Romans 1: Apostles, Blessings, and the Simple Gospel

Greetings!

This evening's post is here to be the seldom reminder that Josiah does in fact have a blog and that somehow it has succeeded in surviving over the years.  As you can see, it opens like some of the other posts, by pointing out how long it's been since the last time...

It's an experiment today on a couple of different fronts.  I'd like to be more disciplined in Bible study, because it's been something that I've been horribly lax in, and I thought that perhaps by blogging what I read/study at least some of the time, it might aid me in bettering that.  And secondly, it will be an experiment to see if I can successfully blog more than once a year perhaps.

I've actually done some minor re-arranging of the living room for this purpose, replacing the piano keyboard with a small desk, and I'm irresponsibly drinking a homemade iced machiatto at 11 PM in the hopes that it will help me not to get too drowsy and distracted from the task at hand (but it's a single shot, so I think we're okay...maybe?).

Anyway, lest this become tomorrow's post, I'd better get going quickly.  The morning cometh...

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

I'd like to try going through Romans.  As noted, we'll see if this ends up going anywhere in terms of the blog.  Doubtless, there will be some fun if we get around to chapter 13 in these writings, and time will tell if each post contains a chapter, or if I end up getting more into detail, requiring multiple posting for given chapter(s).

I tend to find the Pauline epistles to be my more favored books of the Bible to read.  There are some who may chide me for the phrase, and it's not an entirely accurate representation of how I feel, but in summary, I find that the epistles seem to contain what is most immediately applicable to the Christian life.  Being a person who is dispositioned to provide qualifiers, let me remind you that I said this is not the most accurate way of putting it.  I do believe it in part, but nor do I want to discredit the value of any of the rest of the Bible.  It's all vitally important, and it all ties together.  That said, if I had to choose one section of the Bible to dwell on for the remainder of my life; I'd likely choose the epistles; and if I have to choose one book, it's probably going to be Romans (although Acts is a pretty decent contender as well).

But enough with the much speakings.  Let us dive in and see what Romans 1 has to open the book with.  I'm going to try reading it and putting my thoughts, questions, and comments here as I go.  I might not try to answer all the questions.  In fact, I might just put loads of questions down with no answers, or with surmising being all that is provided.  Let these help stimulate the conversations...

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

So to start with, Paul opens in verses 1-7 and what sticks out to me at first is a couple of mentions of "apostle."  The question of apostleship is one that comes up once in a while with various discussions or teachings I hear, and at times it's usage or definition can make a difference in terms of how a scripture is to be understood.  I believe where I seem to have encountered it in the past is how it relates to the 5-fold ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12) and whether we can still have apostles today.  There are other branches of the topic in which it becomes more significant, but they escape me at the moment.  I feel like perhaps they lead into some ideas of the spiritual gifts or something, but like I said...they escape me at the moment, so I'm not sure.  Let's stick with what isn't escaping me.

To this current point in time, I've carried a general understanding that an apostle is a disciple of Jesus who was actually present with Jesus and was an eyewitness of Him and took the gospel to others, typically involving themselves in the seeding of churches.  Specifically, that it was one of the "well-known" 12-disciples, plus Paul.  There are areas of this which are a little fuzzy to me, such as "why weren't other followers of Christ who saw him with their eyes, and who took the gospel to others also considered apostles?"  Or were they and we just don't reference them like that?

So when I briefly perused the Internet looking for a Biblical description of "apostle" I found the following:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apostle/

Of note, this article states that the four gospels and Acts seem to use "apostle" only to reference the twelve disciples, but that Paul, in his epistles, uses the phrase more generously when speaking about others.  Of interest, when I looked into this in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7, Paul is speaking of who Jesus appeared to after His resurrection.  He says "He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" in verse 5 and then he mentions "then to all the apostles" in verse 7.  It's an interesting observation which is initially suggestive that "the twelve" and "all apostles" reference two difference groups or divisions of people, but we could also come out with an understanding that this could be Jesus appearing to the same group of people on two different occasions, and Paul just used a different description for the same collection of disciples perhaps.  After all, he mentions Cephas, and then James separately as well, and both of these fellows would be included in the twelve.  It's interesting wording.  I tend to think that "all apostles" is probably referring to a different subset of disciples than "the twelve" simply because I'd have expected Paul to say "and then he appeared to the twelve again."  But I'll acknowledge that this is not a completely objective conclusion, especially in light of the fact that I do not have a strong knowledge of how the original language would have worked and what sort of writing style would have actually been employed in describing scenarios like this.
 
What's the point?  Well, if we can conclude that there were more apostles than just the twelve disciples plus Paul, we have to acknowledge that the definition of "apostle" has more substance than just "the original twelve called eyewitnesses of Jesus, plus Paul."  And then we can see if the definition that follows is limited such that it cannot allow for apostles to exist today.  If it is, we can see if it's an unwieldy definition that follows, such that it requires more substantial poking to see if continues to stand up.  Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion or bias for the definition's outcome to be one way or the other.  I'm just aware that it can be a pertinent point at times in other conversations, so the question is of interest to me.

Oh dear, it's tomorrow already... but the show goes on.  Let us persevere onward and see how far we get.

So I've just scanned the above link on apostles further, and this topic will need a lot more paper.  It may even require a more intense time of sitting down studying the topic all by itself.  That's not exactly my intention right now, and so I feel content to let it sit for the moment with promises (hopefully not vain ones) that I may come back to it at some point when I feel it's more important.

Honestly, after perusing the article, I feel discouraged that I already wrote what I have so far and then observed that it's almost useless compared to the much more educated format of the writings I linked to.  But I'm leaving my writings here, perhaps as a lesson to myself that it might not be the best strategy to write as I go versus studying and writing later.  But also because perhaps this will help expose the way I think to you.  That is part of the idea behind a blog is it not?

Moving on...

Another quick thought on Paul's intro, focusing on verse 7.  I'm sure you could make at least a small study just on Paul's intro and outro salutations.  There's some good value to be obtained in seeing the care that he has for those he writes to.  Of note, a thought that comes to mind as I read "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" - this is a blessing.  Meaning, Paul is speaking a blessing.  Not in some "name it and claim it" way, but in a more..."real" application?  A solid phrasing escapes me here.  I've thought before when looking at other parts of the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament it seems; there is a true value in the idea of giving a blessing to someone.  When Isaac blessed Jacob; that was something real.  Jacob legitimately stole a blessing from his brother Esau.  Those weren't just "good feeling words" that Issac said.  After he said them, he had given something away as a result.  So much so, that he couldn't just repeat the same thing to Esau so that Esau could have the same good blessing.  The blessing was already allocated.  I'm not sure if it's exactly the same thing as what Paul is speaking here, but regardless, I think Christians could stand to honestly bless one another more often in word.  That includes myself - I should probably work on greeting my fellow believers with a blessing more often.  Have to ponder that one more.

Reading on to verse 10, as Paul says "asking that somehow by God's will I may now succeed in coming to you" - here is an acknowledgement on Paul's part that although Paul has a desire to come visit the believers in Rome, he is firstly subject to God's plans for him.  It makes me think of Proverbs 16:9, which notes how we make our plans, but God actually determines the real outcome of our lives (Predestination poking it's head in here...not ready to go after that topic in detail yet - all I'll say is that Paul wasn't the sort to say "I'll do whatever, because God makes my life happen the way he wants it to anyway."  He still made proper spiritually-minded plans.).

