Idol In Your Heart

We all know that idolatry is wrong, and very few of us have gods or statues in our house that we would worship. And of course, we've all heard that idols can be actual statues or just anything we worship other than God.

It is important to remember that that is an application from the text and not the meaning of the text. That does not mean that it is wrong to preach or teach idolatry texts in this way; the application is solid, but I worry about the confusion of the two.

In the book of Ezekiel, we hear about Israelites who have created "idols in their heart." The expression seems to indicate an emphasis on the dedication to the idols that have been made. This passage then fits best with such an application of idolatry as what we worship.

And the passage speaks rather interestingly about it. Ezekiel 14:3-8 reads,

"Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them? Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols. Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the Lord will answer him by myself: And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the Lord."

Wherefore should I be enquired of at all by them? If they worship someone other than me in their hearts, why should I take the time to speak with them? They don't really want me to, or else they would worship me and not someone else.

That is God's just response. Those who come to Him while serving someone else are not ones that He will be speaking to. He still loves them, but they are not ready to truly get to know Him.

So maybe if you're not getting something from the Lord, it's because you are worshipping something other than God.

Going Deeper in the Book of Nehemiah

I'm guessing you've gathered from my rather brilliant title that we are going deeper into the book of Nehemiah today. You should pat yourself on the back for your accomplishment.

But yes, that book which I and every one else loves to discuss and share truths from is exactly where we'll be going once more. Hopefully, you haven't grown bored of a wonderful part of the Word of God yet!

So we all are pretty familiar with the events of the book. The Israelites are in bad shape - they are poor because of a famine, their rulers are exploiting their poverty, simply making it worse, they are selling their children into slavery because things are just that bad. And then just to top it off, their wall's been torn down.

Now the wall wouldn't have just looked cool for the Israelites! Rather, it would have been protection from outside forces. Thus, the Israelites were vulnerable to attacks from Sanballat and Tobiah and the lesser-known Geshem the Arabian.

But we know that Nehemiah enters the story and suddenly all else is good in the world. Nehemiah's life can teach us many great lessons, like how to properly handle burdens, how to be a good leader, and how to keep from getting ambushed in the wilderness (the answer is of course, don't go because you are too involved in the work of the Lord).

But you know what in all of these things we seem to be missing one largely important thing - why was the book written in the first place? Why did Nehemiah pen these words? Better yet, why did the Holy Spirit direct Nehemiah to write this book?

Pulling in all our lessons are not necessarily wrong, but we should dig a little deeper to find out why it was written.

And of course, to do that, it would be necessary to take ourselves back to the time in which it was written.

The time is after the 70 years predicted by Jeremiah that the captivity would last. The Temple has been rebuilt, and the people have returned to Jerusalem. At that time, everyone thought that this was it. That Zerubbabel, the son of David, would rise to the throne, and Israel would be restored.

But no throne for poor Zerubbabel, and David's line had still not returned to the throne of Israel. God didn't seem to be keeping His promises anymore. Indeed, the fact that there was a famine and that everything seemed stacked against the Israelites might have led many to wonder - does God even care?

Then comes Nehemiah. When he hears of the destruction of the wall, he is distraught, but he does one thing at the very beginning of the book. He prays. And in that prayer, he confirms that God is not the kind of being that turns His back on His people. Instead in Nehemiah 1:5, we read,

"And said, I beseech thee, O Lord God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:"

 God keeps covenant and mercy for them that love Him and observe His commandments. Hmmm... I guess that means God still cares for His people right?

Further, it is seen that this word for mercy, is the covenantal word hּׅesed which could be translated loyal love or lovingkindness, but actually means a lot more. It is a word linked to the covenants of God. The covenant this one seems to link to would be the conditional mosaic covenant. If the Israelites hold up their end of the bargain, God will hold up His. 

Thus, Nehemiah seeks to show that God still cares for His people and those that love Him. It signifies this theme by showing God's provision through the person of Nehemiah, as well as showing the Israelites grow to observe more of God's commandments. 

So, does God still care, according to Nehemiah, it's against his nature not to. And where do we find this proclamation? Well, right at the beginning, where you would expect to find a thesis statement! 

And that's not all. If you were writing  story, you'd want your theme to be explicit from the start, but you would also want to repeat it from time to time. Observe, how this operates in the book of Nehemiah, 

"Think upon me, my God, for good, according to all that I have done for this people." ~Nehemiah 5:19 

"My God, think thou upon Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their works, and on the prophetess Noadiah, and the rest of the prophets, that would have put me in fear." ~Nehemiah 6:14 

"And for the wood offering, at times appointed, and for the firstfruits. Remember me, O my God, for good." ~Nehemiah 13:31  

It's easy to just read past these words, but when you examine this based on the purpose behind the book itself, you notice that these are actually super important textual clues that point to a unified part of the book.

And you should pay special attention to what shows up in Nehemiah 13:32.


For those of you who actually follow all my Bible links, I'm sorry. There is not Nehemiah 13:32, and there isn't a Nehemiah 14 either. The book ends with Nehemiah asking the Lord, "Remember me, O my God, for good."

That is not a coincidence. Because when you are writing anything, you try to make sure your point is near the beginning of the book, near the end of the book, and interspersed throughout the book, and that's exactly what Nehemiah has done here.

So what does it all mean? It means that God does not abandon His people. He didn't abandon Israel, and He won't abandon us. Indeed, if it seems that you are having difficulty in your relationship with the Lord, it can only be because you have sin that is driving you away from the Lord.

