Saturday, October 11, 2003
There are many ways to take God's name in vain and to violate the Third Commandment. We use God's name in vain if the word "God" has no meaning to us, if we have emptied it of meaning. The minister who claims that every religion worships the same God is taking God's name in vain, because he has emptied the word "God" of attributes.
For instance, the word "cat" is empty if devoid of attributes. "Cat" can mean a house animal, a jazz musician, several kinds of boats, a whip, any of a number of a class of animals called felines, a guy, a certain kind of tractor. If I am not careful of my use of the word I can fall into the logical error of ambiguity, such as: "Because cats eat mice, it is certain that my neighbor will rid his house of mice because he bought a new cat from the tractor company." You may look stupid if you reason in such a way, but you will not put your soul in jeopardy. The error of ambiguity results when words are emptied of their attributes, so becoming vain. "Attributes" are the concept that we attribute to a word to give it meaning. A jazz musician has a great many distinct attributes from a whip. It is ignorant, foolish, or wicked to change the loading of a word in the middle of a discussion.
It is not the same with God, however, for He will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain. If we say that Jews worship God, Islam worships God, and Christians worship God and therefore they worship the same thing, we have horribly misused the name of God and put our souls in jeopardy. The only way to the true God is through Jesus Christ, for He said that no one comes to the Father but by Him. He also said that if we are to honor the Son with the same honor that we give the Father, and we do not honor the Father if we do not do so. If you do not worship Jesus Christ, then you do not worship the true God. It is as simple as that.
To say, then, that Judaism and Islam worship God truly, even though they deny Jesus Christ as the Son of God, is to empty the word God of meaning. The result is a use of God's name in an empty way, or in vain. Beware the Third Commandment if you would be saved.
For instance, the word "cat" is empty if devoid of attributes. "Cat" can mean a house animal, a jazz musician, several kinds of boats, a whip, any of a number of a class of animals called felines, a guy, a certain kind of tractor. If I am not careful of my use of the word I can fall into the logical error of ambiguity, such as: "Because cats eat mice, it is certain that my neighbor will rid his house of mice because he bought a new cat from the tractor company." You may look stupid if you reason in such a way, but you will not put your soul in jeopardy. The error of ambiguity results when words are emptied of their attributes, so becoming vain. "Attributes" are the concept that we attribute to a word to give it meaning. A jazz musician has a great many distinct attributes from a whip. It is ignorant, foolish, or wicked to change the loading of a word in the middle of a discussion.
It is not the same with God, however, for He will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain. If we say that Jews worship God, Islam worships God, and Christians worship God and therefore they worship the same thing, we have horribly misused the name of God and put our souls in jeopardy. The only way to the true God is through Jesus Christ, for He said that no one comes to the Father but by Him. He also said that if we are to honor the Son with the same honor that we give the Father, and we do not honor the Father if we do not do so. If you do not worship Jesus Christ, then you do not worship the true God. It is as simple as that.
To say, then, that Judaism and Islam worship God truly, even though they deny Jesus Christ as the Son of God, is to empty the word God of meaning. The result is a use of God's name in an empty way, or in vain. Beware the Third Commandment if you would be saved.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Friday, October 10, 2003
Your sex. Your skin color. Your race. The century and date of your birth. The identity of your parents. The economic condition of your parents. The continent and country in which you were born. Your general health at birth, and lack or presence of deformities, blindness, deafness, or handicaps of some sort.
You had a lot to do with each of these, right?
Then why do you prate on about free will? Helen Keller was a very admirable character. She didn't choose blindness, and could not choose it away. I was born a Powell; my mother had an 8th grade education, my father, an ex-con, had part of a 10th grade education. My name was not Rockefeller, I inherited no trust fund, but I had a decent upbringing and have many happy memories of my childhood and my extended family. But I could have been bitter about my dad. He never held a steady job; we lived in thirty or forty different places by the time I finished high school; I went to three different high schools. But I never had a sliver of bitterness about any of this. Why? I don't know.
But I think it was because of things I learned in church. Somehow the message seeped into my soul that everything that happened to me was for my good. I believed that. It was only many years later that I learned the words of the Heidelberg Catechism:
My only comfort in life and in death is that I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live unto Him.
I knew the doctrine long before I knew the catechism.
Would my life have been different if I had been born a girl in 1654 a.d. in what is now Bolivia? Somehow I suspect that it would have. I am thankful for the grace and mercy of God. If things happened by chance, or if the events of my life depended upon the random choices of the billions of people who do and have and will inhabit the world, then why not just eat, drink, and raise cain? Teach your kids that and you are giving them a formula for suicide. It boggles the mind to think that people could be so nasty as to teach that stuff to kids, just so that they [the teachers] could justify their own rotten life-styles. And they congratulate themselves on liking kids. Whew!