In verse 11 - Paul has a specific goal in mind for why he wants to visit the church in Rome.  And it's a shame to me as well as to many others I'm sure.  Paul specifically wants to visit so that he can impart some spiritual gift to the church.  He wants to contribute to the spiritual condition of the church.  Nearly always if I'm honest, I show up to church thinking of being ready to "hear what God wants to tell me through today's message" and completely neglecting any idea of being of spiritual service to my brothers and sisters who are also meeting with me.  If I am indeed of spiritual service; it's completely the work of God, because I probably didn't show up with that intent (it's completely the work of God anyway, but I think you know what I'm saying).

Verse 15 is a bit interesting to me also.  Paul is eager to preach the gospel to those who are in Rome.  He is speaking to believers is he not? Someone correct me if you have a better understanding than me, which would suggest he's writing to unbelievers.  If these people are believers, then why do they need to hear the gospel?  Don't they know it already?  If you haven't heard the gospel, how can you be a believer?  But perhaps Paul is using the word a bit liberally to refer to spiritual truths.  Or perhaps the purpose of sharing the gospel even among believers, is for the benefit of others among the group who are not believers.  Another passage that comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 2:1-2 in which Paul says that he decided not to preach anything to the church there except Christ and Him crucified.  Sounds like the gospel to me.  Also coming to mind is Acts 15, in which it was decided that the Gentiles were not to be instructed to be subject to the Mosaic law, but to be taught to adhere to a certain few things and they would do well.  The focus of many outside teachings being brought in to the local church there seems to be of less importance.  I realize it's not quite the best comparison to say that not teaching adherence to the mosaic law is the same as "not teaching anything but the gospel," but I think there is some value to be understood here in terms of not overcomplicating spiritual teaching.  These passages make me think of the issue of division in the church through matters of denomination.  Now, there are aspects in which proper doctrine must be upheld, and there are matters which are of importance, but there is certainly a great need for us to often just shut our mouths and let God administer his grace where he sees fit.  I'm horribly guilty of this frequently - spending great amounts of time arguing a particular topic deep into the ground with someone, only to come away concluding that while I very much disagree, I also cannot always conclude that the opposing person's heart is wrong before God, because I must acknowledge that the fruit their life bears is demonstrative of them being a genuine Christian.  It can be apparent in the argument that their intention is to serve God wholeheartedly based on the understanding they have of scripture.  Have I got this one down yet?  Nope.  Working on it.  There's a balance to be made between standing for truth, but also allowing God's grace to cover topics of disagreement, and also acknowledging that I myself am a fallible man, and could very well be wrong on a given topic, regardless of how convinced I am that it is true, or how many people or great teachers I draw support from.  Perhaps if I do continue write more, it will be more apparent which topics I believe are less negotiable due to being of greater importance, and which ones I have come to be more "tolerant" of; believing that they are not strictly heresy.  I don't believe that scripture can contain two interpretations of the same topic.  God is consistent and unchanging and He knew what He meant when His Holy Spirit inspired His written words.  We men are the ones who stumble over how to understand it.

I think I shall stop here for now.  I am tempted to try going over verses 16-17 before moving on because I see that 18 through the rest of the chapter seems to be a more continuous topic, based on the chapter headers, but I also see that verses 16 and 17 may require some unpacking, and I could be up for longer than is wise if I try that (it seems a bit wrong in some way to suggest that it's unwise to stay up late when studying the Bible...Not sure what to offer here to defend that idea.  I'm probably just wrong.  Probably should have just started sooner to begin with.).
 
See you again, if the writing continues!

Hebrews 1 as it Pertains to the Trinity

Hello and welcome back (if you've read my blogs before).  It's been over a year since my last posting, which itself was nearly 3 years after its predecessor.  My blog name and quote remain as they originally were in 2012; maybe I'll change them someday...

Tonight's topic is on the Trinity.  I was inspired to write about it a bit because I was reading Hebrews 1 this evening and I felt that this chapter is quite good in terms of providing a Trinity defense because its use of descriptors and language promotes the difference between God's person of the Father and His person of the Son and I wanted to go through this a bit.

Before we get started, I will give a brief background on my interest in this topic, because I do indeed have an interest in it.  It was not until later in my life that I learned that there are Christian groups who deny that the Trinity is "a thing."  I had always taken it for granted that it was, and when presented with this alternative viewpoint, I was challenged to review it and upon doing so, found no dearth of scripture to support the idea that the three-in-one composition does indeed seem to be a characteristic of God.

I want to take a moment to try to describe the Trinity somewhat.  This is difficult, because although there are analogies that can be made to help explain it, none of them are an exact correlation to it.  So to start, the Trinity is supernatural in nature.  It is not something that exists in the "normal world."  You can find co-dependent beings and you can find things that exist in different states, but you do not find anything that is simultaneously three things and yet one.  The Trinity is entirely supernatural and therefore, we cannot completely comprehend its composition.  I can make an effort to explain it and I will, but I cannot give you a complete logical description of it because it defies worldly logic.  I take it by faith based on two points.  Firstly, that God Himself states in multiple scriptures that He is one God.  Not three Gods, not many Gods, but one God.  Secondly however, the Bible on multiple occasions uses words that clearly indicates that God is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit, and the language and context used are very clear that each is not the same as the other.  It is clear that they are all God (the same God), but it is also clear that they are not each the same in role.  Because I know that scripture does not contradict itself (if it does, then Christianity has little to no basis), the reconciliation between these two points is that God is supernaturally and simultaneously three and one.  No three separate beings that comprise one unified "team" and not three "hats" on the same one being, but three "persons" and yet one God.  This is the best I can do at the moment.  I want to emphasize the fact that this is a supernatural fact.  The implication of that being that it cannot be completely understood in the physical world where we have nothing to compare it with and therefore draw a more complete understanding of it.

I want to point out a few common opposing points I've seen or heard of and my thoughts on them.

1. I have commonly seen that "unitarians" rely heavily on the many Bible verses in which God explicitly states "I am one God" or "The Lord your God is one God."  My answer to this: This is not a contradiction to a "trinitarian" because by definition, the Trinity is both three and one.  So these verses do not undermine the concept of the Trinity unless you also resort to changing the accepted definition of what the Trinity is.  And if you do that, then you are no longer arguing the same point I am, so you will have gone off topic.
2. Some unitarians resort to "modalism" which is the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed separate, but that God only manifests as one of the three at any one time.  That He has three "modes" which he switches between.  My answer to this: Review the baptism of Jesus.  All three are present at the same time.  Jesus is being baptized, the Father is saying "this is my beloved Son..." and the Holy Spirit is descending in bodily form like a dove.  The idea that God was doing some super fast persistence-of-vision "mode switching" to accommodate this triple presence cannot be defended by scripture and is absurd.  I will not discuss such a possibility with you unless you have other scriptures to try defending the idea with.
3. I have heard the argument that in cases such as the stoning of Stephen in which he says "I see Jesus sitting at the right hand of God" (which would indicate the presence of two beings - Jesus and then God who Jesus was sitting to the right of), that Stephen was "crazy from being stoned."  My answer to this: You are undermining scripture to say such a thing.  And secondly, if you review that particular passage, you'll see that before he makes the statement, the Bible actually confirms in separate sentences that he actually saw it and then told what he saw.

And then lastly before we dive in, why is this important?  I pose two considerations, but there are more I'm sure.  Certainly any concept of importance which could be posed by a unitarian could be placed here as well.  We are ultimately questioning the importance of knowing God's true character and whether it carries significance.

