Josiah Concept Ministries

The Bible says this about nonbelievers:

They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. (Eph 4:1

It is my sincere belief that this is a willful darkening of their own understanding.  This is ignorance by choice.  They aren’t trying to understand the Bible in its social context.  Instead, they are looking for reasons not to believe in it.

In this post from the Penitent Atheist, this ignorance becomes obvious:

As we all know, Jesus tells us to love our enemies and, if someone should strike us in the face, he commands that we invite that person to have a go at the other side. Now, as wonderful as this idea sounds in theory, most sane people understand that in practice this approach would be highly dubious. In fact, even committed Christians consider these commands to be so impractical that they willfully ignore and disobey them.

. . . Christians teach their children to defend themselves because they understand that a child who acted as Jesus commands would come home bloody and without lunch money, and even worse, without dignity. But let’s set aside the children and just talk about us adults. Jesus does not even allow us to hold up our hands in defense; we must open ourselves and invite second and third attacks. Who does that?

The PA isn’t the first person to have this type of an objection.  J.P. Holding had to answer a similar objection from the book Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith.  This is what Holding has to say:

The “slap on the cheek” is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange. It is not, as many Skeptics have supposed, a license to allow yourself to get beat up. (source)

The PA is taking things to the height of illogic.  He starts with a complete misunderstanding of what the Bible is actually teaching.  My advice to him would be to try to learn what a problem teaching means before he posts something that looks completely ridiculous on his blog.

A poster going by the name of “ppederson” seems to be an apologist for Scientology. He has challenged my interpretation of this article, which I briefly touch here. Since I don’t have a name for him, assuming that he is male, I’ll call him our friendly “Scienpologist” for the time being. I’ve always wanted to interact with an apologist for Scientology, since it is one of the false religions that I speak against and I’ve never been able to find one on my own. But mainly I wanted to use that “Scienpologist” joke. I’ve been waiting for almost a year for that.
Our friendly Scienpologist (I’m the only one who finds this funny, aren’t I?) informs me that the pastor in the CNN.com article was using The Way to Happiness, which is written by L. Ron Hubbard but is not Scientology per se. I disagree. The cover gives it away: the road leading to the bright sun? That is Scientology symbolism very similar to the bridge leading to the bright sun that they use in their actual Scientology materials.

Scientologists have a history of deception to acheive their ends.

The Way to Happiness has 21 precepts for living a better life.  The pastor from my previous article adopted these, found Scriptural support for each one, and uses The Way to Happiness in his sermons.  His daughter is quoted as saying that they are “Pentecostal Scientologists.”

Most of the precepts are good.  But there are a few that aren’t Christian.  The precepts in question are “Do not harm a person of good will,” “Respect the religious beliefs of others,” “Try not to do things to others that you would not want them to do to you,” and “Try to treat others as you would want to be treated.”  These may have some Biblical support, but each–followed to a logical conclusion–should be rejected by the church.

Before I show why those should be rejected, the final precept in The Way to Happiness is worth special mention.  “Flourish and prosper” now puts the supporters of this pamphlet square into the prosperity gospel.  God does not want us to flourish and prosper–at least not all of us.  God created a world where it is simply not possible for everyone to get everything that they want.  This sort of mentality causes greed.  Look at this article and pay attention to some of the purchases that these prosperity preachers have made.  More about prosperity theology here.

Do not harm a person of good will.  That sounds excellent.  Most people will be honestly surprised to read that I don’t believe that this is Biblical.  Why?  Because it doesn’t go far enough, that’s why.

Jesus rejected this notion.  He said:

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mat 5:43-4

I echo the Lord’s rhetorical question: If you do not harm those of good will, what are you doing that is so different or better than anyone else of this world?