Thankfulness is an important component of faith; in fact, without thankfulness faith is only a shadow and illusion.
You had a lot to do with each of these, right?
Then why do you prate on about free will? Helen Keller was a very admirable character. She didn't choose blindness, and could not choose it away. I was born a Powell; my mother had an 8th grade education, my father, an ex-con, had part of a 10th grade education. My name was not Rockefeller, I inherited no trust fund, but I had a decent upbringing and have many happy memories of my childhood and my extended family. But I could have been bitter about my dad. He never held a steady job; we lived in thirty or forty different places by the time I finished high school; I went to three different high schools. But I never had a sliver of bitterness about any of this. Why? I don't know.
But I think it was because of things I learned in church. Somehow the message seeped into my soul that everything that happened to me was for my good. I believed that. It was only many years later that I learned the words of the Heidelberg Catechism:
My only comfort in life and in death is that I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live unto Him.
I knew the doctrine long before I knew the catechism.
Would my life have been different if I had been born a girl in 1654 a.d. in what is now Bolivia? Somehow I suspect that it would have. I am thankful for the grace and mercy of God. If things happened by chance, or if the events of my life depended upon the random choices of the billions of people who do and have and will inhabit the world, then why not just eat, drink, and raise cain? Teach your kids that and you are giving them a formula for suicide. It boggles the mind to think that people could be so nasty as to teach that stuff to kids, just so that they [the teachers] could justify their own rotten life-styles. And they congratulate themselves on liking kids. Whew!
Thankfulness is an important component of faith; in fact, without thankfulness faith is only a shadow and illusion.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
There is a modern tendency to separate morals from doctrine. In the expansive and benevolent liberalism of 20th century America, we prided ourselves on our tolerance in doctrine. "He is a good man," we would intone piously. "He is of a different religion than I am, but he is such a good man." There should be a pious roll of the eyes here.
It isn't true, of course. A man lives by what he really believes to be true. If a man really believes that the Jews poison the water and offer Christian babies in sacrifice, he can be expected to be cool in his relationship to his Jewish neighbors. If a man believes that the United States is the Great Satan, he can be expected to try to overcome the United States, unless he sells his soul to the same Great Satan, which means that he really doesn't love truth and righteousness, but really and truly believes that what is good for him is the only truth. Either way, he is not to be trusted as a friend of Christianity.
Scripture says is, "Evil communications corrupt good manners." [1 Corinthians 15:23] "Communications" means the ideas of your companions. If you listen to the evil ideas of your companions, your way of life will become corrupt. That is the reason that we are commanded to beware of angry men: "An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression." {--Prov. 29:22, and many like Scriptures.]
Jesus said we will be judge by our words. Ecc. 5 says that God is angry with the words of the wicked and will destroy the works of their hands. The wicked is caught in a most terrible dilemma. If he says what he really thinks, then he blasphemes against the truth of God, because of the wicked ideas and opinions he has. On the other hand if he says what he doesn't think, then he is a liar and is condemned by God. On the third hand [!!!] if he just indulges in meaningless chatter, then he is under the wrath of God for his vain and empty words, as Jesus said. [Matt. 12:36]. So he better just keep silent, but even that will do him no good, for his very silence will condemn him and reveal him to be under the wrath of God because "for it is by our words we shall be justified," Jesus said.
What a man says, or does not say, reveals his character. Many Americans think that certain preachers are good and kind men, even though they never preach about hell, never preach about the sinful behavior and lifestyles that attract the wrath of God. They never preach about doctrine "for doctrine divides," forgetting the martyrs and saints who died for doctrine, for they understood the importance of truth. They were not ashamed to make "truth claims" about God, for the martyrs were not blind leaders of the blind.
A preach who witholds the truth from his congregation is simply a paid liar. He is being paid to keep his mouth shut and he honors his contract with the people. Such men are not a "good men."
It isn't true, of course. A man lives by what he really believes to be true. If a man really believes that the Jews poison the water and offer Christian babies in sacrifice, he can be expected to be cool in his relationship to his Jewish neighbors. If a man believes that the United States is the Great Satan, he can be expected to try to overcome the United States, unless he sells his soul to the same Great Satan, which means that he really doesn't love truth and righteousness, but really and truly believes that what is good for him is the only truth. Either way, he is not to be trusted as a friend of Christianity.
Scripture says is, "Evil communications corrupt good manners." [1 Corinthians 15:23] "Communications" means the ideas of your companions. If you listen to the evil ideas of your companions, your way of life will become corrupt. That is the reason that we are commanded to beware of angry men: "An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression." {--Prov. 29:22, and many like Scriptures.]