1. Because scripture makes the idea of a Trinity so clear if you study it (you don't have to study too hard I've found), to deny its existence is to deny God's real character.  The potentially dangerous repercussion of this is that you are not actually serving the God of the Bible.  And regardless of intent, there is no getting to heaven if you don't serve the God of the Bible.  Is the difference that heavy?  I am unsure and will leave that risk analysis between you and God.  But do take the idea seriously please.
2. An observation put forth by Kingdom of the Cults (written by Walter Martin and Ravi Zacharias, it's a book which details the theology of a number of cults and how they contradict orthodox Christianity although claiming falsely to be Christian in nature) is that a common trend within cults is that many of them do deny the Trinity.  The logic here does not follow that all unitarians are part of cults, but the observation is interesting and should cause us to think.  It is not like the lost to agree with the living, so when they do, we should take notice and be wary of whether we have made an error.

And with that... let's dive into Hebrews 1.  I would like to be able to have two columns in which I could make points alongside the scriptures themselves, but unfortunately the blog editor is limited in functionality and so I can't do this without getting messy in HTML mode, so I'm just going to interrupt the verses with my input in a different color instead, either in-line or in separate paragraphs as appropriate.  I am using the "good old King James Version."

So that we can all be in agreement since the Bible's own authority is where unitarians and trinitarians find common ground, I will use the names and titles of God as written.  Let's not get into all the hooplah about changing "The Son" into "Jesus" or saying "The Father is Jesus because Jesus is God and so let's refer to all instances of God as 'Jesus.'"  No.  I want to use the names "as-found" because I'm trying to demonstrate to you that in this passage, God is referring to Himself as two distinct persons/manifestations, with my goal being to ultimately defend the concept of the Trinity as a result.  As a general rule, the trinitarian standpoint is to understand "God" to refer to "God the Father" and "the Son" to refer to "God the Son" who later manifested as Jesus on earth.  So understand that if I annotate "God" in-line, etc. I'm shorthanding "God the Father."  I'll try to be explicit if I'm referring to God as a whole, but I don't think that is going to come up much.

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

HEBREWS 1
VERSE 1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

VERSE 2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son

• It doesn't say "spoken unto us directly" but uses words to indicate that someone else is speaking - His (God's) Son.
• He is referring to God the Son as if He were a separate person than just "God" who we are still talking about in terms of how "He" (God) is speaking.  Specifically, He says "His Son."
• We understand that a Father and a Son are separate from one another, so the words used here are significant.  So we are immediately in a position in which we must reconcile the fact that God states elsewhere that he is only one God, and yet here, he speaks as if he is two separate persons.  The idea of a Trinity is able to reconcile this supposed contradiction.

whom He (God) hath appointed heir

• It would be odd to appoint yourself as an heir when you're already the owner of the inheritance.  Unless you have a separate person of yourself that you can pass said inheritance onto of course...

of all things, by whom (the Son), also He (God) made the worlds.

• That is - God the Father made the world via God the Son.
• As a side note, observe the indication here that in terms of the Trinity, this would seem to promote the idea that God the Son is the Creator and God the Father is the authorizer or commander of the action to perform creation.  This puts God the Father in the Trinity as the authoritative role and God the Son as the "action performer."  Such an idea is backed up additionally by verses which indicate that Jesus submitted to the Father's authority (John 5:19 and John 12:49 are two examples, but there are more).  Consider a parallel that when we become saved, we are God's sons (not in terms of being gods, but in terms of being His adopted children), and we are to be His "action performers" under the leading of the Holy Spirit, doing as the Son does.  Being doers of commandment, just like that first Son.  Anyway, I may be getting a little deeper than I'm comfortable speaking too definitively here, but it's something to mull over.

VERSE 3

Who (the Son) being the brightness of His (God's) glory and the express image of His (God's) person, and upholding all things by the word of His (the Son) power, when He (the Son) had by Himself (the Son) purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty (God) on high.

• Reminder: When I'm specifying "the Son" and "God" I'm not just making those up and putting them where I want to.  I'm using the names that the chapter itself already provided.  I'm referring you to which subject those pronouns are linked back to.  Each time I reference "the Son" here in  verse 3, I'm referring you back to verse 2 where it says "by His Son" and each time I say "God" here in verse 3, the subject is "God" as the first word of verse 1.  A logical, grammatical breakdown of the verses should back my reasoning up as far as where I placed each specifier.
• Topic Reminder: Again, we are doing this in order to demonstrate that this chapter is making a clear distinction between God the Father and God the Son.  The way it is worded is speaking as if two different people are involved in the discussion.  We have two separate grammatical subjects with which to associate pronouns as I have demonstrated so far.

VERSE 4

Being made so much better than the angels

• [The Son] being made so much better than the angels...

as He (the Son) by inheritance hath obtained a more excellent name than they (the angels).

• One does not inherit anything from ones own self.  So to say this is to indicate that more than one party is involved.

VERSE 5

For unto which of the angels said He (God) at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?  And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son?

• Another side note thought here along the lines of the question of "if Jesus is a Son and is therefore the 'offspring' of God, then how can He be God if He didn't always exist, since God by nature is an eternal being?"  Look at what is suggested here in this verse.  Offered as a rhetorical question is "which angel did God ever offer to make His son?"  Read it again - which (already existing [although definitely created]), angel, did God ever offer to make His son?  The answer to the rhetorical question is "none."  That's not the important point.  The significant point is that it is implied that the offer to be God's Son could be made to an already-existing being and therefore "God's Son" did not necessarily have to be created "from scratch."  So as a possible answer to the question of "How could God's Son come into being and yet actually be God if a necessary attribute of God is eternal existence?" is that God declared an already-existent person of His own Trinity to be His Son and therefore at that moment "the Son" came into being and yet the One who now held that title of "God's Son" had always existed.  Anyway, I'm getting off in the deep end again, where I'm less experienced, but it came to mind.

VERSE 6

And again, when He (God) bringeth in the first begotten into the world (the incarnation of Jesus), He (God) saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him (the incarnate Jesus as God's Son).

VERSE 7

And of the angels He (God) saith, Who maketh His angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

VERSE 8

But unto the Son He (God) saith, Thy Throne O God (referring to the Son), is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy (Jesus, God's Son) kingdom.

• Note the significance here of God the Father declaring the Son to be God.  Many cults deny the divinity of Jesus, God's Son.  Jesus was more than just a man.  He was also fully God.

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

For the most part, these first 8 verses are where the primary references for a defense of the Trinity are found.  The remaining 6 verses are mostly about the finite existence of the creation and a brief mention of the purpose of angels.  So I will stop here.

I feel like I've written about the Trinity on other occasions before, but in reviewing my previous blogs, those most have just been Facebook posts or something.  This is my first blog post on the subject (I'm really a horrible blogger in terms of time; this is just where I put my long-winded stuff rather than typing books into Facebook posts).

Hopefully you found this to be useful in some way.  I welcome your comments if you have any.

Women in Church Leadership: A Response

I started this out writing a response comment to a Facebook post, but it because increasingly clear that this is an article all its own, so I have opted to form it that way instead.  To often, I have resorted to pasting great books into comments and often I've had to re-write large portions due to accidentally refreshing the web-page while I was partway through my writing.  It is probably more organized here anyway.

