include (this does not necessarily comprise an exhaustive list): NASB, NET, NIV, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Revised Standard Version, and the Tree of Life Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations, 11/9/14).

As a final point, if KJV is so authoritative, then its source text would have to have the same authority. Being a source text, it could translated into other translations, which one would have to take as having equal authority with the KJV. Has the Textus Receptus been translated into other English versions? Wikipedia lists:

King James

New King James [28]
Young Literal Version
Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530
Miles Coverdale’s Bible 1535
Matthew’s Bible 1537
The Great Bible 1539
Geneva Bible 1557-1560
The Bishops’ Bible 1568
Webster Bible 1833
Darby Bible 1884,1890
The 21st Century King James Version 1994
Literal Translation of the Bible 1995
Modern King James Version 1999
Analytical Literal Translation 1999 [29]
Third Millennium Bible [30]
Modern English Version (2013) [31]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus, 11/9/14). So, since all of these have come from the same source text, all of these should be just as authoritative as the KJV. Which means that even the KJV only proponents must, logically, allow and support the validity of other translations.

Conclusion

With so many translations of the Bible in existence, and with all of them, even the KJV, having questionable influences on their source texts, which one should an English speaking believer choose? All of them have some apparent corrupting influence. I trust that the word of God is “…Sharper than any double-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12b, NIV), and that any translation that teaches that Jesus Christ, God’s Son, the crucified, and risen Savior, Redeemer, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords as the only way to Heaven and God the Father, and that has consistency with what bonafide Spirit-sealed scholars say that the autographs teach has value, and could provide a valid choice to the believer.

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.

Denominational-ism

November 9, 2014Christian TheologyBody of Christ, Christian Theology, Denominationstruetruetrain

Denominational-ism

Bible Verses

“The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were baptized by one Spirit into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and we were given the one Spirit to drink. … If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? … As it is, there are many parts, but one body” (1 Corinthians 12:12 – 20, NIV).

Context

I admit that this passage is actually related to Paul discussing the gifts of the Spirit. The issue he addresses has to do with people in the church saying that they have no place of service because they seem to have a lesser spiritual gift. However, the things being said by members of the church changed in the Reformation.

No longer did members of the church say, “I have no place to serve in this church because my gifting makes me inferior to that person.” Instead, church members started to say, “You have no place in the church, and cannot possibly have right relationship with God because you do not believe as I do.” I have heard people who belong to one denomination say this about members of other denominations.

Look once again at Paul’s words, and put them into this context. Does the eye say to the ear, “Because you are not an eye, you do not belong to the body?” If it did, the body would cease to be complete. Does the foot say to the hand, “Because you are not a foot, you do not belong to the body?” If it did, the body would cease to be complete. The body knows that each of its members matter, as shown by the bodies of amputees missing the limb that has been lost (called Phantom Limb Syndrome).

Yes, different theologies exist. Everyone, even atheists, have one. No one theology has a perfect view of God, but each Christian theology has some value. I am certain that there will be Catholics in Heaven that a Baptist or Lutheran would say should not be (for Catholicism, though, one must set aside the idolatry that this church teaches – under the guise of “veneration,” and should avoid that trap); or Pentecostals in Heaven that a Methodist or Lutheran would say should not be. This makes denominations seem a bit like a cult, with each one claiming that it has cornered the market on truth, and that all others are condemned.

The only truths that really matter as related to this discussion are Jesus Christ, who He is shown to be in the Scriptures (as in the Scriptures, and among other titles that He bears: the Son of God), and Him crucified, resurrected, ascended, and certain to return. “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we [Paul and his fellow laborers] preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8, NIV). I encourage Christians to stop majoring on the minors. If we all serve the same risen Lord and Savior, then we should get our acts together, and change the world by showing His love!

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.

The Holy Spirit

November 5, 2014Christian Theology, Holy Spirit, PneumatologyChristian Theology, Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, Pneumatology, Receiving the Holy Spirit, Trinitytruetruetrain

Receiving the Holy Spirit

How does one receive the Holy Spirit? Does it happen only once, or does re-filling with the Spirit need to occur, like re-fueling a car? Is there a difference between receiving Him and being filled? Does receiving the Holy Ghost require the laying on of hands? Does receiving Him mean that the recipient will begin speaking in strange tongues? American churches have split over varying perspectives of the answers to these questions. Entire denominations of the church have developed around this question, so, obviously, many answers exist.