Jesus said we will be judge by our words. Ecc. 5 says that God is angry with the words of the wicked and will destroy the works of their hands. The wicked is caught in a most terrible dilemma. If he says what he really thinks, then he blasphemes against the truth of God, because of the wicked ideas and opinions he has. On the other hand if he says what he doesn't think, then he is a liar and is condemned by God. On the third hand [!!!] if he just indulges in meaningless chatter, then he is under the wrath of God for his vain and empty words, as Jesus said. [Matt. 12:36]. So he better just keep silent, but even that will do him no good, for his very silence will condemn him and reveal him to be under the wrath of God because "for it is by our words we shall be justified," Jesus said.
What a man says, or does not say, reveals his character. Many Americans think that certain preachers are good and kind men, even though they never preach about hell, never preach about the sinful behavior and lifestyles that attract the wrath of God. They never preach about doctrine "for doctrine divides," forgetting the martyrs and saints who died for doctrine, for they understood the importance of truth. They were not ashamed to make "truth claims" about God, for the martyrs were not blind leaders of the blind.
A preach who witholds the truth from his congregation is simply a paid liar. He is being paid to keep his mouth shut and he honors his contract with the people. Such men are not a "good men."
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Monday, October 06, 2003
Jesus Our Lord Is a Complete Savior
The Lord Jesus is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. [I Cor. 1:30] He does not give us these things in order for us to be worthy to access God; that is the error of salvation by infused righteousness. Instead, He is made to us these things. Jesus is our wisdom; He is our righteousnes; He is our sanctification; and He is our redemption. This is why we are called to believe in Him and to Trust him.
You will never be wise enough to discern the way to God. Even the enlightened mind of the child of God is not sufficient to rise up to God. The Holy Spirit does not work against the Mediator, but the work of the Holy Spirit is to enlighten my mind to seek my wisdom in Christ. Neither does the Holy Spirit infuse sufficient righteousness into the Christian to enable him to deserve the favor of God, for if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us [I John 1] Instead, the Holy Spirit gives the child of God a hunger and thirst after righteousness, so that he will seek Christ, to find in Christ sufficient righteousness to satisfy the righteous demands of God. The perfection that the law requires is found only in one man, the God/man, the mediator between God and man.
You will never be holy enough in this life to stand in the presence of God. Even the holiest of men, by their own admission in all the ages of the church, have only a small beginning in the practice of holiness. But Christ is made our holiness, and in Him is sufficient holiness to satisfy the most stringent demands of the law of God.
Nothing we can do as a child of God is redemptive as far as the salvation of our souls is concerned. We can never do enough good deeds, or have sufficient righteousness to pay God for our transgressions against His glory and perfection. But Jesus Christ is our redemption, and He fully satisfied for all our sins.
Paul put it this way, "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: Phil 3:8,9.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Sunday, October 05, 2003
I have finally gotten around to picking up Doug Kelly's book Creation and Change, published by Christian Focus Publications LTd. Douglas Kelly is Professor of Systematic Theology at Reforemd Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC.
Although I have not finished the book yet, I am impressed with it, and have had my mind jogged again to the necessity of God as a foundation for science. How can man even interpret the world if it is not subject to rational inquiry? Science presupposes so many things that it does not declare. Is there no difference between the animals that are studied and the man who studies them?
We are on the edge of a great shift in scientific thought. The old mechanistic presuppositions are being challenged. Such a shift came with Darwin, and the challenges to Darwin will bring about another change. It will take the death, perhaps, of some icons in the scientific community, but the change will come. Such changes are resisted by establishments. As John Angus Campbell notes, "huge edifices of ideas--such as positivism--never really die. Thinking people gradually abandon them and even ridicule them among themselves, but keep the persuasively useful parts to scare away the uninformed." [Quoted by Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p. 284. The Free Press: New York, 1996. John A Campbell, "The Cosmic Frame and the Rhetoric of Science: Epistemology and Ethics in Darwin's Origin, Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 24, 27-50.] Empasis mine. Available from Amazon
Although I have not finished the book yet, I am impressed with it, and have had my mind jogged again to the necessity of God as a foundation for science. How can man even interpret the world if it is not subject to rational inquiry? Science presupposes so many things that it does not declare. Is there no difference between the animals that are studied and the man who studies them?
We are on the edge of a great shift in scientific thought. The old mechanistic presuppositions are being challenged. Such a shift came with Darwin, and the challenges to Darwin will bring about another change. It will take the death, perhaps, of some icons in the scientific community, but the change will come. Such changes are resisted by establishments. As John Angus Campbell notes, "huge edifices of ideas--such as positivism--never really die. Thinking people gradually abandon them and even ridicule them among themselves, but keep the persuasively useful parts to scare away the uninformed." [Quoted by Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p. 284. The Free Press: New York, 1996. John A Campbell, "The Cosmic Frame and the Rhetoric of Science: Epistemology and Ethics in Darwin's Origin, Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 24, 27-50.] Empasis mine. Available from Amazon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