Respect the religious beliefs of others.  The problem here is that, to some extent, nearly every religion (except for the more New Age ones like Scientology or Unitarian Universalism) teach some sort of exclusivity.  Logically, if all roads led to God, what freedom have we?  I’ve argued previously that if there was never an incorrect choice, then we wouldn’t truly be free-willed creatures.  Without true freedom, there is no responsibility for our decisions.  This means that there is no logical possibility of sin.  At this point, almost every part of the Bible is wrong.

Jesus drew a line in the sand when He claimed to be the only way to God (Jn 14:6). A Christian who honors this precept is not being true to the gospel.

Try not to do things to others that you would not want them to do to you and try to treat others as you would want to be treated.  “Try” has the built-in notion of failure.  Jesus doesn’t want us to try; He wants us to do.

Yoda told Luke Skywalker the wisest words ever spoken by a puppet: “Do.  Or do not.  There is no try.” Jesus isn’t asking us to try: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mat 5:48).  Jesus, again, is calling us out on our lifestyle choices.  All the Scientology pamphlet is asking us to do is to give it a shot.  If we fail, then at least we tried.

“. . . and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) 

VJack from the Atheist Revolution is reading the Bible from cover to cover since it has been forever since he’s done that, and he wants to see if his atheism is going to make a difference. He’s sharing his initial impressions now, so I thought I’d analyze them.

This is the first time I’ve read the NIV translation, and it certainly makes for an easier read than the King James. Still, I like to go back and forth to compare both versions and note some of the seemingly important differences. As but one example, NIV replaces “thou shalt not kill” with “you will not murder.” At least to my mind, there is a world of difference between the meaning of “kill” and that of “murder.”

Having free Bible study software has finally paid off. The word rendered “kill” in the KJV and “murder” in the NIV is the Hebrew word ratsach (Strong’s H7523), which is a “primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).” The word literally means “kill,” but it is properly understood as “murder.”

Genesis makes for an interesting read, and I genuinely enjoyed it. A certain beauty is evident in some of the language and imagery. Of course, one must set aside the realities of modern science to some degree or else one will experience it as little more than a list of false claims about nature.

Wow, I could do a Dave Armstrong 8000 Word Answer To That Tiny Paragraph Alone(tm). To use just one example, if you use the word “kind” in Gen 1:21 to mean “species,” then you have a scientific falsehood. Scientists have observed speciation, the separating of one species into another species. But, if we understand “kind” as “type of animal,” then we have no such falsehood.

As for the creation story itself, I can’t recommend any better apologetics resources than Evidence for God from Science, and my own friend Mike the Geocreationist’s site. Those guys do a great job of reconciling the “differences” between mainstream science and the Bible.

The god described in these first three books is difficult to recommend. This god is presumably almighty and yet needs to rest while creating the universe. This god is presumably wise beyond measure but places two forbidden trees (that of knowledge and that of life) in the Garden of Eden where early humans can access them. Moreover, this god evidently botched the first attempt at creating humanity to the point where it was necessary to slaughter all except Noah and his clan. Thus, with regard to power and knowledge, this god seems to be quite flawed.

Wow. Where to begin? Well, first of all, my atheist friend from work once told me that the Bible says that God needs no rest, yet He rested on the seventh day. I have the same answer I gave then for VJack: I don’t need to keep this blog, but I do. I don’t need to drink Pepsi, but I do. Because a person (made in the image of God) doesn’t need to do something, doesn’t preclude him from doing it. Same with God. He rested, though it wasn’t necessary.

It should be noted that the Tree of Life was not forbidden, only the Tree of Knowledge.

Note that the creation account was marked by separating opposites: Light from darkness (remember this; it is recurring theme), day from night, sky from earth, and dry land from ocean. This is a world defined by opposites. The Tree of Life represents eternal life (light), and the Tree of Knowledge represents death (darkness). We cannot be truly free willed creatures unless we have right choices to make and wrong choices to make. If every choice led to eternal life in heaven with God and happiness, then we would be “slaves to righteousness.”