Some of these answers have developed from emphasizing some certain specific Bible passages, and neglecting others. Some answers even come from strange mental gymnastics to justify neglecting or emphasizing those passages. This article does not intend to engage in debate for or against any particular denomination, but to arrive at Biblical answers to some of these questions.

To help answer some of these questions, a grouping tool that one often uses in industrial settings called affinity diagramming has been employed. The tool works by grouping like ideas together. Verses may have more than one thing to say about the Holy Spirit, in these situations, the verse gets divided into its constituent teachings. Similar teachings get grouped together. Each group of similar teachings receives a title consisting of a few words.

Basic Biblical Teachings About the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is “God’s Promised Gift” (John 4:10 – 14, 20:22; Luke 11:13b; Acts 1:4, 2:38b, 10:45a; Romans 5:5). Who can receive this gift? Only those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and truly repent (John 7:38 – 39; Acts 2:38; John 7:37 – 39, 20:31). Most every Christian who has listened to preaching on this matter probably knows these basics. Is there more than that?

Certainly, for example, if one combines an understanding of “…just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father” (Romans 6:4, NIV) with “…if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit …” (Romans 8:11, NIV). One can understand that the Holy Spirit manifests God’s glory, and this glory will raise believers to new life, even already has (Romans 6:4; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

Further, the Holy Spirit is God’s seal upon every believer (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30b). Descriptions of this seal show that it (rather He) preserves believers for a particular time (Ephesians 4:30b), and provides an antithesis to the mark of the beast which so many people show so much concern for trying to make sure that they do not receive (Ephesians 1:13). The only strategy that one can undertake to ensure themselves of not receiving the beast’s mark consists of receiving the Holy Spirit, who is God’s mark (sort of). So, if one has God’s mark, the Holy Spirit, then he or she cannot receive the mark of the beast, otherwise, believers would not be identified as existing in a state of righteousness. He also helps believers (John 16:5 – 14; Romans 8:26).

Receiving the Holy Spirit

So, how does one receive the Holy Spirit? Is the laying on of hands required, as some denominations insist? A few citations in Scripture demonstrate the use of the laying on of hands, such as Acts 8:14 and 19:6a, and 1 Timothy 4:14. However, other passages reveal other ways, such as a believer asking for Him (John 4:10 – 14; Luke 11:13b) and being breathed on by someone who has Him (John 20:22). As with all things, if one asks for the Holy Spirit, he must believe that he has received Him.

Baptism does not, in and of itself, impart the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Acts 19:1 – 7; Luke 3:16). Only in the moment when someone invites the Lord Jesus into his or her heart and believes that He is there does someone receive the Holy Spirit. This indicates that the Holy Spirit should have come to dwell in the believer prior to the conventional water baptism, and that just because someone has undergone conventional water baptism does not equate to proof that the Spirit has regenerated this individual.

Tongues

Does one have to speak in tongues to prove that he or she has God’s Spirit? So many denominations argue over this. Charismatics, Pentecostals, and Assembly of God adherents may demand this, while Southern Baptists, especially those at the International Mission Board (hereafter referred to as IMB), insist that having a private prayer language should disqualify people from serving the Lord. Yes, should be disqualified from serving the Lord, as it has been reported, “The guidelines prohibit the appointment of any candidate who acknowledges using a ‘private prayer language,’ a practice IMB President Jerry Rankin has espoused. They also require candidates to be baptized in a Southern Baptist church, discounting even believer’s baptism by immersion in another evangelical church.” (https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/baptist/8069-imb-supporters-release-statement-opposing-missionary-guidelines, 10/26/14). In other words, the Southern Baptist Convention’s International missions administration refuses to send anyone into the service of the Lord internationally who speaks to God in a private language, that only the believer and God understand. One or the other of these two is rooted in evil, but which one?

Before getting into that, one may find it useful to understand what the Bible says about tongues. Acts 2, which so many believers on the Charismatic end of the spectrum hold in such high regard as proof that speaking in tongues shows that someone has the Holy Spirit filling him or her, sheds some light on this matter. Those who hold to this view usually, not always, stop reading at verse four. After this point, they often start speaking gibberish that even they may not understand. When this happens, one could argue that the occurrence, when in public settings, could be thought of as not in accordance with the teachings of Scripture. Paul said, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two – or at most three – should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quite in the church and speak to himself and God” (2 Corinthians 14:27 – 28, NIV, emphasis added). So, all of the churches on television that show the entire congregation “speaking in tongues” should have people who can interpret what all of those people have to say, and should limit it to only a few speakers.