I am writing to address the message contained within another article (http://www.norvillerogers.com/yes-seminaries-should-hire-women-professors/) which is itself a response to an article by John Piper found here (https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-there-a-place-for-female-professors-at-seminary).  Just covering the bases.  You may find the most value out of first reading the John Piper article, then reading the Norville Rogers article, followed by mine lastly, with Norville Rogers' article handy for comparison, as I am making a roughly paragraph-by-paragraph correlation to the topics within.

I may get a bit off the specific topic as it relates to the Seminary, but am going to tackle the idea of women in pastoral/leadership roles in the church.  So to be clear, I'm not directly addressing the John Piper article, but what I do address is applicable to it.

Let's start with 1 Timothy 2:12, which says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."  And then 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 which says "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."  These are the passages which demonstrate that women are not to be pastors and leaders in the church.  Now, you may take offense to these passages, but they are straight out of the Bible.  They do NOT mean that women are lesser than men in either capability or knowledge, but they DO mean that God considers it out of order for them to be in these positions.  For this reason - that "God says so," - we must apply it to Biblical church doctrine.

Now I want to move onto the article here - the one that is critiquing John Piper's article.

In the early paragraphs, the author quickly brushes over John Piper's Bible reference, which I had already noted above.  Is this passage not enough?  It is very clear in what it says, and the author of this article essentially says "He referenced ONLY a single verse and that's not enough."  So I will ask, in defense of John Piper and of the Bible - how many times must it appear in God's word for it to be valid?  Because the author is saying that this is not an adequate means of discussing the Bible.  Multiple verses making the same statement are helpful to stress a point, not to bring up a "majority in favor" argument.  Let's be clear here - THE BIBLE CONTAINS NO CONTRADICTIONS.  So when you have a crystal clear verse like this one, and you have others that appear to state an opposing point, such as the ones the author brings up, you must look at how they reconcile TOGETHER, because they will not contradict.

1.) The article goes on to mention Priscilla and Aquila.  The author performs a similar trick as earlier on and dismisses the fact that Aquila's presence makes this is not the same as a woman preacher as a cavalier "even so…" point.  This scripture does not actually specify that Priscilla actually said anything doctrinal.  I myself have referred to the action taken by a couple in which only one party actually performed the "bulk" of whatever action was performed as being done "by the couple" simply because both were present.  They act as a team.  It is extremely possible and likely that Aquila handled all the doctrinal discussion and Priscilla was there as a way to keep things more friendly during the conversation.  So scripture is not actually so clear that Priscilla taught Apollos.  We must also point out that EVEN IF Priscilla did engage in doctrinal discussion, this is not an example of church leadership acting, but one-on-one conversation and she WAS with Aquila.

2.) Moving onto Seminary vs. Church.  First off, you don't find Seminaries in the Bible.  You find churches.  Seminaries are a post-Biblical structure we have developed to further Biblical teaching and pastoring.  However, I find it very reasonable that to John Piper's point, this is an environment essentially like a different type of church structure.  Sort of a "specialized church" if you will.  We should hope that those participating in seminary are still looking to God, to grow in a knowledge of Him, and seeking to worship and honor Him, much like in church.  So yeah, it' basically church, but with a specialized focus.  Kind of like going to a youth meeting where the message is specifically oriented to cater to the understanding of younger people.  To address the concern of "financial difference."  Okay, first off, here the author LIES.  So let's observe this breakdown in credibility and the lengths one has to go to in order to defend the author's viewpoint.  Simon did NOT ask to be mentored.  He tried to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit.  So dismiss this "evidence" as it is untrue.  Secondly, I'll agree that plenty of Christians are not actually Christ-centered and are actually focused on money.  Can I say which ones?  Nope.  A seminary does cost something to run however, and if held in an expensive building, it may very well cost a lot to run.  So the author is really questioning the luxury of the Seminary and the motives of those running it for why they need so much money.  OK.  Off topic.  I'm not talking about women in seminary, I'm talking about women in roles of pastoral leadership.  I will talk to you about women in seminary AFTER you tell me that you agree that they can't function in the pastoral role in church.  Until then, you're going to end up chasing me around the money thing until we both run out of breath.  Look at it this way.  If seminary is NOT church, then it's supposed to train pastors.  So if women can't be pastors, then they shouldn't go to seminary.  But if seminary is JUST CHURCH, then if women can't be pastors, they can't pastor in seminary either.  So it's an either-way point as long as we address the lower-lying topic of "can women function in the church leadership pastoral role?" first.

3.) Next up, Mary's prayer.  Okay, the author delves into pretty dangerous ground by saying that Jesus learned the doctrine that he preached from His mother, as opposed to being God enough to know what He was talking about to begin with (I'm generalizing a bit, you get the idea).  Mary's prayer is also inspired of the Holy Spirit as is evident by the prophetical tones in it which speak of Jesus.  Also, the mention of Mary's prayer speaking to both men and women is not evidence of women being used in the pastoral leadership role.  It was a recorded prayer.  Mary Magdalene taking the message of Christs' resurrection is also not evidence of any kind of pastoral leadership ministry either.  Nor are Phillip's daughters pastoring a church by engaging in prophecy.  These are all GREAT examples to illustrate that women are not useless in the church and serve very important roles, and that Christ can use them very effectively to further His will.  They are NOT examples of women in leadership and pastoring roles.  Any example of a woman speaking to a man is not an example of a woman in a teaching or pastoral position exercising authority over a man.  We do not have such examples.  We only have examples of women engaging in other ministry activities which are permissible by God for them.  Going back to where I started for a moment - if you deny this, you must somehow reconcile it with the verses I mentioned starting out, which make it clear that it is not in God's order for women to fill these kinds of roles.

4.) The question of "How can a man pastor a woman when he has not himself been a middle-aged woman?"  Glad you asked.  Firstly, what's the topic?  Many topics do not require a pastor to have experienced the role in order to give Biblical guidance.  They may help the pastor to have empathy and to share his experiences, but our experiences do not shape what the Bible has to say on a topic.  They only help clarify it.  Secondly, God did provide a mechanism for the church in which topics pertaining specifically to women can be discussed…by women.  See Titus 2:3-5 for this.  For this reason, it is not wrong to have women-oriented ministries in the church.  However, these are not the appropriate forums for a large congregation of men to also be present.  Now, I say "large congregation of men" because perhaps here or there, a man may take it upon himself to observe the service to ensure that the teaching is sound.  But I want to point out that it's not even explicitly Biblical to have whole services for women.  Titus is describing what seems more like a one-on-one or few-on-few group, and less of a full-blown women's church ministry.  I'm just conceding that it's not unBiblical that there can be women-oriented ministries in the church.  Yes, it's possible that a man may actually be out of order to attend such a service.  The women will have to determine in such a case whether they should cancel the service and perhaps get the authority of the church pastor (a man…) involved to handle the troublesome man who is attending the women's ministry when it is not appropriate to do so.

5.) Absolutely, women have valuable insight to share.  Absolutely they can minister in gifts in the church.  NO, this is not a good argument for women to pastor a church.  This reasoning is not based on the Bible, but on the author's own reasoning processes, which conflicts with the scriptures I opened with.

6.) The author illogically deduces that John Piper's statement that "Just to be clear, the issue is not whether women should attend seminary in one of its programs and get the best biblical grounding possible.” is a statement saying he is okay with women attending seminary.  He may have meant that sure.  But what he is doing is clarifying the specific issue, not making a statement for or against women in seminary.  And then the author becomes upset that John Piper did not make a distinction about what to do for those (women presumably) who are unable to attend seminary for pastoral reasons.  This is off-topic and has nothing to do in regards to defending the role of women in the church and is a fluff point to further rile up the readers against John's defense.