Instead, the Bible teaches that we are slaves to sin–the Tree of Knowledge (Eph2:1-3). Remember this part, too, as this will become very important as VJack later tries to ruminate on God’s actions from a moral standpoint. That is very interesting that a slave to sin, to unrighteousness, is prepared to make a moral judgment upon his creator.

There are good choices in the world, and there are bad choices. Unless we had both, I would argue that we aren’t free. We can only make one choice–either good or bad, whatever is present. But both are present, as well as the ability to distinguish between them. We are slaves to sin–the wrong choices–and we continuously make the wrong choices.

Instead of looking at it the way VJack does, “this god evidently botched the first attempt at creating humanity to the point where it was necessary to slaughter all except Noah and his clan;” look at as though we botched things up pretty bad. In my previous post, I talk about taking responsibility for our actions. With the choices God enabled us to make, we must take responsibility for making the wrong ones–even if we are enslaved to sin.

Some people are confused on the point of God’s omnipotence and omniscience. They believe that if God already knows the result of our choices, that we are forced to make them. It doesn’t logically follow that if someone knows we will do something, that we must do that. It only means that this someone knows we will. That until we make the choice, it is simply another possibility until we make the choice and turn it into an actuality.

This alleviates God from the responsibility for our decisions, and places it squarely upon our own shoulders. That means it was human action that necessitated the flood, and that we are the ones responsible for bringing God’s judgment. We must accept that, not place it all on God as VJack does.

Now the fun part. A creature passing moral judgments upon his creator:

What about morality? Well, there is little question about this. This god repeatedly refers to itself as jealous and demonstrates wrath, impatience, cruelty, intolerance, and more. The god described in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus is certainly willing to provide humanity with a number of laws, the majority of which are completely ignored by virtually all modern Christians. This god makes it clear that it is to be honored with animal blood and burnt offerings (i.e., animals sacrificed and burned on altars). However, most modern Christians would never dream of doing this, going so far as to equate such acts with Satanism when they were in fact mandated by the very god they claim to worship.

God defines our reality. Everything is a little less real when compared to Him. He made us in His image, and so it is very likely that He demonstrates a lot of the same types and characteristics that we do. As for jealousy, I would say that He is the Creator of the Universe and all life therein, so I think that He is justified in being jealous if we, who owe everything to him, pay homage to other deities that are nothing more than carved idols.

I would like to see a cite for impatience. I can counter with references to infinite patience.

Cruelty is subjective, so is intolerance. The Jews were the chosen people, so cruelty and intolerance to other peoples would be expected. During the events in the Torah, God’s covenant is only with the descendants of Isaac.

Wrath is another story altogether. Remember that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23; cf. Eph 2:1-3). Sin is a violation of the divine law of God. So we should expect that we have incurred His wrath if we do sin. The Bible clearly teaches us that we do sin; we are slaves to sin–we are dead in sin. Therefore, as above, we must take responsibility for our decisions when they don’t line up with God’s law and accept the fault for incurring His wrath.

Let’s examine why Christians “ignore” laws laid out in the Torah. I’m glad that VJack used the example of animal blood, since that is key to understanding the atonement of Christ. Repeatedly throughout Leviticus, God requests that we make animal sacrifices and pour the blood out as an atonement offering for sin. But, as VJack rightly observes, no Christian today would ever do something like that. But why, when the Bible so clearly tells us that that is how God wants us to atone for our sins against Him?  After all, there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22).

The answer lies in the book of Hebrews:

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (Heb 7:11)

In other words, Jesus has now nullified the old covenant, under which animal sacrifices were required, and ushered in a new covenant. But, why aren’t animal sacrifices necessary? Because of Jesus Himself:

For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever.’”

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:18-25, emphasis added)

So we have a better covenant in Christ, and He saves us to the uttermost, not the animal sacrifices.  For

. . . when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he(X) entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Heb 9:11-14, emphasis added)

The prophet Malachi also predicted a new type of sacrifice:

Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (Mal 1:10-11, emphasis added)

What does that mean?  I propose that it is answered by the apostle Paul in the book of Romans: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (12:1).  Our bodies, purified by the blood of Christ, can now be offered to God as living sacrifices, living according to His word and not according to the ways of the world.