The good news, the Lord will still extend care and provision and His unconditional promises, like salvation to those who have accepted Him no matter what. Also, He is always willing to restore fellowship with those who want to love Him and observe His commandments once more.

 Read within this light, those stories certainly do hold a lot more weight than some moral we apply to them, don't they?

An Empty God if no God at All: A Rebuttal of the Doctrine of Kenosis

It would seem to the human intellect that the incarnation is impossible because many attributes of God seem inconsistent with the attributes of man. It is this concern that led to the kenosis theory of the incarnation, which in its strongest form [1], states that Christ “emptied himself” of His divine attributes to become man, meaning that the incarnate Christ did not possess omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, etc. 

Today, we will examine the modest aim of explaining that while this model of the incarnation may fit with views of open theism, it cannot reconcile itself to the views of orthodox Christianity. We will see this by examining first the flawed exegesis that presented kenosis, then three distinct heretical entailments of the kenotic model.

Usage of Kenoō in Philippians 2

Proponents of the kenosis model of the incarnation point to Philippians 2:7-11 for support. Within this verse, Paul utilizes the Greek word, kenoō, which can be translated as “to empty.” Proponents of the kenotic model believe that this is the correct translation and thus believe that this passage indicates that Christ had to empty Himself of divine attributes in order to become man. 

However, a closer examination of this verse indicates that this interpretation is flawed. As Wayne Grudem supports in his book, Systematic Theology[2], the context of Philippians is referring to Christ “taking on the form of a servant.”[3] 

Additionally, Grudem points out that Paul is urging the Philippians to follow Christ’s example;[4] however, we humans cannot lay aside divine attributes in the way that Christ would have. Thus, Paul could not be telling us that we should follow Christ’s example in emptying ourselves from divine attributes. 

Instead, “kenoō,” would fit more with the idea of Christ’s actions, rather than His abilities themselves. This further matches with the way in which the apostle Paul uses this word in the rest of His epistles. In all of these, the meaning of the word goes by the definition, “made nothing.”[5] 

The case becomes clearer when you take into consideration the context of the Bible as a whole, which time and time again confirms, for instance, the omniscience of Jesus Christ.[6] As you can see, enosis theology really lacks a solid biblical foundation.

Immutability of Christ

Also, kenosis does not account for the scriptural account of Jesus’ immutable nature. Hebrews 13:8 confirms that Jesus Christ is “the same: yesterday, today, and forever.” Just like God the Father, Jesus does not experience change. 

However, theologian R.C. Sproul clearly lays out, 

“If God laid aside one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation, the infinite suddenly stops being infinite.”[7] 

Simply, the divine omni-traits are part of who Christ is, and if He gave them up to be human, He would have been changing His unchangeable nature. 

In a paper supporting kenosis, Robin Poidevin admitted that kenosis cannot actually account for those who believe Christ should be immutable.[8] But how would we respond to Poidevin’s implicit denial of the immutability of Christ? As we have already seen, the Scriptures clearly teach us that Christ is always the same and unchanging, which is why orthodox Christianity has always accepted the immutability of Christ.

The Deity of Christ

Further, when you strip Jesus of divine capabilities, it becomes difficult to claim that He is fully God and fully man, rather than just being an elevated man. Indeed, if Jesus has no divine attributes, what makes Him any different from a redeemed man in the Resurrection? After all, Jesus would then solely be a sinless man working to redeem men, so that in Heaven, they can be sinless men. 

But this presents one of two problematic heresies. Either we as redeemed men are going to be deified in heaven, or Jesus in human form is no longer God. If the former, then kenosis has opened the door for blatant polytheism. 

If the latter (as seems more likely), kenosis has made the incarnation of none effect, as a mere sinless human is incapable of actually cleansing us of our sin. Wayne Grudem explains that only an infinite God could bear the punishment of sin for the whole world; further, the entire message of scripture is dedicated to the fact that mankind is incapable of saving itself.

Proponents of kenosis would respond to this argument by saying that they are leaving Jesus with his necessary properties, and are simply taking non-essential properties away. However, as A.W. Pink says, 

“There is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all. A ‘god’ whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being an object of worship, merits naught but contempt.”[9] 

At the point where they strip Jesus of His absolute power and knowledge, they subject His plans to the possibility of frustration. In a word, proponents of kenosis have stripped Him entirely of His deity.

How about Now? Kenosis and the Ascension

Not only does kenosis raise the question of Jesus’ divinity during the incarnation, but also His divinity at this very moment and for all eternity. Oliver Crisp goes to great lengths to demonstrate that kenosis fails to account for the orthodox position that Jesus remains human forever. 

Indeed, if in order to become human, Jesus had to relinquish His divine attributes, then He would have to continue to relinquish them as He continues as human throughout the rest of eternity.[10] 

Crisp is not alone in his thinking. Theodore Zachariades contends that after Christ ascended into heaven, it would seem that He gets His divine attributes back. But since Jesus had to give up His attributes to be human, the fact that He has them back must mean that He is no longer fully man. [11]

This understanding of the kenosis highlight the ultimate eternal implication to the nature of Jesus – either Jesus never regains His divine attributes, or Jesus loses His humanity. 

If the former, then it would seem that Jesus lacks the power to fulfill His mission as our “High Priest.”[12] Without omniscience, Jesus could lack the ability to know what we as Christians need in our lives, and without omnipotence, Jesus could lack the power to provide that which we needed. 

