Reproach of Men

I don’t usually write evaluations about software that I use, but I am going to make an exception as this piece of software is, well, unusual in the way it was done. Last week, Google released the Beta version of its new browser, Chrome. Since I do web design, I wanted to see how it rendered a page, and see if what Google promised for robustness was actually true.

I downloaded Chrome using Google’s download manager, which I really didn’t care for, and installed Chrome. I then launched Chrome and discovered the Chrome interface to be — utterly minimal. Now, I am austere. I mean everybody that knows me knows that I am not fancy, or a gadgets kind of person. I like the simple, plain, no-frills approach to things. However, this interface is too minimal.

That was only the first of issues that I encountered. I went to look at the Options and found that a utterly minimalist approach was used there to. In short, I, the user, have little to no control in the way this browser is set up. I cannot tell it how to handle individual websites, I can’t pick and choose content on individual sites and how that content is handled. I can’t set varying levels of security for different sites, etc. etc. Moreover, if I can, it is not readily apparent just how to do that. On top of that, I cannot even control how a file is handled after it is downloaded. Yes, I know that the supposed option is there, but it is all grayed out and not selectable, and I can’t find where to change it easily.

I suspect that I am not the only person that is unhappy with this particular browser. After all, my son called me late last week and asked what I thought of Chrome. I told him and he echoed my sentiments. The only thing Chrome gives me that I don’t have elsewhere is a view of how much memory a particular website is using. Yes, I know that Chrome is supposed to be multi-process, where each tab runs a separate process. But in view of the total lack of control and utterly minimalist interface, I really don’t need the multi-process feature that much. After all, If the browser crashes, I’ll just relaunch it. If a site is that poorly coded, I really don’t care to be there anyway.

Will I like Chrome in the future? It depends totally upon whether Google improves the interface, and adds some meaningful user control.

Well, I actually do live. However, between being sick for a solid week and having to take care of other matters, I have been unable to write anything. This also meant I could not post to the blog.

I have two article series to finish, and a host of other things to write about. However, life outside of the internet is far more important, especially since this blog doesn’t get that much traffic. The reason for that is people are not into reading much except short little tidbits anymore. You don’t learn much when that is the case. Moreover, understanding goes down the drain.

That’s okay. The LORD plainly stated it would be like this in the latter days — right before the Great Tribulation occurs. The only thing about that is the LORD’s ‘right before’ is not quite the same timetable as our ‘right before.’ Thus, I can see this as happening anytime from this moment to 100 years from now. However, I really don’t think we will make it another 100 years — not even close.

Anyway, I should be posting more regularly now that I am over being sick and have a better handle on the things that need to be taken care of.

Did it Saturday evening. (No, I won’t go into what that makes me for doing it on a Saturday evening!) It was an interesting experience, particularly when I viewed the blog in the browser after finishing it, and refreshed the browser – and no posts whatsoever, no links, no calender, no categories, just the theme! Just a little disturbed, I went to login and that worked okay. Then a new screen telling me I had to upgrade the database.

Did that. It told me it was successful. That’s good. I then opened a new tab in the browser and revisited the blog. After refreshing the window, everything came back. Big sigh of relief.

Now we are running WordPress 2.3.3. Quite a few different options and upgrades from the older version that I was running.

However, this post would have been done last night, but the web host I use had a failure of the MySQL server about the same time I went to publish this post. You can just imagine my surprise when I received a white screen with the message “Cannot connect to database.” Uh, okay. That’s not what I call good. Tried to go to the blog. Not happening, same message.

I logged into my hosting account and tried to reach the MYSQL Administrator and could not go there. Called the host “We are experiencing heavy call volume at this time.” Hung up.

I’ll bet. I think I’ll go to bed.

Checked it this A.M. and the blog worked fine. Somebody (or sombodies) had a long night. However, they made sure that it came up as quick as possible. Which is why I use them (plus they’re very helpful when you call, and not rude like some folk).

NOTE: Here we finally return to addressing the issue of Romans 8:29-30 and what they are about, and whether those verses actually support the Calvinist/Reformed theology concerning the foreknowledge of God and the predestination of the lives of persons, some to salvation, and others to damnation. Here we pick back up at establishing the context of Romans, Chapter 8, as it is crucial to understanding the passage of verses 29-30.