This is why there are no animal sacrifices.  We have found a superior atonement for sin through Christ, and our now-purified bodies may be offered as a living sacrifice to God.

VJack continues:

The infamous passage in Leviticus does indeed state that male homosexuality is wrong (and that men who engage in homosexual must be killed), and yet, this is embedded among so many other laws given to humanity that it hardly stands out. It is fascinating that Christians obsess about the couple brief mentions this receives while completely ignoring the call for blood sacrifices, the clear requirement of stoning for minor crimes, and the multitude of references to the evils of yeast.

It is not fascinating in the least the such a big deal is made about this insignificant law. Christians are not the ones who make a big deal out of it. I have gay friends and I don’t preach to them. I doubt they know my position on homosexuality at all–that I believe it is sin, as the Bible teaches. This is an issue that gay rights groups have fought to bring to the forefront of controversy.

Homosexuality should be treated as any other sin. The homosexual should be urged to honor God with his or her lifestyle, and then shown in the Bible why homosexuality is wrong. That person shouldn’t be allowed into church leadership until the lifestyle is renounced for good, but by the same token he should also not be excluded from the church or made to feel unwelcome in any way. Granted, the second one is tough after a confrontation about his lifestyle, but the gospel message is meant to offend people. It is meant to make people feel uncomfortable. That is the convicting power of the Holy Spirit at work.

As for minor crimes–well, a sin is a sin in God’s eyes. Stoning disobedient children serves to underscore how serious that offense is in God’s eyes, even if it is only relatively minor in our own.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m glad that today’s Christians ignore nearly all of the laws their biblical god hands down in these three books. And yet, I remain puzzled that anyone claiming to be a Christian can ignore all of this, selectively choosing the couple parts that make them feel good while neglecting the bulk of what is actually there. This is the sort of god who is unlikely to react favorably to such neglect. If I believed in such a god, I don’t think I’d go near anything containing yeast!

I think that I have satisfactorily answered his conclusion. The laws are meant as guideposts for living until Christ came to set us free from our bondage to sin. The letter of the law kills, but the Spirit gives life, according to the apostle Paul. The issues pertaining to morality are the ones we pay special attention to.

As to choosing only the parts that make me feel good, I struggle with sin each day of my life. I wish I had it as easy as VJack claims I do; I wish I could ignore the parts that give me pause. I wish I could look lustfully upon women–but I know that is sin. I wish I could take more shortcuts at work, but knowing that I work for God and not for Burger King stops me almost every time. (Yes, almost–I never claim perfection! I too fall short of God’s glory.) I wish I could read notes in the office not addressed to me to keep up on what’s going on or entertain dark fantasies.

In VJack’s world, I can because I’m a Christian and I can do whatever I want while still claiming morality. But I know that isn’t the case, and I pray that I have shown why that is not the case.

“. . . and you will know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (Jn 8:32)

[B]rothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Phil 4:

For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Cor 10:4-6)

When I look at real crime scenarios, especially ones that involve sexual offenses, the common denominator is fantasy. The perpetrators of these horrific crimes all fantasize about the crime extensively before they commit it. Depending on how mature the fantasy appears, the police will know the approximate age of the offender and what (if any) prior offenses to look for.

The most dangerous criminal, aside from ex-law enforcement officers, is the sexual sadist. The sexual sadist has the most developed fantasy, and has fantasized about the crime until the fantasy matures. He has thought through almost every angle, usually well enough to lead no evidence at the first crime. Often police think that this isn’t the first offense because of how well-developed the fantasy is. This leads officials on a wild goose chase trying to locate previous crimes that don’t exist. Sexual sadists get their crimes right the first time, usually have no priors, and will always kill again.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran an article about daydreaming. Daydreaming can be good. Sometimes a temporary escape from reality is the best way to handle stress. However, in this article was a single line that made my blood run cold in light of the above information. The advice was to never censor your daydreams, because anything you dream about is okay because it is only a dream.