I do not write this article in anger or as a means of expressing some kind of dominance over women.  I have written it to counter the points  that this author has made in an effort to defend women pastors/leaders in the church.  I have demonstrated that not only is it unbiblical to support this position, based on the opening verses, but that the points this author makes to state the opposite are in fact taken out of context or are not actually addressing the lower-lying topic which is the basis for John Piper's doctrinal stance on this.  An no, ultimately I'm not even speaking for John Piper.  He is a man who is subject to falsehood or misunderstanding himself (as I most definetely am also).  I am speaking only to what I can see in scripture myself.

So to you falls the responsibility of knowing that if you find yourself reaching for straws in order to continue supporting a point which is not Biblical, you are in danger of rejecting Christ by virtue of rejecting His word.  I say this to make you question your motives and not as an empty "threat" (as if I have the authority to threaten you with God's judgement…).  Look to the scriptures.  What do they REALLY say?  Have you pre-determined what you want and have sought out scriptures to support such a point while ignoring those which deny it?  Consider in your heart what such says of yourself.  Pray to God to reveal His truth to you.  I pray that God will reveal His truth to me to avoid error myself.  If you refuse to do so, how can you be sure that you are not falling to the lies of the great deceptor, Satan himself?

What We've Forgotten

I think we've forgotten.

I think we've forgotten who we are.

I think we've forgotten our responsibilities.

I think we've forgotten that we are the representatives of God on this earth...
2 Cor. 5:20a - Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ..."

I think we've forgotten that if we love God, we're supposed to keep His commandments...instead we joke about how we aren't following them.
John 14:15 - If ye love me, keep my commandments.

I think we've forgotten that the law defines sin..."we're not under the law" but we will be judged by it.
1 John 3:4b - ...sin is the transgression of the law.

I think we've forgotten what the rules are...because we don't actually study them.
2 Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I think we've forgotten that Jesus is our King, not our buddy...but that wouldn't be "Relevant."
Revelation 19:16 - And He hath on His vesture and on His thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

I think we've forgotten that we are subject to our King...not the other way around.
James 4:7a - Submit yourselves therefore to God.

I think we've forgotten that our King's kingdom is not this earth...it's heaven.
John 18:36a - Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world...

I think we've forgotten that our battle is with the powers of darkness and not with flesh and blood...
Ephesians 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I think we've forgotten that Jesus came to save the lost, not the righteous...but we'll kill the lost in order to be good stewards of the land that God gave to us "righteous" people and to protect other "righteous" people from going to the heaven that we're supposed to want more than earth anyway.  "Preventative maintenance."
Mark 2:17b - I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

I think we've forgotten to pray for our enemies...for their LIVES, not their death.
Acts 7:60a - And he [Stephen] kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.

I think we've forgotten that God commanded us to be subject our leaders...not ridicule them and call for their impeachment.
Romans 13:1 - Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

I think we've forgotten that our leaders are ordained by God...even David didn't dare harm Saul for this reason, though he knew the kingdom was his for the taking.  The disrespect of cutting Saul's clothes was even shameful to him.
1 Samuel 24:5-6 - And it came to pass afterward, that David's heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul's skirt.  And he said unto his men, The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord's anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.

I think we've forgotten what "neighbor" means...we aren't to expect them, we're to be them.
Luke 10:36-37a - Which of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the theives?  And he said, He that showed mercy on him.

I think we've forgotten that we are supposed to care for the poor and the widows...but forgive me - Matt. 5:42 "Give to the one who begs from you and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you" except for the ones that you can't tell, but they maybe just want drug money or are just telling a fake sob story.  Judge those ones instead.
Ezekiel 22:29 - Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

I think we've forgotten the price of salvation...that our King had to die.
Matthew 27:50 - Jesus, when He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

I think we've forgotten that we will all die one day...
Hebrews 9:27 - And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this, the judgement.

I think we've forgotten that there are consequences for sin...
Romans 6:23a - For the wages of sin is death... 

Or maybe we haven't forgotten.  Perhaps it is willful ignoring of what we already know.  Perhaps we are looking at our own desires and saying "later."  Perhaps we are intentionally delaying, pleading with God to give us our own way.  Perhaps we don't care enough because we don't comprehend the severe repercussions of disobedience.

But we need to remember.  Remember, that we may live when we are called to be accountable for the things we have done on this earth.  Sin is sin, right is right.  We cannot mix it together and play that Jesus will accept our stained offering to him simply because "He loves us".  God is love.  But even so he is just.  And if we truly love him, then we will, as his words say, keep his commandments (John 14:15).

A Revisiting To the Topic of Nonresistance: Part 3

A blank page, fresh writings in mind.  My "mission topic" that I so frequently seem to write about...During the infrequent times that I write.  I have yet to determine why I keep deciding to expound on my thoughts on this topic. Part of it might be that I've met plenty of other Christians who disagree with me.  Do I believe they are not Christian because they do not practice it?  Not at all.  I think that they may not have thoroughly considered the topic however.  And why does that matter to me?  Quite simply, a large portion of it is made up of this fact: if I as a Christian kill a man in order to defend myself, my friends, my family, country, or a member of the general public, I have sent a man to hell and as a result have been party to propagating the mission of the devil (death).  I believe that to take violent action against a person is downright sin and nothing less.

I have a lot of little angles to approach this from and I'm not certain how many of them I will cover in this blog post.  But we will start with the Bible.  Everything that I state should be able to be backed up by the Bible.  My own opinion could be wrong.  If I am merely philosophizing about the right answer, then I have been letting my own wisdom take charge and that could definitely have heavy doses of mere speculation mixed in.  God's word should not be diluted by my own thoughts.

I do not intend to tailor this post in such a manner as to be "politically correct."  God's word is  not politically correct.  So neither shall I interpret it as if it is.

 
This post is intended for other Christians to read and participate in discussion with, but feel free to do so even if you're not one.

With that...we'll start.  I'm not sure how to organize this, so I'm essentially going to just start dumping some points down and expounding a bit.

1.  "Thou shalt not kill."  (Exodus 20:13) & "Neither shalt thou kill" (Deuteronomy 5:17).  God clearly tells the Israelites here that killing is a sin.  Now, if you jump around in the Old Testament, you'll find plenty of examples in which God instructed the Israelites that they were to kill the people who were in the promised land and such.  So what is this then, a direct contradiction with God's law and His commandments?  I've heard it argued that this law actually means that the Israelites were not to kill each other and that it was not applicable to other peoples.  For right now, I'll mention the following.

• God also commanded the Israelites to sacrifice.  However, please note that we no longer offer sacrifices.  Could it be that we are no longer to kill at all per the directions Jesus brought us in the New Testament?  More on this later.
• If I'm correct, its often indicated in these scenarios, that the "people of the land" or however they were referenced, were often wicked and idolatrous etc.  God was judging these people in addition to bringing the Israelites to their promised land.  So this was not simply a case of Israel randomly deciding to kill a nation that was in the way of their promised land.
• The Israelites did not make the decision to attack of their own accord.  God directed them on when to attack various nations.  It would probably be a good idea to ignore any cases in which the Israelites decided to attack a nation while they were not following God.  Not that the events didn't happen, but since Israel was in sin at the time, we should not use their behavior at that time to advocate violent action.