In examining the context of Romans, Chapter 8, we find that it begins with the believer, and how the believer is distinct from the lost, and what that change was under the law, or legally.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)

Where before, the law, especially the law of sin and death applied to the believer, upon believing the gospel, that law was done away with in Christ, and now the law of the spirit of life in Christ applies. It is confirmed that this belongs specifically to the believer, and not all men generally as evidenced by the following passage from I Corinthians, Chapter 15:

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Corinthians 15:20-22)

Thus, to the LORD God there are two separate and distinct classes, or sets of people in this earth: those who are alive in Christ, and those who in Adam, are in their trespasses and sins and are dead.¹ The distinction between these two sets cannot be overstated as it is quite radical spiritually. There is limited, one-way transference between the classes, and that is from the set of “in Adam” to the set of “in Christ.” There is no “reverse” of this transference as multiple passages of Scripture confirm, one of which is John, Chapter 5, verse 24:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

The use of the terms “everlasting life” and “shall not come into condemnation” in conjunction with “is passed from death unto life” clearly demonstrate the permanent, one-way transference or translation of the individual from being part of the set of “in Adam” to being part of the set of “in Christ.” If we then understand the distinction between to two classes, or sets, we will understand that they are radically different spiritually, and what applies to one, does not, and cannot apply to the other. Moreover, we must also understand that the sets are “mutually exclusive” and there is no reconciliation between the two.

In examining the differences between the two sets or classes, we do so again as it weighs heavily on what the Scripture teaches about “predestination” and “foreknowledge” and whether the Calvinist/Reformed understanding of Romans, Chapter 8, verses 29-30 is correct, and hence, their understanding of predestination and foreknowledge is correct. In explaining the differences, it is perhaps easier to provide brief statements of the particulars. There are three main differences that will be listed.

Inclusion or membership

In Adam
All individuals of the race of man, saving one, were or are members of this set. No person of the race of man is ever not in this set, save the Lord Jesus Christ. No man has a choice in belonging to this set for at least some portion of their life. Adam is the progenitor of this set.

In Christ
Only those who have repented and believed the gospel belong in this set. There is no person in this set who does not wish to be in this set. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Progenitor of this set.

Destiny

In Adam
The destiny of this set was foreordained to be suffering in Hell and the Lake of Fire. There is no other destination for the members of this set.

In Christ
The destiny of this set is Heaven, then the new heaven and new earth. There is no other destination for this set.

Character or Nature

In Adam
The nature the members of this set were born with does not change. Moreover, there are no changes predestined, or foreordained for this set. One does not have to do anything to remain in this set, and everything will correspondingly remain the same as when they first entered the set.

In Christ
The members of this set do not have the same nature as they were born with, as it was changed upon entering into this set. Thus, there is a continual process of growth for the members of this set, and certain changes are foreordained for each individual in this set.

Hence we see that there are things predestined, or foreordained for the members of each set, but of the set of “in Christ” there are a number of things additionally foreordained to take place, that can never be applied to those who are “in Adam.”

Now, to return specifically to the context of Romans 8, we find that, after briefly touching on the focus of a believer versus those who are not born-again (verses 3 through 9), it continues to focus on the changes that took place at salvation, and what effect those changes have on the believer, to wit:

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:10-14)

Here we are reminded that, though we live in this flesh, we are not to allow it to rule, and are able to rule over it. This strength to rule over the flesh is so strong that, if we are failures in it, volumes are spoken about whether we are actually in Christ or not. Hence, this addresses a condition that only believers would know about and struggle with, having been previously instructed (Chapter 7) concerning the war between the flesh and the soul. The chapter then continues on from this point addressing items that are even more specific to believers only, and speaking nothing about those who are not in Christ. As we can see, the chapter ends on a very high note for the child of God, in that it states:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

In all, Chapter 8 is addressed to believers, and concerns subjects that only believers are concerned about, and only believers struggle with. After all, the lost, which are those in Adam, have no struggle between their flesh and their soul, nor are they concerned about failing in the flesh. Moreover, it is no concern of theirs to make sure the salvation they professed, as they professed no salvation in Christ, and have experienced no change of heart and soul. These things are exclusive to those who are in Christ, who yet live in this world.