Some may try to argue, saying something like, “Yeah, but Paul said that about a gift of the Spirit that enables someone to speak in tongues on a permanent basis.” So, speaking in tongues, in the Charismatic sense is permanent? Then why do they insist on the laying on of hands so often, and speaking in tongues as proof of reception of the Holy Spirit? If this is permanent, it should happen only once at each believer’s baptism. Saying anything else means that this gift does not remain on a permanent basis, or that the Charismatic definition of the gift contains some kernel of a lie.

Additionally, what is the idea of speaking in tongues of which you speak? Honestly, whether a permanent gift or a temporary sign of the Spirit’s presence, He has shown His presence and allowed the recipient the ability to do something that he could not have done otherwise, so, this would qualify as a gift of the Spirit. Paul does not specify, or distinguish between, temporary and permanent gifts. Therefore, the 2 Corinthians 14: 27 – 28 passage applies. This is all pretty straight forward, mental gymnastics not required.

Acts chapter two verses five through twelve show something much more astounding than the ability to speak to God in a language that only He and the believer can understand. God actually allowed these individuals to speak in such a manner as to be understood by people from other parts of the world where people speak languages other than Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. As the entire group of people was speaking, individuals from other places heard the group speaking and understood the group as speaking the language spoken in the place from which the individual had come. This also brought together a crowd! How could the group speak so many languages simultaneously, and in an understandable manner at that? The crowd then heard Peter’s sermon, which pointed the visitors to Christ. So, the Spirit enabled the group to speak in foreign languages, fluently, for the sake of spreading the Gospel. That is one of the Spirit’s roles (Mark 16:17 – 18; John 14:26, 16:8; Acts 1:8, 5:32, 19:6b; 1 Corinthians 12:4 – 11).

Back to the question asked earlier: which is evil, the IMB’s stance or the idea of a private prayer language. The irony here involves IMB president, Jerry Rankin, who says that he has a private prayer language, and likes to use terms used by masons, like “circumspect” (http://www.txbc.org/2002Journals/April2002/Apr02JerryRankinsLetter.htm, 11/1/14). While that does not mean that he is a Freemason, it may provide a hint. Another deciding factor, as stated in Jerry Rankin’s letter cited above, remains the fact that missionaries could lose their jobs for having a private prayer language, but Jerry Rankin gets to keep his. That certainly seems very unlike Christ. Sorry, that rabbit has required chase for a while. To settle the issue definitively, one should look in 1 Corinthians 14:16 – 19, where Paul essentially tells his readers that he himself has a private prayer language. What makes this language private is that he does not speak it in public because, as verse 19 tells the reader, Paul would rather edify than mystify. So, the IMB (and therefore the Southern Baptist Convention) has coerced bad doctrine upon its missionaries, and evil constitutes that position.

Gifts of the Spirit

He does not only impart the ability to speak other languages, whether for privately praising God or for evangelizing people from (or living in) other countries, both constitute Biblically accurate ideas. He also gives the ability to evangelize, prophesy, preach, teach, administer, trust God, and so forth. Every believer has most of these abilities (except maybe prophesy) inherently, at least to some degree, by virtue of just being human, but the gifting of the Holy Spirit in one or more of these specific areas has a more supernatural quality. For example, the gift of faith involves trusting God for anything and through anything, even going through the most difficult situation that one could ever face, a person with the gift of faith only looks to God, and even praises Him, even when others may have given up, someone with the gift of faith hangs in there, expectantly waiting on God to do something. Someone with the gift of evangelism can share the Gospel with a street sign and make a hundred converts. Yes, that may seem ridiculous and like hyperbole, however, stating the gift in that way proves a point about the nature of the gift and the Spirit who gives it (not that I expect anyone to try such a crazy thing). Similar things could be said about the other gifts, but hopefully, you see the point.

Conclusion

The Holy Spirit is one of the three persons in the Trinity. Some denominations hold Him in higher regard than other denominations. Regardless of denominational affiliation, or lack thereof, one cannot deny that the coming of the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment of an awesome promise from God, and that He does amazing things. What a privilege to have Him living inside, and to see His work. Until the Lord Jesus returns, may God bless you.

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.

Politics Are Evil

November 1, 2014Christian TheologyChristian Theology, Eschatology, Politicstruetruetrain

Politics Are Evil

People say that two topics stand as subjects that one should not discuss, because they tend to stir up some serious emotional responses. This short list includes: politics and religion. Please excuse my faux pas because this article mixes them both.