Thus, it seems that Jesus would need to regain His divine attributes, so that means that Jesus must no longer be man. The problem with this view is that it is directly contradicted by the words of the angels after Jesus ascended up into Heaven[13] as well as the words of John in the book of Revelation.[14] Further, Wayne Grudem points out that all of Jesus’ eternal positions (prophet, priest, and king) require Him to be fully God and fully man forever.[15]

            

An Empty Theory

Kenosis, as a theory of explaining the human knowledge of Christ, just naturally fails and leads to some rather heretical entailments. It would seem best to assume that Christ did not somehow lay aside (or lose access to) His divine attributes during this incarnation. We may never fully understand how Christ is able to be both divine and human, but understanding is not a requisite for belief. Regardless, kenosis is a huge step in the wrong direction.

 

---

[1] A weaker form of kenosis, called functional kenosis, has also emerged. This view holds that Christ possessed His divine attributes (like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence), but that He simply couldn’t use them. However, as Theodore Zachariades points out, the divine attributes are defined in such a way that necessarily involves their ability to be exercised or used. In a word, functional kenosis is not functional. Theodore Zachariades, “"Δʟπƛην ϵπαγγλʟαν,an IN ATHANASIUS' CHRISTOLOGY: A METHODOLOGY TO COUNTER KENOTIC NOTIONS OF THE INCARNATION," American Theological Inquiry 5, no. 1 (2012), 75-77.

[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester: IVP) 550

[3] Philippians 2:6-8 in full reads (all scripture quotations will be from the KJV), “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation (This is kenoō in Greek), and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

[4] Philippians 2:5 “Let this mind be in you, which is also in Christ Jesus.”

[5] Rodney Decker, “Philippians 2:5-11: The Kenosis,” New Testament Resources (blog), January1, 2015. He points out the uses are, Romans 4:14 “faith is made void,” I Corinthians 1:17 “lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect,” I Corinthians 9:15 “that any man should make my glorying void,” 2 Corinthians 9:3, “Lest our boasting of you should be in vain.” These are not just the only uses of kenoō by Paul, but the only uses in the Greek New Testament. 

[6] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 547. John 16:30 “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God,” John 21:17, “He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”

[7] R.C. Sproul, “How Could Jesus Be Both Divine and Human?" Northwestern Theological Seminary Online Library, February 5, 2008. In full, “If God laid aside one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation, the infinite suddenly stops being infinite; it would be the end of the universe. God cannot stop being God and still be God. So we can't talk properly of God laying aside his deity to take humanity upon himself.”

[8] Robin Poidevin, “Kenosis, Necessity, and Incarnation,” Heythrop Journal 54, no. 2 (2013), 225. “Of course, kenoticism may be objectionable on other grounds. It will not, for example, be

acceptable to those who think of God as timeless and so immutable.” This quotation demonstrates that kenosis can be an open option for non-orthodox views, like open theism. It is outside the scope of this blog post to support orthodox Christianity against these views. Thus, as aforementioned, I am simply showing that kenosis does not fit with orthodox Christianity.

[9] Pink, Attributes of God (Pensacola: Chapel Library) 11.

[10] Crisp, Divinity and Humanity: Incarnation Reconsidered (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 133-137

[11] Zachariades, “IN ATHANASIUS' CHRISTOLOGY,” 61-62.

[12] Hebrews 4:14-15, “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Also see the rest of the book of Hebrews.

[13] Acts 1:11, “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

[14] Revelation 1:13, “And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.”

[15] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 543.

The Government is not your God

There are two opposite problems in Christian culture when it comes to government today (not to say that these are the only two problems, just two that I can see exist). First is the problem that I often discuss about those who don't seem to care enough about what goes on in the political system.

But the second is equally a problem, and that is simply putting too much stake in what goes on in the political system. Simply, it becomes quite easy to find security in the way current political structures are set up, rather than in the Lord. 

I want to make it clear up front - this is not a big government problem per se. It is just as easy for someone in favor of limited governments, like me, to find too much stake in the political process.

 If my security is founded in the fact that Rand Paul is going to do awesome things and win awesome elections, and then revolutionize this country, then I am placing my trust in the political process. 

This of course is a problem because our trust should be firmly in God and not in the devices that God uses to ensure blessings upon His people (I think it's fair to call good governance a blessing, right?). I should feel secure in the fact that I know who holds sovereign control over all the earth. And to put this in the perspective of our last politics post, I should feel secure in the God who ordained the government, not the God-ordained government. 

But God is under no obligation to work out His plans through the government itself. He can decide to make our government like the government in China, and work to give Himself glory. I mean, it's His sovereign control.

So yes, God is in control, and as much as I care about politics, and love Rand Paul, God > Rand Paul. Rand Paul and the entire political system can only do so much, and it would be foolish to stake your security in that. 

Instead, we Christians need to ensure our trust is in the One who controls not just ALL of the political system, but all other elements that are outside our control too!

Some Bad News, Some Good News

So, I have some bad news and I have some good news. Which do you want first? 

The bad news? Fantastic because that will just naturally follow the organization that this blog should follow. 

So, the bad news is that one day you will die. Yes, I know it's terrible, but your stay on this Earth will not be eternal, but will instead come to a close, as our life is but a vapor. 

Good news is that you have a place where you will live eternally, and that you should then live your life in accordance with that. You should pursue a relationship with God the Father, to find true satisfaction in Him because that will give you eternal satisfaction. 

Everything that we seek in this world for satisfaction is unsatisfactory ultimately. It may satisfy for just a few minutes, but it will not actually satisfy us even for the entirety of our vapor. Thus, if we want to enjoy this life, maybe we should find satisfaction in God. 