The two Bible verses above serve to show the contrast between worldly wisdom and biblical wisdom. Worldly wisdom tells us to let our thoughts run free and to think about whatever we want to. Don’t censor yourself, the world tells us, these are your thoughts, your fantasies, and your dreams. Whatever you daydream about is fine.

This advice is going to create more sexual sadists.

Instead, let’s take our cue from the Bible. Let’s take our daydreams captive for Christ. The enemy will use our thoughts and our daydreams against us. Instead of letting him, focus our thoughts on everything that is just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent, and praiseworthy. In other words,

. . . forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained. (Phil 3:13-16)

We know that David Copperfield is an illusionist.  He isn’t magical.  The tricks he performs on stage are just that: tricks!  They are sleight of hand illusions, albeit very large and complicated.  As his website proclaims, he amazes audiences.

His website also proclaims that Mr. Copperfield has “sold more tickets and grossed more money than Lion King, Cats, Phantom of the Opera, and Chicago even during their best weeks.”  In fact, he still holds the Broadway record.  His London show sold out 20 straight performances.  His television specials outperform top sporting events and won him 21 Emmy Awards.  Over the past ten years, he has grossed $1 billion in ticket sales.  We keep coming back for more and more, even though we know that he’s playing tricks on our eyes and our minds.

In other words, we understand that there is a rational explanation behind his illusions.  Some recent TV shows have taken us behind the scenes of magician tricks, showing audiences how the illusions actually work.  Yet we still keep coming back for more illusory magic.

Why, then, is the battle between atheist vs. theist so heated on the “God of the gaps” point?  Science, the atheist says, narrows God’s province as we furnish more and more phenomena  with a rational, scientific explanation.  Instead, why can’t we just be in more awe of God, who provided nature with that design in the first place?

We humans are still in awe and wonder of other humans who do amazing things.  As I’ve shown above with David Copperfield, even though we know that a rational explanation exists, we still keep coming back for more.  So I don’t see why science should drive us away from God; rather, it should pull us closer.

Elizabeth Schmitz left a comment on my blog that was a verbatim repost of her latest entry.  I decided to check out what she had to say, on the off chance that it might be interesting or informative. Her blog was plain, and no different than any other anti-Christian social issues blog I’ve ever seen. I dug a little bit on her blog and found this post, which bears commenting on.

Elizabeth says that this is one of her favorite passages in the Bible:

But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” (Ruth 1:16-17)

Her thought, shallow and unsophisticated though it is, on that verse is:

That is one woman speaking to another (Ruth to Naomi to be exact). The religious right tries as hard as it can to demonize the love between two individuals of the same sex, but this passage shows that it was alive and celebrated in the Bible, as I wish it only could be today.

First of all, no one demonizes love between the same sex, particularly if it is the same sort of love that Ruth is demonstrating to Naomi. There are a few things that Elizabeth is neither telling us nor considering into the context of this passage. There is also at least one underlying assumption she betrays that is false.

First, Elizabeth is skirting the issue of who these women are. Ruth is Naomi’s daughter-in-law. I really don’t see a romantic relationship developing between these two women. Naomi is older, too old to find a husband (1:12). Later in the story, Naomi helps Ruth find a husband, Boaz (Ruth 3). They marry and bear a son, Obed (Ruth 4) who is the grandfather of King David (verse 17).

The rest of the story shows that this statement made by Ruth is one of loyalty, not romantic love. Were these two lovers, would Naomi really have helped Ruth find a new husband? More importantly, would Naomi be as bitter as she was when she first returned home with Ruth (1:20-21) if the two were lovers?

The underlying assumption that Elizabeth betrays is that she thinks that all outward shows of love must be romantic love. Why can’t this be simple loyalty? Naomi was the family that Ruth was close to, so it make sense that she would cling to her mother-in-law after the death of her husband. Why return to her own family if they weren’t close? Choosing to stay with Naomi in this case isn’t a case of romantic love, but one of family loyalty.