Office Politics

Most people, have been the victim of some form of political play, whether having been victimized by some absurd agenda of Washington DC or by some plot woven by a coworker. Scenarios range from the boss passing over someone who deserves a promotion for said promotion, to the company hiring someone who lacks the entirety of the set of bona fide qualifications required to operate in the capacity of the job – and, coincidentally – this individual plays golf with the boss, to a contractor who gets a job offer after only three months with a company that has a history of making contractors wait anywhere from nine months to three years before extending an offer – and, coincidentally – the contractor knows the boss socially outside of work, to someone who takes credit for the good idea, or hard work, of someone else, to one coworker throwing another coworker under a proverbial bus, to a co-worker who does not have to work any holidays because of that individual’s biological equipment, to a myriad of other, similar types of subversive acts. Some people call politics a “necessary evil,” does such a thing exist? Is evil really necessary? If so, then why would God punish it (Revelation 21:8; Jeremiah 21:14; Exodus 32:34b; 1 Thessalonians 4:6, etc.)?

To be fair, the Bible says, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20, NIV). Paul tells us, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28, NIV). God can use a situation that seems evil to accomplish His purpose; not everything that one may feel has caused him harm has evil at its root. Yet, one cannot deny that many of the actions of the politicians constitute evil deeds. They often pervert the truth, lie, cheat, steal, commit murder (whether actually committing the act or merely killing another person’s career), let the vices of lust and greed overrun their hearts, and even join a “brotherhood” wrapped in evil to try to prosper their own careers. God will punish them, and His will could be accomplished without their evil.

To make matters worse, so many of these individuals claim to be Christians. They claim to know the man who would rather die than leave them apart from God, the man who laid down His life for them. The thanks that they give Him includes doing to other people things they do not want done to themselves before others do it to them, and sum the teaching of Christ up with the words, “Destroy your neighbor.” Ultimately, Jesus will likely say to them, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me” (Matthew 25:41 – 43, NIV). Not that anyone should wish that upon them, but, “Each tree is recognized by its own fruit” (Luke 6:44, NIV).

Jesus says, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12, NIV). This is the standard for showing love: in EVERYTHING – Driving down the road, at home with your children, dealing with the waitress at the restaurant, and, yes, in dealing with coworkers. Whatever they may have done to you, does not give you the right to do the same to them. “It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them” (Deuteronomy 32:35, NIV). In due time, God will deal with them, in His time.

Professional Politics

The same is true of the professional politicians who so frequently subvert the Constitution for their own ends. How do they subvert it? By issuing budgetary policies that violate the concept of provision for the common defense (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122065, 10/12/14) as specified in the Preamble to the Constitution. By allowing their friends and political contributors unequaled ability to legally have a reduced percentage of their income (in comparison to what most other citizens pay) go to meet the tax burden most often shouldered by the middle class tax payers of this country (http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/, 10/12/14). By agreeing to shelter illegal immigrants at the citizens’ (tax payers’) expense, like by housing them on military bases, which have funds appropriated by Congress that come from tax revenues (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/04/administration-closing-shelters-for-illegal-immigrants-at-military-bases/, 10/12/14). By calling Christians terrorists (http://christiannews.net/2012/07/04/christians-deemed-terrorists-in-study-funded-by-department-of-homeland-security/, 10/12/14) in violation of the first amendment. By issuing executive orders that the defy the Constitutional separation of powers (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2014/01/30/how-president-obama-could-be-swept-away-with-his-executive-orders-that-defy-congress-and-the-courts/, 10/12/14). By judges using their power of interpreting the law to legislate from the bench (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/, 10/12/14). By reviewing email and listening to phone conversations without a warrant (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-01/nsa-searched-e-mail-phone-calls-of-americans-clapper.html, 10/12/14). Notice that almost all of these websites are considered to be members of the mainstream media, which speaks to the voracity of the claim that started this section.

Is subversion of the Constitution evil? Paul says, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (Romans 13:1, NIV). In the United States, there is no higher legal authority than the Constitution. Therefore, yes, not adhering the Constitution constitutes defying God, as well as the Constitution. Thus, these leaders show their wickedness, and God’s promise will stand.

Yes, the same thing that God has said to evil people throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation stands. He, not you or me, will ultimately judge evildoers. I encourage you to hand the frustrating issue over to Him. As Christians, we should try to reach these people with the Gospel. Understand that although many of them already know what the Bible says, they choose to ignore it. They clearly fail to understand eternity, understanding, instead, only the here and now. As such, they will most likely not repent. I still pray that Christ would reach them. Until His return, may God bless you.