That way, we can enjoy our lives now and later to its utmost potential. (I never thought I would write a post about enjoying one's life, since ultimately that conveys a watered down Christianity in many forms; however, finding satisfaction in God is not the same thing as guaranteeing you prosperity if you follow God, something that is explicitly denied in Scriptures.) 

So if you don't believe me, just read the book of Ecclesiastes. It's good stuff. 

Aren't Life's Little "Coincidences" just Amazing?

"Isn't it great how God works little things like that out all the time?" 

So said a good friend of mine this last Monday night as we randomly sat in the foyer (as it were) of our dormitory here. It was a comment that is going to be the main thrust of our brief discussion today.

The comment's context came after I explained the amazingly encouraging conversation that I had at lunch that day.

The wonders of college cuisine here is that we're not just limited to a cafeteria for our meal plans, but also can use transfer meals to get meals from this fast food type place that is catered by the same food service.

Monday was the first day of the semester that it officially opened, so I thought I would repay my visits for this semester because it's slightly better than a cafeteria.

I sat down with a former fellow Biblical Studies major who is now studying Nursing and we have a chat about nice good Godly things. I phrased that sarcastically probably because I'm not used to saying it in a serious manner. #confessingyourfaultsonetoanother

So as he asked me about my devotions, I mentioned essentially what I wrote last week and how I saw it as a theme for the early chapters of Proverbs.

This was rather exciting for him because it just so happens, he was reading in the early chapters of the book of Proverbs and was hearing the same message.

The end of the lunch was then the opportunity to really get a conversation going about the spiritual walk that the Lord has with us accordingly. It was a wonderful little thing that the Lord worked out in my life precisely when I needed it.

Then of course the conversation which spurred our thesis statement was another example of it. So much that could be said about that conversation and so much that the Lord was able to work in both of our hearts at a time when both of us would normally be studying then prepping for bed (we tend to sleep early) is maybe more than a little thing that God ensured happened just right for my edification.

How exactly are we suppose to top that in our service to God?

Desires, Blessings, and Punishments

As I listened to my Pastor preach last night over Numbers 11 (yes, our mid-week service is on Thursday), I was reminded of a consistent theme in the Bible.

In this chapter, the Israelites complain a great deal about many things. Eventually, the Israelites begin to feel dissatisfied with the manna that God has provided for the last two years in the wilderness. It has always supplied their needs, but now they simply want the taste of meat.

It is here that I remembered the consistent theme of the Bible, as the Lord responds to the complaints of the Israelites by bowing to their wishes. Indeed, the Israelites are punished by getting exactly what they wanted. But as Numbers 11:18-20 indicates, when they get it, they no longer want it.

"And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the Lord, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the Lord will give you flesh, and ye shall eat. Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the Lord which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?"

The theme I keep teasing without actually mentioning is this - the Lord has this tendency to punish the people of the world (especially the Israelites) by giving them exactly what they desired.

We see that at play here, but we also see it when the Israelites reject the Lord's kingship over them. They desire to have a king as all the other nations, so the Lord gives them a king as corrupt as the kings of all the other nations.

Perhaps most strikingly, in Romans 1, we see this same principle as it applies to those who have rejected the evidence of the Lord's existence entirely. As verse 28 clearly indicates,

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."

The Lord punishes them by simply allowing them to continue along the paths they set for themselves, along the pathway of sin.

But if this is such a consistent thing to see within the Bible, there is one shocking statement that must be true. If man's desires can be a punishment, then man's desires are ultimately harmful to himself.

How is it that man cannot know what is actually good for him? How is it that we consistently have our hearts in the wrong place so that we desire the wrong things? How is it that our desires don't line up with what the Lord wishes in our life?

It reminds me of Ecclesiastes 6:10-12,

"That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he. Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, what is man the better? For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?"

And with that simple thought I leave you with another simple question - how are your desires? If the Lord granted them, would that be a blessing or a punishment?

Helplessness: Internal Causes can Still be Taken to God

It is a truth universally acknowledged that one will find himself within his life in a position of sheer helplessness. No one can really doubt intellectually whether they will be in that spot. Of course practically, we tend to doubt that fact all the time as we try our hardest to ensure that we do everything ourselves. We know we could just rely upon God, but we don't tend to do so.

But today we will discuss not the fact that we should do this, but that we still can when the state of sheer helplessness we find ourselves in is purely our own fault. That is the situation that the Psalmist David finds himself in in Psalm 69. 

Little is known about the sin David refers to in this chapter, but I'm sure speculation abounds. I personally don't much enjoy speculation on things peripheral to the text such as this, so I will refrain from saying that the most logical assumption is that David is admitting his own helplessness due to a general sinful nature, rather than one particular sin. 

The point is, David was in a kind of helpless situation due to both external and internal circumstances, yet his response could have been and indeed was to bring it to God. For instance, in verses 5-16, we read, 

"O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them. They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards. But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O Lord, in an acceptable time: O God, in the multitude of thy mercy hear me, in the truth of thy salvation. Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep waters. Let not the waterflood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me. Hear me, O Lord; for thy lovingkindness is good: turn unto me according to the multitude of thy tender mercies."

Accepting that he was filthy, he seemed to be first concerned with ensuring only he was affected by it. "Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed for my sake." He didn't want to see others suffer because of his sin.

However, the main thrust of what I see here is that he asked the Lord to look down upon him according to the Lord's lovingkindness and mercy. He asked the Lord to help him with the external and internal causes of his helplessness. And you know what? I find it encouraging to know that our internal causes of helplessness and our sin do not have to keep us from relying upon God as long as we confess it.