So then, let us ask, if verses 29-30 only apply to, and sit specifically in the context of those who are in Christ, and address nothing about mankind in general, why then is this exercise engaged in:

Let’s review the bidding. If we supply the word some to the Golden Chain the result is fatal to the foreknowledge view of predestination because it would have God predestinating some people who are not called. Since the view teaches that God’s predestination is based upon God’s foreknowledge of people’s positive responses to the call of the gospel, then clearly the view collapses if some are predestined with a call.

The supplying of the word all is equally fatal to the foreknowledge view. This difficulty centers on the relationship of calling to justification. If all who are called are justified, then the passage could mean one of two things:

A) All who hear the gospel outwardly are justified; or
B) All who are called by God inwardly are justified.²

and again,

If you believe option A, you are a universalist, that everyone will be saved.
If you believe option B, all who are called inwardly by God are justified.

If all whom God calls inwardly are justified and all whom God predestines are called inwardly, then it follows that God’s foreknowledge concerns more than a mere prior awareness of the free decisions humans will make. God knows from eternity whom he will inwardly call. All who he inwardly calls he will also justify. If option B is the correct understanding of the Golden Chain, then it is clear that God gives one kind of call to some people that he does not give to everyone. Since all who are called are justified and since not everyone is justified, the it follows that calling is a rather significant divine activity that some human beings receive and others do not.³

when the passage plainly states:

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. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

which only and ever addresses those who are in Christ, and touches nothing concerning mankind in general?

Since there are such distinct differences between those in Christ, and those in Adam, why would any exercise in attempting to apply verses 29-30 to all men everywhere be done? What would be the point of trying to draw a conclusion about those who are in Adam?

But, the Calvinist argues: What about the calling?

Here then is their point, and a point that requires answer about going beyond Scripture, and putting words in the mouth of God. They claim:

FOREKNOWLEDGE-PREDESTINATION-CALLING-JUSTIFICATION-GLORIFICATION. The crucial problem here has to do with the relationship of calling and justification. What does Paul mean by “calling”. In theology we distinguish between God’s external call and God’s internal call. We find the external call in the preaching of the gospel. Not everyone who hears the outward call of the gospel becomes a believer. Sometimes the gospel falls on deaf ears.

Now we know that only those who respond to the outward call of the gospel in faith our justified. Justification is by faith. But again, not everyone who hears the outward preaching of the gospel responds in faith. Therefore we must conclude that not all who are CALLED outwardly are justified.

But Paul says in Romans that those whom God CALLS, he JUSTIFIES. If Paul does not mean that ALL who are CALLED are JUSTIFIED, the only alternative would be that SOME who are justified. If we supply the word Some in the GOLDEN CHAIN it would read like this:

Some of those he foreknew, he also predestined. Some of those he predestined, he also called. Some of those he called, these he also justified. Some of those he justified, he also glorified.⁴

However, to pick up on “calling” and try to work out who is called, how and why they are called, and determine that this “proves” predestination and election, is to start in the middle of a statement that only applies to those in Christ, and attempt to apply to mankind in general. This is equivalent to digging into a barrel of apples and then attempting to conclude something about oranges. Here the apostle Paul, by the Holy Ghost, is explaining the work of God in the life of the believer. He is not attempting to show how people come to Christ, or how the LORD God brings people to Christ. We know this by the context of the chapter, and the specific construction of the passage:

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. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

Here we start with “whom he did foreknow” which is to say those known before. Now, there is much to state about this, but for now we shall leave it with simply “knowing beforehand” which is a portion of what is stated in “whom he did foreknow” and is certainly applicable here. Thus, those He knew beforehand, “he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,” which is to state there is an end for those He knew beforehand, which He predetermined that they should be, indeed will be, conformed to the image of Christ.

Notice now that the focus is expressly on the believer, and on the work of God in the life of the believer, and this focus is not directed elsewhere at any time. Just as the Calvinist thinks it is crucial to focus on the middle of the statement and start from there, it is far more crucial, and infinitely more correct to follow the set sequence of Scripture and how the passage is laid out. Hence, there is a sequence defined here which we would do well to pay heed to. This sequence sets in the larger context of the foreknowledge of God, and is defined by the phrase “to be conformed to the image of his Son” and is tied together by a series of connectives which is the phrase “he also.” Therefore, to follow the logic of the passage we find:

Whom he did foreknow:

he also

did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son

he also

called

he also

justified

he also

glorified

Unlike the Calvinist/Reformed reconstruction of the passage, the passage remains totally silent concerning anyone, or anything else outside of “in Christ.” What the passage conveys concerns everyone who is predestined to be conformed to the image of His dear Son, who is Jesus Christ. Thus, everyone He did predestinate to be conformed to the image of Christ, was called, was justified, was glorified. Or, put differently, everyone predestinated to be like Christ, is:

called
justified
glorified.