So, who is Elizabeth Schmitz? Well, her About page is very mysterious. However, I have noticed the similarity in tone and opinion to someone I’ve taken on before. That is Eliza from DefCon. I think that Ms. Schmitz and Eliza are one in the same.

Although this lawsuit is filed with a specific political agenda in mind, it is interesting for its theological considerations as well.

I thought that I’d take a moment to ruminate on the possibility of actually suing God and winning. The reason is that, by necessity, I have been studying the philosophical aspects of the Trinity in order to write a much more serious article in response to Dave Armstrong than this humorous and philosophically entertaining one. The primary concept that I’ve been looking into is perichoresis–the inherent coexistence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and their indwelling within the elect. It is this indwelling that creates God’s omnipresence. This lawsuit states that, since God is omnipresent, He is therefore present in Douglas county (which is the venue of the suit).

That is very true. God created the universe, so He is not contained by it. In fact, the universe is contained within Him, and it is in Him that the universe takes its identity and in Him that the universe finds its being. He is the only reality, our reality is only at His will and pleasure. As a result, to borrow a simpler way of putting it from my brother-in-law Nate, “God is the only reality, and we are ‘less real’ by comparison.” Truly, we can only define ourselves in relation to Him.

This is God’s Sovereignty. The Bible makes it clear that we derive everything from Him (Gen 1:26): our identity, our dominion of land and animals, our likenesses. Everything was His first, and He gifted some of it to us. As I’ve often said, “We owe Him everything; He owes us nothing.”

So, if He is the perfection that we aspire to become but cannot attain, if He is the only way by which we can define ourselves and the Ultimate Cause of Everything, how are we able to properly obtain an injunction against that which is His divine work? More importantly, how could this injunction possibly be enforced?

We are gifted with a limited sovereignty over God’s creation–He gifted that to us. He defined the relationship we have to the rest of the earth, and we use His Ultimate Sovereignty as the model for the limited sovereignty He gave us. The point is that He is the One who defines these rules–in fact, our laws are only a model of the divine laws He gave us in His word, the Bible. We don’t just exist because of Him, the way we live is defined in relation to Him.

He shouldn’t be subject to our laws or even our ideals of Him. Doing so is trying to contain Him. But we don’t contain God, He contains us while penetrating and surrounding us–that is the essence of perichoresis (which, according to Wikipedia, is Greek for “envelope”). This model of creation is derived from the Trinity itself: each member of the Trinity surrounds, penetrates, and contains each other member. All are God, and God is all. But each has a unique ministry that the others are present and take active roles in as a consequence and extension of their identity as a Trinity. This is the same way creation is expressed: God is in and through all of it as a consequence of His identity as God, the creator, container, and sustainer of this all.

It is as beautiful as it is mysterious, and it gives me a greater sense of wonder as I worship God, my Creator (Father), my Savior (Son), and my Helper and Comforter (Holy Spirit).

I have consolidated, edited, and updated the preceding three parts of this series here. Since it has been a while in posting (mostly due to serious computer issues that have crippled my Internet access) it may help to familiarize yourself with what has come before this so that you will be up to date. As sometimes happens, in writing and researching this piece I have changed my mind about the necessity of no physical death prior to the Fall, I now believe that it is possible the Fall only brought on spiritual death. However, I am not at all convinced that God merely breathed a soul into Adam, who prior to that had evolved from the ground up (so to speak). I have made some changes in the articles to reflect this new conviction.

The seat of Mike’s argument is Romans 11, which he says is the model for God allowing changes to occur on their own without removing his meticulous sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile given its proximity to Romans 9, which is the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination and the Calvinist view of soteriology. The ultimate passage in meticulous sovereignty would never be placed right next to the ultimate passage for letting things go and coming back later to see how they worked out. Paul wrote the to the Romans his masterwork letter, and he plotted its structure far too carefully to let two such contradictory notions slide in side-by-side.