How about a Psalm of Praise (with only Minor Points of Application)

  There is a great truth, which cannot be suppressed by any Christian. I am fairly certain that all denominations can and do ascribe to this one belief. Disagree as we might on issues ranging from the mundane to the doctrinal, from the legitimacy of divorce to the extent of God's predestination, we all agree on one fundamental point (among others too).

God is pretty dang awesome! Kinda an incredible transcendent being that I ultimately can't try to pen down in words. A God who had the unlimited power necessary to speak this world in existence, and the unlimited knowledge to know what would all transpire after He did so. 

So why does He even care about the lives of us lowly human beings? From a purely logical standpoint, I must admit that the God of the Deists makes sense. The God who is big enough to create this world should have no reason to seek any pleasure or present any interest in it. 

But our human logic just can't understand the transcendence of God's reasoning and inclinations apparently. Still the question should be raised. Why does God even care about the lives of us lowly humans? 

It is a question that is raised at least twice in the Old Testament, though from two vastly different attitudes. 

We already looked at Job's response to the Lord's immanence and care for the plights of men, and honestly this post is about praise, not why we should be glad that the Lord cares to convict us of our sin. 

So I shall move on and conclude with the praise given by David for the same thought process. Looking at Psalm 8, 

"O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!" 

Oddest Rebuke in the History of Mankind

I have made it to the end of the book of Job. As most of you know, the book ends with the Lord rebuking Job for four chapters.

As I was reading Job truly to figure out what Job was being rebuked for, I was paying rather close attention to what the Lord said, so that I could determine whether my prior guesses were correct.

But the rebuke doesn't like a typical rebuke. Outside of maybe Job 40:2, the Lord says absolutely nothing of what Job's sins are, and what Job has done that has engendered this rebuke. Instead God spent His time explaining His transcendent power and majesty.

Naturally, this rebukes produces very much of the desired effect (how could God fail in His efforts?). In Job 42:5-6, Job responds,

"I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

And there you have it - repentance comes as the result of the Lord's rebuke. Repentance comes because of a further knowledge of who God is. I don't believe it is too much of a stretch to say that ultimately all true repentance will come from a greater knowledge of who God is.

Perhaps if we want to live a life of godliness, we ought to start by gaining a greater knowledge of who God is. And we also ought to continue by gaining a greater knowledge of who God is, and you know what? We ought to end by gaining a greater knowledge of who God is.

Deus Ex Machina

There is  literary device in the world of fiction, called, Deus ex machina. It name is Latin for, the God from the machine. It is used to denote when a resolution to a plot comes from outside the plot. It's as if some god decided to change the final endings for some undefined purpose.

It is a pretty sad literature device in most instances; however, in the real world, there are many instances of Deus ex machina . Time after time, the Lord will save his people from doom, whether that be from keeping them from harm or preventing them from hurting others. Today, we highlight a few examples of such things.

King Saul confronts David

Throughout the years between when David was anointed king and when he became king, he was constantly in danger of his life at the hand of the current King Saul. More times than one can even count, the Lord protected David from the hand of King Saul. One particular instance is instructive. 

In I Samuel 23, David is on the run from King Saul. Against the urging of his men, David follows the will of the Lord to protect the city of Keilah from the Philistines. David knows that is he stayed in Keilah after the battle that he would be caught by Saul (the Lord told David as much), so he leaves. 

Even still, the actions have alerted Saul as to the whereabouts of David and his men. The Lord keeps Saul from finding David, but Saul is persistent. David cannot relax for a while here as Saul and the Israelites pursue him. 

Then we have our Deus ex machina. The Philistines have regrouped and are now invading Israel. Saul's attention can no longer be turned towards David. As I Samuel 23:27-28 says, 

"But there came a messenger unto Saul, saying, Haste thee, and come; for the Philistines have invaded the land. Wherefore Saul returned from pursuing after David, and went against the Philistines."

Israelites Selling Children into Slavery

It is a sad time again for the Israelites. They are in captivity under Persian rule. There is a famine in the land and they are struggling to make ends meet and pay the taxes that Persia has placed upon them. But that is not the worst of it! No indeed, the rulers and nobles are taking advantage of the harmed economy, exacting interest and buying the Israelites' children as slaves. 

There seems to be no end in sight for these struggling Israelites. The only people they legally have a claim to complain to are the ones that are harming them. The Israelites have no option available to them in order to present the possibility of getting out of this situation. 

Then just when things couldn't get worse, the enemies of Jerusalem knock down the wall! Now, on top of having no food, no resources, and no children, they have no defenses. The situation is really hopeless now. How are they ever going to get out of this? 

Then comes our Deus ex machina. You see, a little while after Jerusalem's wall is torn down, King Artaxerxes appoints a new governor over Jerusalem with the purpose of rebuilding the wall. The Lord has started to orchestrate an option for the Lord to provide for His people to have defenses. 

But that's not the end of it. Although there is still a famine in the land after the 12 years that Nehemiah serves as governor of Jerusalem, Nehemiah rebukes the leaders, and requires them not to take advantage of the Jews. The Jews start to cooperate together in this situation, and ultimately, their children are restored and their lives return to normal. 

No Heat for the Orphans

A minister is running an orphanage. The orphanage is usually without extra funds because this man believes on fully trusting the Lord to supply funds, and thus doesn't specifically seek donations for this purpose. This works out quite well for the orphanage over many years. The Lord worked through several smaller Deus ex machinas to keep this orphanage running.