2. "Thou shalt love...thy neighbor as thyself" (Luke 10:27).  How is this related?  Well...Jesus expounded on who our neighbor is.  In verses 30-37, Jesus gives the parable of the Good Samaritan and at the end asks first "Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the theives?"  Of course the answer was the Good Samaritan.  Jesus then says (in reference to the Good Samaritan's actions) "Go and do thou likewise."   In other words, Jesus is saying that we should show mercy and kindness to people.  Our neighbors are not just the people nearby - our neighbors are to be all people.  At the very least, it seems to indicate that our neighbors are those who are in need.  Well, aren't the people in warring countries who hate us in need of the Gospel?  The greatest need of man is that he needs a Saviour!  It's the whole reason why Jesus came to die!  He did not come to save the good people.  He came to save the wicked!  "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick.  I cam not to call the righteous, but the sinners.  (Mark 2:17)  

3.  "The thief (Satan) cometh not but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.'  (John 10:10)  Jesus' mission is to bring life to people, and the devil's mission is to bring death.  So if I kill someone, for any reason at all, have I not just fulfilled the mission of the devil and thwarted the mission of Jesus?

4. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thous shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy.  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hat you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you;"  (Matthew 5:43-44)    It is absolutely 100% IMPOSSIBLE to obey this command that Jesus gave us while taking violent action against another human being.  Picture the following judgement day scenario.  A man is standing before God.  God points out a person that this man killed during a war that he participated in.  The man argues "But I did it in order to protect my family and the land that you blessed me with!  I was providing protection to my family and being a good steward of the country that you blessed me with!"  And the response may be something along the lines of "Yes, you loved your family.  Yes, you loved your country.  But you did not love that man!  You have defied my commandment to do so!  His soul now screams in hell because you robbed him of the opportunity to be reconciled to me!"  I'll reiterate - you cannot obey Jesus command to love your enemies if you take violent action against them.  He gave no exceptions along with this command and it's explicitly stated.  There's no difficulty interpreting what He said.

5.  "And the servant of God must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient.  In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.  And that tehy may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."  (2 Timothy 2:24-26)  There are a several things to note here.

• "be gentle unto all men."  Gentle people do not use violent action against others.  Also note that it says to be gentle to whom?  ALL men.  Not just some of them, not just the other Christians, not just the nice people - all men.
• "apt to teach."  This kind of echoes the statement Jesus made in Matthew 28:19-20 to "Go ye therefore, and teach all (Note the word "all" again) nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..."  Paul is instructing Timothy that servants of God (us) should be teaching people.
• "if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."  So instead of warring with people, we should be teaching them instead.  Why?  Well, this scripture says that we should because there is a chance that God may bring them to repentance as a result!

6.   Consider the parable of the Servant who did not forgive his fellow servant (Matthew 18:23-35).  Christians are like that first servant who was forgiven of his debt by his master (God).  Are we really going to turn around and refuse to offer that same grace to another person?  We are just as guilty of sin as they are!  If we had not received salvation, we'd be right next to them in hell after judgement.  It wouldn't matter that I simply told a lie, and the guy next to me killed someone.  Both of us got the same punishment - eternal hell.  So we are not any better than any other people, just because our sin is different from their sin and their sin is worse in our eyes.  We should not dare to refuse forgiveness to someone when God has forgiven us!  The consequences are serious (:34)!

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

At this point, I would like to look at the topic from some other points of view also.

1.  What if you were to argue that "Well, I killed the robber that was going to shoot the banker, because I knew the banker was not saved and by shooting the robber, I have extended the time that the banker has in order to make a decision to follow Christ."  Okay.  But what about the robber?  He's not saved either.  So you have just killed a man in order to save another man's life.  Sounds self-defeating.

2.  "Okay, but what if the robber was going to kill more people afterward too?  So didn't I do more good because I allowed one man to die in order to extend the possibility of salvation to many people?"  This is actually a man-made way of looking at moral decisions,  It's called utilitarianism and refers to making a choice that will bring the most benefit to the greatest number of people.  I do not believe that God is utilitarianistic.  Look at the story of Peter's prison escape in Acts 12.  God miraculously brought Peter out of the prison, but it came at the cost of 16 people's lives (verses 4 and 19).  Peter was already saved.  The 4 quaternions of soldiers likely weren't.  So God allowed 16 people to die in order to save the life of one man. As such, I do not believe that God would accept a utilitarianistic approach to this scenario.  Besides, by killing the robber, you have neglected showing love to him and as a result have disobeyed Jesus' command in Matthew 5 as we described earlier.

3.  "Well, what should I do then?"  You do have a few options.

• Pray.  God answers prayer.  There are plenty of verses for that.
• Use yourself as a shield.  If he kills you and then kills the banker, at least you've done what you can.  It's in God's hands now.  I'd even say that you could try wrestling the robber to the ground.  I wouldn't consider this to be wrong personally.  Plenty of people wrestle just for fun.
• There have been stories of people who in faith told a would-be bandit to "Freeze in Jesus' name" or something similar and they did.  There is power in Jesus' name - all of creation is subject to it, and "Greater things than these" shall we do.
• God may supernaturally handle the entire thing, He doesn't actually have to use any kind of human intervention at all.  You can't plan for that type of scenario to work out.  I we could, we wouldn't have chances to have our faith in God's control tested.

At this time, I think I will start wrapping up this post.  I have a question to answer from one of my earlier blog posts concerning the statement "Christians should not serve in the military" and why this is the case, especially when considering the following three scenarios

• John the Baptist did not tell the soldier to stop being a soldier (Luke 3:14)
• Jesus did not indicate that the centurion who requested healing for his servant was in sin (Luke 7:1-10)
• Peter did not indicate that Cornelius' profession was a sin (Acts 10)

First in general...there is nothing wrong with being a soldier persay.  The title carries with it the expectation or implication of violence, but does not carry that requirement.  Soldiers do plenty of things that are fine.  Take for example times when there are natural disasters and the arm is called in to assist in the area with rebuilding, cleanup, etc.  This is perfectly fine.  The Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not be a soldier."  It indicates that violence is a sin rather.  Understandably, many soldiers are ordered to attack others.  A soldier could refuse these orders and remain in compliance with God's law.  There will of course be consequences for this denial of authority (obey God rather than men - Acts 5:29), and for that reason, I do not encourage Christians to participate in the military.  However, should you choose to, I don't necessarily believe that it is a sin.

Pertaining to the specific scenarios - 

1.  At the time that the soldiers questioned John the Baptist, note that Jesus had not yet come and died for our sins, bringing the new way.  So He had not yet brought us the contents of Matthew 5 (It has been said...But I say love your enemies.)

2.  Similarly to the first point, at this time, the Gospel had not yet been fully released by Jesus and He had not yet died.  Also, the Gospel was not yet being delivered to the Gentiles.

3.  Peter and the centurion.  I won't exactly agree with this one.  Peter never explicitly said that Cornelius had to give up his profession.  He did however give in verses 34-48 some other teaching which included the following:

• "God is no respecter of persons"  God doesn't see one person as being more important than another.  In other words, I as a Christian am not more important than a muslim in Iran.
• "But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him."  God will accept a convert from any country.  This implies that we should not be killing people from other countries as they may be potential converts.
• "And He commanded us to preach unto the people."  You can't preach to people that you are killing.

There's no further information as far as whether Cornelius continues to be a soldier after that either.  Note Peter's approach.  He didn't state Cornelius' sins to him.  He stated the Gospel to him instead, and let God take care of the details.  Our job as Christians is not to point out the areas in people's lives that need to be fixed.  We are simply to bring them to the knowledge of God's plan of salvation and let God do the pointing and changing.  Fellowship with Christians provides a great means to share thought on the Bible and people can learn from that however.  I am not saying that we should only  teach salvation.  We should definitely focus on salvation when speaking to the unsaved, but this is not the same case when speaking to fellow Christians.