There is a way to reconcile these points with each other, and for that we need not go any further than our own logic. Read more »

I was scanning the blogosphere this morning and found this gem from The Atheocracy:

Why would sexuality seemingly be the one preference in human existence where there’s just one right choice, and it’s black or white? Humans are complex creatures. Our preferences for foods, drinks, friends, TV shows, movies and even, yes, blogs are pretty fluid. They change over time; they aren’t usually extreme (”That new Ben Affleck movie sucked, but it didn’t suck quite as much as his previous movie”). Our minds don’t tend to think of preferences in black/white terms. It’s all shades of constant grays.

So why would we think sexuality is different? It’s one of a very few acts that connects us with our most distant ancestors. Every human who has ever lived past the age of about 8 has experienced some sort of sexual desire (And some earlier than that … shout out to my Kindergarten girlfriend, Melissa. Rawr!). I believe these desires are just as fluid and gray as any others. The ideas of heterosexuality and homosexuality are created by humans in a society that would prefer to label people in this manner. In the human mind, those labels don’t exist. It’s all situational. It’s all genetics. Even Christians can’t seriously claim humans should have sex only for procreation. (source)

I actually agree with Jeff right up to this point.  However, he concludes that “. . . if there are other reasons for sex, there is no reason to restrict which consenting adults can have sex with each other.”  Huh?  Now that sounds like Jeff has just concluded what a person with an evolutionary mindset would conclude.

Let me explain.  Starting from the premise that we are nothing more than animals–highly evolved ones, but animals nonetheless–we look at how the other animals handle sex and monogamy.  Well, except for certain birds, monogamy is all but unheard of.  Sex is had wherever, whenever, and with whomever it is desired.  Now, since we evolved from animals and are really animals ourselves, then there is no reason to obey any sort of etiquette about sex–especially when it’s derived from a 4000 year old book.  We’re so much smarter now.

So much smarter, in fact, that we are removing restrictions placed on which consenting adults can have sex, and thus stepping backwards to behavior found in lower forms of life?

Interesting.

Most recently, I’ve been discussing the founding principles of Geocreationism. I have yet to tackle the main Scripture passage from where Mike models his idea, Romans 11. Rest assured that is coming very quickly. I just wanted to take some time to respond to comments from Brian on his blog about fighting creationism.

But first, I think it is important to establish the importance of talking about origins at all. If one side wins this monstrous debate, will it make a difference? It will make a difference, and more is at stake than many people realize. How we see our origins fundamentally affects our worldview.

If we have, indeed, evolved from early hominids, and were not the special creations of a loving God, then a few things follow from that. Most evolutionists don’t see that, but here I am talking to the Christians and to the seekers. First, if we are nothing more than higly evolved animals, then there is truly no reason to be better than them. If I am not called for a purpose by a higher power, then why bother with morality or living right? I’m only responsible to myself, so I may as well horde all the wealth I can and have threesomes every night with beautiful models. Death means annihilation, so I may as well have all the fun I can while I’m alive since it won’t matter once I die. Nice guys finish last, right?

Of course, if I am the special creation of God and called according to His purpose, it now follows that I have a responsibility to Him. It is improper to say that I am moral and live right because I fear punishment from God. If a Creator exists, then it stands to reason that He would know what “living right” means, and that I would do well to follow His precepts.

In fact, following His precepts have made my life complete. Defending His truth, which I feel called to do through this blog and other forms of Internet evangelism, have given my life a much needed purpose and direction. Reading the Bible and seeing the truths it contains does, as Jesus contends, make me free.

So, why talk about origins at all? Well, simply put, the evolutionary viewpoint makes you responsible to no one. You might as well live for you. The Christian viewpoint makes you a steward of God’s creation, so you should do all you can to seek His will for what He has blessed you with. You should be a responsible steward of these blessings. Read more »