Then the boiler for their heating apparatus broke. It couldn't have happened at a worse time. It was just starting to become winter, and without this boiler repaired quickly, the children could have frozen.

It took some great lengths to get the repair people there to fix this boiler for the orphanage, but the Lord blessed in this area. An appointment was set with the workmen to repair the boiler.

But as that day approached, a tremendous North wind appeared. It was going to be cold, and the orphans would deal with that. The date of the appointment couldn't be changed and the boiler couldn't be running while it was being repaired. There was a considerable question about how in the world the orphans would survive this day.

But the minister decided to pray. He prayed that the North wind would miraculously change into a South Wind and that the repairmen would have a mind to work and finish their repairs quickly.

And wouldn't you know it? That is exactly our Deus ex machina in this story. As the minister writes in his autobiography,

"The evening before, the bleak north wind blew still; but on the Wednesday the south wind blew: exactly as I had prayed. The weather was so mild that no fire was needed. The brickwork is removed, the leak is found out very soon, the boiler-makers begin to repair in good earnest. About half past eight in the evening...  In speaking to the principal of this, he said in their hearing, 'the men will work late this evening, and come very early again to-morrow.' 'We would rather, sir,' said the leader, 'work all night.' Then I remembered the second part of my prayer, that God would give the men 'a mind to work.' Thus it was: by the morning, the repair of the boiler was accomplished...and all the time the south wind blew so mildly that there was not the least need of a fire."

This great minister spent many of his years like this in prayer, and would provide a plethora of examples of Deus ex machinas. His name is George Muller, and he explained,

"When I am in need of anything, I fall on my knees, and ask God that he would be pleased to give me what I need; and he puts it into the heart of some one or other to help me. Thus all my wants have been amply supplied during the last twenty-six years, and I can say, to the praise of God, I have lacked nothing." 

The Conclusion: Trust the Lord

Here we have several examples of the Lord controlling things that we have no access to to save us from harm, yet we still don't trust him, do we? We don't think that he can solve our problems. We try to figure out everything on our own, and will not take our situation and place it in God's hands. 

But we should. These examples show that he is able to be trusted with our lives. Thank goodness, Deus ex machinas happen in the real world. 

Why we should Put the Death Penalty to Death

In a time of ancient history, the Israelites were setting up what many call today the first representative government. This term paints a picture in our minds that is actually quite different from the reality in my mind.

Now don't get me wrong, there were definitely different tribes who did have certain representatives in place. However, the government was very much a monarchy, where the Monarch led through the representative of men like Moses, Joshua, and so on. 

The Lord leads the Israelites and establishes their system of government through the works of Moses. (Indeed if you ever truly want to know how a government should be structured, I think you should probably follow God's model here.) 

But the key point is that the Lord was leading the Israelites along the way. He established the death penalty clearly at this time, and He administered it with perfect grace. We see this most clearly with the death of Achan after he stole from the Lord Himself. 

So then how could I say that I was against the death penalty with this in mind? Clearly I don't think I'm better than God. 

Indeed I don't. No man is going to execute such perfect judgment. That is actually the exact reason that I am against the death penalty in our world today. 

As I made the distinction earlier, God was the leader of the ancient Israelite government, and when he decides who should live and die, he does do so perfectly. 

Today, we have no government that is directly led by God. Yes, I know that God is sovereign in all he does, but if we use that excuse here, we might as well stop worrying about anything we do because God is in control of everything. 

At the end of the day, I agree with the idea of a death penalty in principle (an eye for an eye), but I do not trust the human errors that come with a government administered by men. Death is a very permanent state that no man can undo. It seems too much for me to trust a justice system administered by men in such a crucial area. 

Indeed our current system admits the possibility of mistake. There are massive initiatives put in place to allow for an appeals process, once again administered by men, to sift through and ensure there are no innocent people who die.

This appeals process probably catches most mistakes, but it too will not be perfect. Yes, I doubt that the United States has put to death too many people who are innocent, but even one would be too many. 

Also, who are we men to decide that certain crimes are worthy of death anyway? We're not God. We don't make those types of decisions. Or we don't until we come together and form governments. 

In conclusion, I leave you with the words of Gandalf the White, 

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." 

Except of course the Lord. he does see all ends, and everything entirely, and that omniscience and sovereignty is exactly why we should leave the decision of who lives and who dies up to him.

Is Lying Always A Sin?

Imagine this: it is World War II in Germany, the Nazis are searching persistently for Jews. You know all they find will be surely tortured and then killed, as a part of "ethnic cleansing."

Your friend, David, a Jew, is looking for a place to hide. You let him come in; surely, no German would look for a Jew here. Yet this does nothing to calm anyone's nerves. You don't truly believe that this house will really save your friend and know the risk you are taking in harboring a Jew. 

Then comes the knock on the door. You know what this means. You are all doomed. You tell David to hide under a bed. Maybe we'll be lucky and they won't look there. As you open the door, your heart shivers all the more. 

On the other side is a German officer. "Are there any Jews here?" He steps aside pushing you out of the way. As he does this, you exclaim, "Yes, indeed, there is one just upstairs under the bed in the second bedroom on the right!" 

But wait, why would you do such a thing and betray your friend? Surely, you don't believe in the ethnic cleansing of the Germans. Surely, you are not so concerned with your own safety that you would see nothing wrong with subjecting David to torture! 

No, you are concerned with a little question of morality. You see, you had always been taught that lying was a sin, and could not bring yourself to break the commandment of the Lord, even to save one of his people. 