We can see then that to focus on “called” and then try to work some logic about those who do not respond to the call of God, is to step totally outside of the sequence and flow of the passage and apply it to something it was never intended to be applied to.

To be continued . . .

1. This death is not a cessation of function. Rather it is a separation from fellowship with the LORD God. This is more fully discussed in the post “Adam and the Fall – Part 6“↩
2. pp. 129-133, Chosen of God, R.C. Sproul, Tyndale House, 1994, ISBN 0842313354↩
3. quoted from Aaron, post comments, part belongs to R.C. Sproul, part to Aaron↩
4. pp. 129-133, Chosen of God, R.C. Sproul, Tyndale House, 1994, ISBN 0842313354↩

I don’t usually comment on current events, or the antics of the more notable individuals in this society, however, what has come to light of late begs for comment. This is especially true when no one bothers to even find out what the Scripture actually states concerning the statement or event that created such a stir.

In this Presidential campaign there has been a return to some unpleasant ugliness that one would have hoped didn’t exist in America. However, if you know and understand the nature of man, then you know what an impossibility that is. However, aside from the mainstream media’s censorship of Ron Paul on the Republican side, the Democrats have had their circus going to full effect with the “conflict” between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And now, there is this latest event precipitated by Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Now, Pastor Wright was the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and is the man Barack Obama looks to for guidance in spiritual things. This would not be altogether bad, except for two glaring things:

1. The apparent heart and attitude of Pastor Wright.

2. The unscriptural approach to the doctrines of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What brought this to light are some of the statements made by Pastor Wright during his messages delivered from the pulpit. Now, to be certain, the pulpit is not the place for personal opinion. It is the place where one is to expound upon the subjects the Lord has for His people to instruct, to reprove, and to exhort them to serve Him better; and to clarify His doctrines in accordance with His word, which is the Scripture. For one to go beyond that and put words in the mouth of God, or to demand God’s wrath upon a nation is egregiously wrong and tantamount to blasphemy.

The following was reported as direct quotes made by Pastor Wright from the pulpit. I will leave blank the offending portions of the statements made.

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, G__ ___ America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “G__ ____ America for treating our citizens as less than human. G__ ____ America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”¹

You know, I don’t find this attitude anywhere, in any of the prophets of the Old Testament, and I certainly do not find this attitude in the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Remarkably, though the apostle Paul was arrested, beaten, imprisoned unlawfully, I do not find this attitude in him either. Do we find condemnation of the nations of ancient time in the Old Testament? We certainly do. But not with this kind of heart and attitude.

Moreover, no one, but no one, tells the LORD God who He is going to condemn, and who He is going to bless. All we can ever do is ask. We are told expressly to ask for the LORD to bless, but conversely, we are not told to ask for condemnation of someone, or some nation:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)

What the Lord Jesus Christ instructed on the mount is a far cry from the attitude and heart expressed by Pastor Wright. It does make one wonder who Pastor Wright is following doesn’t it? After all, his attitude is more akin to the attitude expressed by James and John, which was rebuked by the Lord Jesus Christ:

And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9:51-56)

Of course, that Pastor Wright should have such an attitude is not surprising as he has turned away from the Gospel of Christ as the focus of his ministry, and replaced it with something else – social justice. In a statement from John Thomas, the General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ, the promotion of “social justice” is prominent:

“But on the gritty streets of Chicago’s south side where Trinity has planted itself, race continues to play favorites in failing urban school systems, unresponsive health care systems, crumbling infrastructure, and meager economic development. Are we to pretend all is well because much is, in fact, better than it used to be? Is it racist to name the racial divides that continue to afflict our nation, and to do so loudly?”²

You know, when you abandon the gospel in favor of social justice, don’t expect the LORD to bless, and don’t expect the hearts of individuals to change. When you go further and demand that God condemn a nation, you are of another spirit, which is not of God. It is sad that the President of UCC attempted to paint the prophet Jeremiah with this heart and attitude, and then identify with him in an attempt to justify the words of Pastor Wright. What is missing here is the distinction between acknowledging the judgement levied by the LORD God, and the demanding of God’s judgement upon a nation. Plainly, Pastor Wright would be happy if God judged America and destroyed her. What he seems to have missed is the fact that the LORD God is unhappy with him as well, and Pastor Wright’s anger at America for social injustice may bring about the opposite effect.

Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him. (Proverbs 24:17-18)

It makes one wonder who is the head of the UCC and Trinity Church of Christ – the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Devil. After all, they are interested in social justice, and not the gospel of Christ.

1. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788↩
2. http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html↩

NOTE: This article stems from the Wednesday night lesson on 2 May, 2012. The audio of that lesson can be found here, on Ebenezer Baptist Church’s Audio: Messages and Lessons; The Everyone Test page.

When it comes to the issue of behavior, there seems to be an unwillingness to confront certain behaviors as inherently destructive. Rather than call those behaviors out, and ensure that everyone knows those particular behaviors are wrong, many leaders opt out of responding, leaving such behaviors unchallenged. In fact, there is a general attitude in this generation that all behaviors, unless they are immediately dangerous to life and health, are essentially equal and there is no real consequence for engaging in one particular behavior over another.

This thinking comes about because the moral absolutes have been generally discarded in favor of a subjective approach that inherently denies that there are behaviors which are always evil in their consequence. Behaviors which could not come about except the persons which engage in them, abandon reason and consideration for others, in favor of self and the immediate gratification of self. They do so because it appears to them that such actions are without consequence.

Naturally, this would seem to violate a principle which everyone observes from their earliest age:

That every action, no matter how minor and insignificant it may appear, has at least one consequence.

However, because the consequences of some actions take much longer to be realized than others, it appears (especially to those who deliberately blind themselves) that certain actions have no real consequence. Hence, they can be engaged in with impunity

However, this does appear to conflict with the above observed principle, which then, gives rise to a couple of questions worthy of consideration:

How can we determine (or know) if a way of thinking, and the behavior which arises from that thinking, is right and proper to do (or righteous), and another way of thinking and behavior is wrong and destructive in its end (hence, wicked and evil)?

And:

Can we prove, by proving out and weighing the ends of actions, whether or not the system we live in, is a system borne out of random chance, or was indeed created by a righteous God?

A corollary to that is the proof that righteousness either exists, or it doesn’t. If we truly live in a designed system in which certain thoughts and actions are classed as righteous, and others not, then we should see a pattern in the system and be able to determine the laws for that system.

If, on the other hand, the entirety of this creation came about by chance, then the very nature of chance dictates that there can be no set laws to govern the outcomes of thoughts and behaviors. This is due to the very nature of chance – that it is random in both cause and effect. Hence, an action which yields a certain outcome one time, may not yield that same outcome another time. The reason for this is chance or randomness in application of existent conditions.

Since it is obvious that proving something which occurred by chance, cannot be done with any degree of certainty, we must test that which claims to be reliable: The system described in Scripture.

The question also arises:

Can we actually determine a test wherein the existence, or lack thereof, of the system described in Scripture, which is a system originally formed in righteousness, is proved or disproved? And, proving or disproving whether the governing laws of that system are also righteous?

Since we cannot prove or disprove – or even design a test for the evolutionary/atheistic model, as it is based upon a world formed by chance, we now turn to the Scriptural model:

The supposition is:

If the LORD God did not design the system we live in, and there is no such thing as righteousness, this test will fail. If he does exist, and righteousness is indeed operative, then the test will succeed. Success and failure of the test are defined by the standards the LORD set in the Scripture, and can be seen in the commandments.

But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.(Matthew 22:34-40)

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)

According to the statement of the Lord Jesus Christ, there are two preeminent commandments, which everything else in the system is dependent upon. They are:

• Love the LORD God with all your being.
• Love your neighbor as yourself

In the passage from Romans, the apostle Paul explains that “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour:” Thence defining “love” as a characteristic which is beneficial to everyone. Which, in turn, fulfills the law. Since it is clear and plain that Scripture declares that the LORD God created man, it consequently declares that man should love his Creator. Since one cannot “harm” the LORD God, it is clear that “love” expressed toward the LORD, will be seen in obedience.