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.

End Times: When Will the Rapture Occur, Part 4

October 29, 2014Christian Theology, End Times, EschatologyBiblical Prophecy, Christ's Return, Christian Theology, End Times, Eschatology, Post-Tribulation, Rapturetruetruetrain

End Times: Post-Tribulational Rapture

In the first article, some techniques to help with interpreting the Bible were impugned. The second article assessed the Pre-Tribulational timing of the rapture. The third article reviewed the Mid-Tribulational view of the return of Christ to claim His bride. In every article it has been mentioned that each supporter of each view believes that he or she has zeroed in on the Biblical truth.

The supporters of the view that the rapture will occur after the Tribulation, or Post-Tribbers, also believe that they have arrived at the correct conclusion. As with each group, whether the Post-Tribbers have reached the right answer or not, their correctness or incorrectness does equate to saved or lost. The article may point out issues with a particular perspective, but that does not intend to criticize the person who holds that view. As one more point of interest, scholars favored this view prior to World War I, but the “… Post Tribulation position was disfavored after WWI” (http://bible-truth.org/mid-trib.html, 9/26/14).

The Scriptures Used to Support Post-Tribulational View

God’s wrath will come to the earth as shown in Revelation 6:17, 15:1, 16:1.

Saints will live on the earth during the Rapture, as shown in Revelation 7:14, 11:3 – 12, 12:6, 13 – 17, 13:7, 14:12, and 16:15, and in Matthew 24:3 – 31.

The saints in the Great Tribulation are not the targets of God’s wrath, but of the beast (Revelation 13:7).

The saints in the Tribulation will be comprised of Jews and Gentiles, as per Revelation 7:4 – 8, 9 – 14.

God will not pour His wrath out on the saints, the church (Revelation 3:10; John 17:15).

Other terms for church used in Revelation 11 (read Revelation 1to understand “lampstand”) and 21.

Coming like a thief, at an unknown hour, relates to unbelievers (1 Thessalonians 5:4).

Warnings about what one believes about the end times (Matthew 24:4; Revelation 22:18 – 19; 2 Thessalonians 2:3).

The common verses: John 14:1 – 3; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16 – 17; Matthew 24:1 35; 2 Thessalonians 2 (the whole chapter).

Argument

The only arguments that I can make against the Post-Tribulational view are those made by Pre-Tribbers and Mid-Tribbers. I could use arguments similar to those to which I have provided contrary arguments, but that would make me a bit of a hypocrite in the interest of trying to play myself off as a pseudo-intellectual. Those contrary arguments that I made are based upon a straight forward read of the Bible, without claiming secret knowledge, being an anti-Semite, or having to change the meanings of words. I could argue for this view, but I already have, and I have nothing new to add. To be fair, in my view, Post-Tribbers have it more right than the other views. I recommend looking at an essay by Stephen Amy, which may be found at http://user.xmission.com/~rdo/pretrib.htm.

Conclusion

Ultimately, does it matter which side has it the most right? Some would vehemently argue that it does, others may disagree, stating that they belong to the fourth option – pan-ism, saying, “It’ll all pan out in the end.” From my perspective, both sides are right: yes, it does matter, and no, it doesn’t. It matters because Jesus says that we should have some awareness the signs of the coming of the end of the age (Matthew 24:33). It matters because one’s view of eschatology can let him down when things go poorly; when things go bad, if God does not deliver that person from the difficulty (as the Pre- and Mid-Tribulational views suggest that He will), and instead delivers him through the difficulty as the Bible shows that He can. The question is will this individual trust Him to do this, to walk with – even carry him – through the valley of the shadow of death (Psalm 23:4)?

At the same time, no, it doesn’t. If someone trusts God, then it does not matter whether or not difficulty comes, does it? I write this as someone who has been carried through difficulty and disappointment, when I felt like all hope was lost, and it hurt beyond what I thought I could endure. I write this as someone who knows that difficulty will come. Even with that, I personally don’t care whether He calls His bride into His presence before, during, or after the Tribulation, all that I care about is that I am counted among the saints who will be there with Him (Luke 10:20) because I trust Him to never leave me (Hebrews 13:5). I hope that Christians will start to put away their disagreements that matter – and, yet, don’t matter, and start to rally around our Lord and Savior. He matters the most. Until next time, Lord willing, may God bless you.

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.