Remember morals are absolute. If God says, "Thou shalt not lie," then "Thou shalt not lie." Period. Regardless of the circumstances that come in our lives, lying would not be permissible. 

But is this really what the commandment of the Lord is? Does the Lord forbid all types of lying, regardless of the benefits thereof in a specific circumstance? 

No, the Lord see lying as permissible in certain situations. Indeed, he has even commanded people to lie to support his will. Thus, clearly, there is no commandment, of "Thou shalt not lie." 

The closest we come to such a commandment is in Exodus 20:16,

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

At first glance, this verse does seem to indicate that lying is forbidden on all accounts, yet a closer examination reveals an essential three-word phrase, "Against thy neighbour."

The Ninth Commandment exhorts us to not lie about everyone around us, to not falsely accuse others of wrongdoing. But it would be a stretch to say that this forbids lying regardless of the circumstance.

Now, I will not be going into when these circumstances exist which make lying permissible. Suffice it to say that they are extremely rare. What I would like to prove is simply that these rare situations occur.

Also note that this idea that the morality of lying is nothing new and does not indicate relative morals. Everyone of us would admit that murder is immoral; however, killing someone in self-defense is justified. The action is the same, but the morality of that action has changed by the situation. Yet no one would argue that this makes morals relative.

Surely, you think my interpretation is a bit too convenient. Lying is not inherently evil, just evil in most situations. Seems like an attempt to justify a position. But it's not.

Not that long ago, I would have fought tooth and nail that lying for any purpose was forbidden. I would have been the friend of the Jew during the Holocaust who told the Germans where they could find my friend.

But I have found that position in stark contrast to what the Lord commands. In I Samuel 16, God tells Samuel to anoint a new king over Israel, but Samuel feared Saul would kill him for these actions. The Lord commands in verses 2-3,

"And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the Lord said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord. And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee."

The Lord here commands Samuel to lie to cover the actions of what he is doing. If you believe that the Lord forbids lying in every circumstance, then how can you justify this action in light of that position? If lying is always a sin, then the Lord is a sinner. And that just won't do.

One may nit-pick and say that it was only a deception, as Samuel really did call a sacrifice. But this excuse holds no water. Regardless, you cannot make any such claims in regards to our next example.

It is Egypt. The Lord's people are sitting in slavery, but the Lord plans to use a man named Moses to rescue them from it and bring them to the Promised Land, never to return to Egypt again.

But that is not what the Lord wants Moses to tell Pharaoh. No, in Exodus 3:18, the Lord instructs Moses to lie,

"Thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God."

 Oh, so that means the Israelites are to come back, right? That seems to be what I was reading. Maybe I'm daft, but this seems to be a promise of a return that the Lord has no intention keeping.

The idea that any and all lying is a sin makes the Lord a sinner. Indeed, this philosophy tears apart all basis of Christianity. Lying in almost every situation is wrong. Spreading false accusations is wrong. Making lies a rule, rather than the exception is wrong.

But lying to save a Jew during the Holocaust, or delivering God's people from tyrannical rule, is not a sin.




On further thought:
Since publishing this post, the Lord has reminded me of Colossians 3:9,

"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds."

The argument could still be made that this verse is telling Christians not to lie to other Christians. It could be sad that lying to non-Christians in order to protect God's people, which describes all my examples in my original post, is permissible, but I'm not quite sure about that. Thus, I am unsure of what implications this should have on situations like the Holocaust, which is why I still ask you to pray for me as I prayerfully find answers to these questions. And maybe you would feel compelled to discuss what you have learned in your similar mulling in this topics. I'm not against changing my mind based on sound logic, even when the logic is not mine.

Doctrines of The Christian Faith 4: The Nature of Christ

From Adam, all men are born sinners. It has been passed down to all of Adam's offspring, except one (although since he existed prior to him, whether you could call him an offspring is debatable). I am referring of course to Jesus Christ.

The Lord was not born in this Earth with glory. He instead was born to a humble family in a simple manger in a humble human form. It is important to remember that this birth was not the beginning of Christ. No, he was an eternal being who has no beginning at all. As Philippians 2:6-7 explains about Jesus,

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."

It is rather important to remember that Jesus is not just a man. He is also fully God. As Jesus was born of the virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost, he is both man and God at the same time, the one and only God-Man.

Some would say that it is impossible for a man to be born of a virgin. But it is nonsensical to say a completely sovereign God could not use his power to alter the ways in which babies are conceived, and the Bible confirms that he did.

If there really is any doubt about whether Jesus is God, we should examine his life and his teachings. Some would like to say that Jesus is simply a teacher, but as C.S. Lewis explains in his famous trilemma, the only options available to us is that Jesus is Lord, a liar, or a lunatic.

No one wishes to discount everything that Jesus said. His teachings are truly quite phenomenal, but we are left with one choice, accept everything that Jesus said (including his deity) or reject everything. We cannot possibly pick and choose. Jesus' claim of deity doesn't give us the chance.

With this claim of deity, we are left with only 3 options:

1. Jesus is simply attempting to seek glory for himself. Such a man would have no interest in the advance of society, nor would he be concerned with the validity of what he said. He would say anything that could help his agenda at any point in time. 
2. Jesus truly thinks he is the Lord, and is a mad man. How could we ever trust any of the ideas of a mad man? 
3. Jesus truly is the Son of God, prepared to take the sins of the world. 

I have no reason to count out every word that Jesus spoke, and have every reason to believe that he is the Lord. As such, we can know that every attribute of the Lord applies as much to Christ as it does to God the Father (remember cut crust, same pie). This includes most importantly the attribute of holiness.