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

At this point, I think I will end the post.  I encourage you to share your thoughts in the comments.

Have a great week!

On the Worries of Today - A Rant by Josiah

So I posted this on my Facebook page, but it came to mind that it was pretty long and might make a fairly suitable blog post also, so here's a rant from me that you can read if you so desire...  It's a little more on the serious side of me.  I'm always open to debate and discussion, and suggestions, and such too BTW.  :-)

Today's worries - gun control, abortion, Islamic and other terrorists, and misc. politics.



Why are we concerned about them? - Because they are interpreted as violations of human morals/rights from both sides of the argument.

Let me toss in my two cents. Take it and compare it with the Bible if you want.
1.) All people have morals. It's mans sinful nature that results in ignoring these morals. Yes, abortion is wrong. Yes, killing is wrong, whether by gun or by other weapons. Can any person change this? Sure. Just not you. And not your political party or other supporters either. No matter how many of you there are. Only one person can, and that's Jesus. We do already know the difference between right and wrong- it comes as a result of Adam and Eve having consumed the fruit of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. The curse that came with that included the sinful nature that can result in choosing evil over good oftentimes. So how are you going to solve these problems? Not by voting. Not by debates. Only by praying and by sharing the Gospel so that people can see the truth of their error and repent. Not a single person on earth is going to change in heart because you beat them down with your political viewpoint. It's an instant turnoff and certainly not a good example of the love of Christ.

2.) You don't have ANY rights. None. Zero, zip zilch. Nada. Find me one place in the Bible where God grants us any rights other than the right to decide between good or evil (I'll leave it open to discussion, maybe I'm wrong about this part). God offers us the GIFT of salvation which we may RECEIVE, but even that is not a right. We did NOTHING to earn it. We have only earned DEATH IN HELL. It's not a right to choose that- it's only because of God's GRACE, that we even have the ability to obtain such a gift.

3.) On the topic of Islamic and other terrorists. How do we solve this problem as Christians? Well...let's start by NOT KILLING THEM. Were you EVER any better than they were? Now hold on a second- DO NOT make a snap decision in your mind. You will be basing it off your OWN sense of judgement. Look at the Bible. In James 2:10, it is clearly stated that if a person has violated even a single point of God's Law, they are just as guilty as if they have broken the entire law. Ever told a little white lie? Bang- you are just as guilty as an Islamic terrorist IN GOD'S EYES. Yes, I am aware that there are 7 sins that God hates above the others. All other sins will still result in hellfire for those who have not received the repentance through salvation that Jesus offers however.

4.) You do not have the right to freedom. Only man has given this, and ultimately it's a gift that God gave you. God gives, and he takes away. If he takes away your so called "rights," you'll be forced to decide if you want to remain faithful to God anyway - loss of man-given rights could DEFINITELY be a test of your faithfulness. We ought to obey God rather than man. Note that this only applies if there is a contradiction between God's Law and man's law. You still need to obey those earthly powers above you if they are not contradictory to God's Laws. EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM. There are Christians in other countries who daily have their faithfulness to God put to the test. They will receive a crown of LIFE for being faithful all the way up to death! Clearly, they see through spiritual eyes, and not physical on these matters!

5.) On the topic of politics. Hey! Those people that you publicly insult on a daily basis are ordained by the God that you say you serve! No wonder people question why Christianity these days seems so insincere! Modern Christians are just as rude as "normal people" when it comes to politics! Yes, you can still have your opinions, but you MUST be respectful of those that God has set in place above you! Take some pointers from King David - a man after God's own heart. Even when he had been promised the kingdom and had the opportunity to kill Saul to obtain it, he still did not DARE touch the man that God had ordained as king. He actually had the man who claimed responsibility for eventually doing so killed because he had killed God's anointed king! (2 Samuel 1:1-16)

I will conclude my "rant" with this. I am NOT a perfect person. I never will be, there has only ever been one- Jesus. SO MANY TIMES THOUGH, I see horridly rude posts directed towards those that we should be respectful of, those who need the Gospel, and those who represent the people that we ourselves were like before our salvation. Jesus never gave us a command to kill the unsaved. He said that we should take the Gospel to them! How can you take the Gospel to them if you are killing them? You are sending them straight to hell, that's a victory for the devil, not God! And how can you possibly pray for your leaders with a right heart, if your real heart is hating them and despising and insulting what they are doing? So I'm not perfect, I'm not trying to claim that I'm better than anyone else because I'm posting this. I just think that some topics here are getting out of hand sometimes. Are you a Christian? Are you showing love? Showing love does not mean that you have to ACCEPT wrong actions. It means that you need to look PAST them and see the need for Jesus to change these people's lives. Just like JESUS DID FOR YOU!

Thanks folks.

On the Topic of Nonresistance: Part 2

And so another blog post is written.  Welcome back!

I'm still not sure how to organize this, so I'm just going to start typing and see what happens.  I suppose I can always just write some massive summarized blog later that puts all the pieces in order.  I do encourage discussion on this topic here, I feel that it is a topic that works better when people are tossing different ideas around.

To start, I've been asked to clarify what I mean by absolute nonresistance.  Also I've been asked when in church history Christianity took on nonresistance as a tenet or belief.

I'm not entirely sure how to define absolute nonresistance, so I'll give a few examples of what I mean and then expound on them a bit, and see if that helps demonstrate the idea of absolute nonresistance.

• I do not believe that corporal punishment is a problem as far as child raising, etc.  The Bible gives instruction that using a rod to punish a child is appropriate.  (Proverbs 23:13,14 and Proverbs 29:15 are two examples).  Certainly, caution should be taken that the child is being punished out of love  and not anger, but this is a different topic.
• I do believe that all military violence is wrong.  The sole purpose of the military is to be prepared to act in a violent manner should such action be deemed necessary.  Even Cold War actions such as nuclear stockpiling, which are not violent in themselves, are supposed to be a threat because they can and are intended to be used in a violent manner.
• I believe that violent action taken against any person for reasons such as self-defense, defense of family or friends, defense of a larger group of people (utilitarianism), etc. are all wrong.  I believe this because I do not feel that it is necessary for someone to protect themselves or others using violent means- I will discuss this later.
• I do not believe that violent means taken by any party to punish another person or party is right.  By this I do include the Judicial system and any other systems that may use this.  This point also delves into the idea of Christian interaction with their governments which I may write about some time.  I will probably mention it to some degree however in order to cover some of what I discuss in nonresistance.
• When I say "any person" or "any party," I am referring to Christians.  I don't believe it is right for non-Christians either, but I'm directing these posts at Christians, because I believe that our knowledge of Scripture, etc. makes us accountable for our actions.  I can't hold non-Christians to scriptures that they do not know.

 I think that should clarify what I meant hopefully.

As far as when I believe nonresistance became a Christian tenet, when I read the New Testament, I see that throughout Jesus' entire life, He lived a life of peace.  There is the account in which he took a scourge and drove out the moneychangers in the temple (John 2:14-16, Luke 19:45, 46, Matthew 21:13, 14, Mark 11:15-17).  I believe this to be a case of "righteous anger."  Now, if we are to follow Jesus example, is it not possible that we might also have these cases of righteous anger as well and be obligated to act upon them?  Well, there are a few things that I believe should be noticed here.