In further explaining what behaviors are, and are not acceptable, the apostle Paul set forth a list in his epistle to the church in Galatia, in which he states “against such there is no law.” concerning one set of behaviors, but the other set he declares “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:19-23)

Hence, there are two things which are apparent here:

1. The “love” defined by the apsotle Paul in Romans 13, is expressed in those actions set forth in the epistle to the Galatians, of which it is stated “against such there is no law.”
2. The system set up in the Scripture is such that when we engage in the right behaviors it is beneficial to everyone, and when we engage in the wrong behaviors it is a detriment to everyone.

Given the consistency of the assertions concerning our behavior, we are confident that if the system we exist in was indeed set up by the LORD God, that for everyone to engage in a certain behavior will yield a predicable result, and is hence testable.

Plainly, since the Scripture makes such declaration, we set the test parameter thus:

If an action or behavior is proper and right to do, and everyone does it, then it will have a positive effect upon everyone and benefit mankind as a whole.

Conversely:

If the action or behavior is evil and wicked, then when everyone does it, it will have a destructive effect.

Thus, all we have to do is think:

“What would happen if everyone on the earth did “xyz?” What would be the result, or outcome of that?

Additionally, we could apply it to our own thinking and behavior:

“If everyone on the earth thought like I think, what would the outcome of that be?”

Or:

“If everyone had the thoughts I am having right now, what would the outcome be?”

And:

If everyone on the earth did what I am going to do, or are doing right now, what would the outcome of that be?”

For instance:

If everyone lied (and did nothing but lie) to everyone else, what would the outcome of that be?
Consider this:

• You take your car in to have the brakes repaired – and you don’t tell the truth about the brakes and what you have experienced with the car. Will that help or hinder the repair of your vehicle?
• The shop quotes you a price for the repair, but they lie and deliberately do not give you an accurate quote. Will it help or hinder you and your finances?
• When you get the vehicle back, the shop lies about an unsafe problem, declaring they “fixed it” when in actuality they did nothing. Would that help you or be detrimental to you?

Again, if we take another behavior for an example, such as homosexuality, and apply the test to it:

If everyone engaged in homosexual behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual behavior, what would be the result?

Now, the point was raised in a discussion of this and a claim was made concerning artificial insemination. However, artificial insemination cannot be used as it is not available naturally and does not naturally occur. No other behavior would have this advantage. This would be like everyone killing everyone else, yet no one dying. A bit impossible. Rather, for the test to be valid, we must let the naturally occurring outcome take place.

In the case of homosexual behavior, it should take about 100 years and the human race will be extinct.

• What if every woman aborted her child? What would the outcome of that be?
• What if everyone stole to get what they wanted or needed: No one labored to produce anything, they simply stole it from someone else? How well would that work out?
• What if everyone exercised wrath and stayed angry all the time?

Conversely, ask the “What if everyone…” question about the following behaviors:

• Love
• Joy
• Peace
• Longsuffering
• Gentleness
• Goodness
• Faith
• Meekness
• Temperance

Additionally:

• What if every child honored their father and mother?
• What if everyone told the truth all the time?
• What if everyone honored their commitments all the time?

Interesting how it works out, isn’t it? All the behaviors the LORD states are good for us, benefit everyone – even when everyone engages in them. Conversely, when the LORD states a behavior is bad, we can see that it would be very detrimental to everyone if everyone engaged in it.

What does this prove?

That we live in a system that is designed to work a certain way – and no other. The system we live in does indeed work the way the Scripture states it works. And will not work any other way.

In sum:

We are created beings, not evolved through time and chance. The system we live in was created to function a certain specific way – it did not come about as a result of chance. If it did, then you would not be able to reason out the outcomes of the behaviors listed above – which we all can certainly do.

Further, this also proves that all behaviors are not equal, and there are behaviors that no one should ever engage in as they are demonstrably destructive to the entire human race. This speaks volumes about the short-sightedness and selfishness of certain individuals in this world. After all, why would you engage in a behavior that we all can easily reason out and determine to be ultimately destructive to mankind?