Truly, Jesus was a man who was free from Adam's curse because he was also fully God. As Hebrews 4:15 says,

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

Continue to Doctrines 5: Nature of Atoning Sacrifice 

Doctrines of the Christian Faith 2: Nature of God

We shall begin our discussion of the Doctrines of the Christian Faith with the most important being in the universe, God. Much has been mentioned about the fact that God exists in our Apologetics Series; however, little has thus far been discussed about God's nature. All we really have is some mystical creature who is eternal, immutable, and entirely perfect. This post wishes to discuss three attributes of God. Obviously, there are several attributes of God and each is as important as the next, but we only have so much time to discuss the nature of the Lord, and some (several) omissions had to be made.

Trinity

Math tells us that 1 and 1 and 1 is 3, not 1. Our ability to understand how a being can be three different persons at the same time is difficult to understand or even envision. 

We always like to view analogies to help us understand the Trinity. The most common analogies I hear is that of water and its three stages (gas, liquid, solid)  and the egg and its three parts (the shell, white, yoke). However, I find the former analogy insufficient to describe the fact that the Lord is three people in one at the same time, and the latter analogy fails to convey to me the unity of the Lord as I can differentiate the shell from the yoke quite easily in my mind. 

Thus, I prefer a third analogy given by Christian comedian Mike Warnke about a cherry pie. It could just as easy be apple or blueberry pie, but apparently Mr. Warnke liked cherry pie. When you cut a cherry pie into three pieces and leave it on a plate, the pie filling is going to go back together and remain united with the other two pieces. Similarly, the Lord's outward appearance (or his "Crust") is cut into three pieces, but He is still all united as one person underneath. That is the Trinity of God.

Now that we have our analogy to better understand how the Trinity could even work, let us examine the proof and persons of the trinity. Matthew 28:19 explains,

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible says of this phrase,

"This was intended as the summary of the first principles of the Christian religion, and of the new covenant, and according to it the ancient creeds were drawn up. By our being baptized, we solemnly profess, (1.) Our assent to the scripture-revelation concerning God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We confess our belief that there is a God, that there is but one God, that in the Godhead there is a Father that begets, a Son that is begotten, and a Holy Spirit of both. We are baptized, not into the names, but into the name, of Father, Son, and Spirit, which plainly intimates that these three are one, and their name one. The distinct mentioning of the three persons in the Trinity, both in the Christian baptism here, and in the Christian blessing (2 Cor. 13:14), as it is a full proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, so it has done much towards preserving it pure and entire through all ages of the church."

But we have not begun to discuss the attributes and purpose of each person within the Trinity. To keep it simple, the theologian Boardman writes,

"The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead invisible. The Son is then the fullness of the Godhead manifested, and the Holy Spirit is the fullness of the Godhead making manifest"

Although this summary is nice, it fails to provide us with an acknowledgement of what each person in the Trinity does. Thus, we will remind ourselves of each's purpose and function in God's plan of salvation. First, God the Father is the invisible standard of glory and perfection. God the Son was manifested into a man to take the punishment for our sins. Finally, God the Holy Spirit makes manifest to us the need we have for salvation through Christ by showing how we fail to live up to the standard of the Father.

Sovereignty

What great power is shown through the Lord's every action! One cannot truly question his sovereignty (unlimited or infinite power) when examining his ability to control nature, man, and all spiritual beings, like angels. 

The sovereignty of God is best seen in relation to Creation. As Genesis 1: 3 exclaims, 

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

Wow! The world we see around us was created in many verses just like this one, where the Lord speaks, and what he requested immediately take form.

I Chronicles 29:11-12 explains the sovereignty of God in greater detail.

"Thine, O Lord is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all."

It would be amiss to discuss the sovereignty of God without discussing the concept of predestination. At the time of the Reformation, John Calvin came to the conclusion that the Lord chooses an "elect" few people to come to him and accept salvation.

Obviously, the Lord would have this ability within his sovereign power to dictate who will accept his words. But does he choose to exercise that ability? From what we know about the love of God from the Bible, however, we can conclude that if the Lord was to choose who was to be saved, he would choose everyone. II Peter 3:9 says,

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Calvinists may ask why the Lord would grant free will and allow these people to die, but they must explain why Lord would willfully choose to let some individuals perish eternally in hell.

But they have their belief system. We know that they didn't just think this out of thin air. Thus, it would be beneficial to discuss the verse most commonly used to support predestination - Romans 8:29,

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

This verse does use the word "predestinate," but one must look at the context. After much debate, one of my Calvinist friends and I found we could agree on the following synthesis between the camps of predestination and free will. The Lord knows everything, and knows every decision that has been made, or ever will. He has known these things forever. Everything he foreknew will happen; thus, God's foreknowledge predestines us to be a member of the "Elect." In other words, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." God didn't pick and choose; his foreknowledge of our choices allowed him to predestinate and call the elect.

Holiness

The sovereignty of the Lord would be a little troublesome if he weren't a good and perfect being as well. Thankfully for humanity, he is holy. The Bible proclaims over and over again that he is holy. Perfect and just and righteous. Completely without sin. But what we truly need to realize about the holiness of God is that God is so holy that He cannot look upon sin. Habakkuk 1:13 states, 

"Thou are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity." 

That is the nature of God, holy to the point where He can't look upon anything unholy. He had to separate all sin from his presence. It's hard to imagine anyone that holy, but the Lord is often beyond man's imagination.

Continue to Doctrines 3: Nature of Man