1. First off, nobody was killed.  (I don't believe in physically beating people either, I'll come back to this.)
2. Secondly, (I have not researched this and so I cannot state this with absolute certainty), it is possible that the culture of the time made such action appropriate to an extent.  I believe it's possible that in those days, such acts were supposed to be an exclamation in themselves, that the action of flipping over the tables and driving away the moneychangers with a scourge was intended to relay a very clear message of the wrong that was being done.  There are probably some cultures that still tolerate such "messages."  "Actions speak louder than words" is certainly one way to teach.  You'll notice that although the priests, scribes, etc. did seek to destroy Jesus, no legal action seems to be implied as being taken.  Jesus does not seem to have broken any laws.  I do not see any of the current law of the time, the Ten Commandments, being broken.  If you went into some establishment today and started to flip tables, etc. for any reason, regardless of the message, the police would be contacted and you would probably find yourself in jail and with a fine.  There is no mention here of Jesus being brought before a council or anything like this. Thus, it would seem that Jesus had sent a message via His actions and the culture of the time found this type of thing to be acceptable.  (Not that the moneychangers liked it, but they understood the message and nothing could legally be done against Jesus.)  Like I said before, I have not researched the customs of the time, but this is what I see implied.  Would I see actions that imply mild violence such as this to be acceptable based on whether or not the culture accepts this?  Yes, I would.  However, I believe that it would need to be the same type of message.  Jesus' basic message was basically "You should know better than this, and this needs to stop!"  It was also relayed to people who were informed as to the law and should indeed have known better.  Even if the moneychangers themselves were not Jews, the message then was relayed as a rebuke to those who ultimately even allowed this to take place in the temple, those who had a responsibility to take care of the temple, etc.  Concluding this sub-topic, I don't think that it is appropriate to use any kind of violent means, even mild violence in an accepting culture, in order to declare a message to people who have no knowledge of God.  They don't know any better.  This is where mission work comes in instead.  (If anybody has any knowledge on whether the culture of Jesus' time was accepting of such "action messages" you're input is appreciated.  It's definitely something I should look into as well.)

So for the most part, I believe that nonresistance has always been what Jesus taught us to do.  I don't believe  that the church at some point started to accept nonresistance, it just always has been that it should be that way.  Even looking at the early church in the Bible, there are no accounts of the church fighting back against persecution.  There are accounts of them fleeing from it, but not countering it with force.  In fact, when Saul was persecuting the church, it actually was a benefit to the spreading the Gospel, because the people who fled, took the Gospel with them and shared it with others that they met in those places they went to.  "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word" (Acts 8:4).  Persecution is not something to fight against.  God uses it to His benefit.

With that, I'll close today's post.  Please, by all means, chime in with your own ideas, concepts, comments, and thoughts.  I'm certainly not perfect, and I appreciate any contrasting ideas.  I am biased on the topic, and so if there are contrasting ideas or different interpretations to scriptures that I talk about, I don't want to be misinterpreting scripture or stating something as definite when it may not be.  Checks and balances are helpful.

Have a blessed week!

On the Topic of Nonresistance: Part 1 -Introduction

So hey, I'm finally writing my first "official" blog post.  Looks like the once a week thing isn't going to be happening, but at least I'm writing something once in a while huh?


Well today I'm going to introduce something that I believe.  Specifically on the topic of nonresistance.  This is kind of an interesting topic to write about, because it has so many different little branches that must be covered in order to fully explain it.  That is, if fully explaining it is possible.  There's always more to learn.  Because of the many tangents that the concept of nonresistance has, I actually think it works better to explain it to someone via discussion.  Then, you can cover the tangents as they turn up.  By writing this out, I have to figure out the tangents as I remember them and then place them in some kind of logical order for your reading convenience.


Here's my stand on the matter.  I believe in absolute nonresistance.  That is, I do not believe that there is any reason for which one human being should purposefully harm another.  ANY reason.  I am set in my mind that this is how it is to be.  Now as a Christian, I need to be able to back up these beliefs with the Bible.  That is the only fully accurate guide that we have been given.  I believe that there are some "postulates of the Bible" if you will call them that, that I may refer to periodically.  They are the following.

• As Christians, we must believe that the entire Bible is true and accurate.  If we do not believe this, then Christianity is just another religion.  The Bible is what we base our entire belief system on, and so if we suspect that any part of it is untrue, then the rest of it falls suspect as well.
• No part of the Bible will contradict another part of the Bible.  If part of the Bible contradicts another part of itself, then one of the two parts is false, thus making the first postulate that I stated void.

With that, here are a few of the concepts that I will be covering.  There will be more I'm sure as I think of them.  There is so much to cover that I will probably have to split this into several posts.  Thus, the "Part 1" in the title.  I will try to keep this list updated with the topics as I write the other posts.

• Is utilitarianism Biblical?  (Utilitarianism is  "the doctrine that the morally correct course of action consists in the greatest good for the greatest number..."  -World English Dictionary)
• Did Jesus suggest that violence was acceptable at times in the Garden of Gethsemane?  (Luke 22:36)
• God used violent means to accomplish His will in the Old Testament.  Since He doesn't change, why should we expect that peaceful means are required today if they weren't in the Old Testament?  Wouldn't that contradict the concept of God being unchanging?
• ...

So why am I writing about this?  Well, there are a couple of reasons.  

First off, because I take a very firm stand on this.  I have taken this stand for some time, but there have been a few occasions during which my stand was challenged and I found that I could not defend my beliefs.  I believed them, I just had no scripture backup for what I believed.  Now I have some scriptures and can back them up, but I just don't have the idea very organized and I'd like to have an organized thought process and be able to actually have the scriptures memorized at least somewhat well instead of having to say to myself "oh isn't there a verse that says... and have to google the first few words to get the reference and remaining words.  This isn't very handy for in-person discussions, it only works well for online chats and such where you can take a minute or two to respond.

Secondly, because in my mind, the concept of being nonresistant is crystal clear.  I have a hard time understanding how some people believe that violence is acceptable at any time.  It would be arrogant of me to simply expect everyone to believe something simply because the idea was clear to me.  Thus, I am encouraging you to comment/criticize/debate this topic with me.  I certainly do not know all the tangents that the topic offers, so I am interested in hearing any concepts that anyone else has to offer on the subject.

Third, I have friends and family who may differ in how we interpret nonresistance.  I believe that it is important for Christians to discuss their interpretations of scripture with one another and come to agreement (I'm pretty sure there's a verse about this somewhere, I just can't think of what it is, feel free to chime in if you can think of any.).  Unity is important.  That's not to say that that will always happen.  Sometimes there are scriptures that are not clear in how they are to be interpreted, or there's just a hard to comprehend concept that we can't agree on.  However, it's a good idea to try to come to some sort of consensus on a topic.

One last thing to remember in any discussion we have.  Often, it is tempting to throw in a hypothetical situation.  This is fine, that can be helpful in thinking through a concept.  however, if this happens, remember that the goal is to determine what the correct course of action is.  Not what you would actually do in the situation.  In other words, we aren't trying to figure out what we would ultimately do in any given situation, but we want to know what we  should do in the situation.  We often act in ways that are contradictory to what we know to be right.  Thus, that kind of thinking does not help much.

So I'll end with that for now.  This is the intro.  Hopefully, I have time and motivation to write the following posts at a fairly decent pace.  It's a good topic to study I think, so I think it should work out pretty well.  Just has to do with how much I feel like typing at any given moment.

See you all later!  :-D