One of the most striking aspects of Freemasonry are the religious features of all its rites, rituals and creeds. Thus is was somewhat surprising to see an article in the book, Messages for a Mission, by Henry C. Clausen, 33rd Degree, of the Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World), titled Freemasonry and Religion – Friends or Foes?¹ The article begins with the statement:

FROM time to time there have been published abrasive pamphlets arguing that Freemasonry is hostile to religion or that its teachings are anti-Christian. Initially it should be observed that the authors of such charges seemingly never are Masons and yet they purport to reveal its “secrets.” Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

There are a number of things to address here, but a couple of things stand out as requiring immediate attention before continuing with any other issues. The specific statements are:

Initially it should be observed that the authors of such charges seemingly never are Masons and yet they purport to reveal its “secrets.”

And:

Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

Now, since when has any member of an organization, who is in good standing with that organization, ever been harshly critical of the organization they are part of? Not to be flippant, but the fingers of one hand suffice to count them. In short, Masons who are in good standing are never going to point out the defects of Freemasonry, no matter what they are. Why? Because that is unmasonic conduct and it will get them removed. Hence, Mr. Clausen’s statement becomes automatically true. Moreover, one who is outside Freemasonry is never going to be allowed to see everything in Freemasonry to make any sort of objective judgement. Thus, Mr. Clausen’s statement is axiomatically true again.

What we have here is the setup for a straw man argument, which is completed with the following statement as quoted above:

Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

No Mr. Clausen, only the straw man is destroyed. The fact remains that either the rites and rituals reflect the teaching given in the various books of Freemasonry, or they are something else altogether different. The problem here is that they are not “altogether different” or even different at all. Why? Strictly due to other statements made by Mr. Clausen in the same article:

The so-called revival of Freemasonry in 1717 and Anderson̓s Constitution of 1723 reinforced these new freedoms. The document may be called a Masonic religious Magna Carta. Like-minded men, other than operative masons, were admitted as Speculative Masons. They brought speculative thought with them, and thus there evolved a severence from the dogma of any one church, sect, or creed. There was independence and yet dependence, for faith and trust in God was indispensable. Under that belief, reflected in a Holy Bible upon the altar, and in the Brotherhood of Man and in his capacity for improvement, Freemasonry unites all men. They still may retain their own particular theological dogmas and forms of worship.

There is nothing said in what Mr. Clausen argues that contradicts what Mr. Beasley told me, and what I have read in the Masonic books in my possession. Hence, the charge,

Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

is simply a straw man to cause one to question the things quoted from Masonic books as being factually true. The reason this is done, is the very same reason they are so secretive about the rites and rituals — the vast majority of individuals in society would find the rites and rituals evil, repulsive, and abhorrent. When the statements and teachings contained in Freemasonry’s books are brought to light and compared with the Scripture rightly divided, they are found to be actually anti-Christian and utterly condemning of the fraternity. In this, Freemasonry is no different from the Mormon religion and all its secret rites and rituals.

Last of all, questions must be raised concerning a statement made by Mr. Clausen, which is a standard Masonic teaching. To wit:

Under that belief, reflected in a Holy Bible upon the altar, and in the Brotherhood of Man and in his capacity for improvement, Freemasonry unites all men. They still may retain their own particular theological dogmas and forms of worship.

Upon that statement I must ask:

Where is it in Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Almighty God, allows for worship of Himself in whatever way men happen to think appropriate?

Where is it in Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ is defined in any other way than Almighty God, and God manifest in the flesh?

Where is it in Scripture that salvation is found in anything, or anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ?

You see, believing in “God” however one chooses to define him, is not sufficient for fellowship, or for reconciliation with the LORD:

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (James 2:19)

So it is that Freemasonry deliberately chooses not to define the truth, and as will be seen, actually works to obscure the simple truth of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone. However, the most interesting statement of all comes at the end of the article, and is an admission of what Freemasonry and Freemasons strenuously deny:

Its truths and teachings are not the exclusive property of any church. On the contrary, Masonry is additive to any religion or theology. We are sure that its immense popularity and strength will continue and grow with an ever-abiding belief in God and “that religion in which all men agree leaving their particular opinions to themselves.”

In case it was missed, Mr. Clausen admits that Freemasonry is:

“that religion in which all men agree leaving their particular opinions to themselves.”

To be continued . . .

1. Messages for a Mission, Henry C. Clausen, The Supreme Council, 1977, ISBN 77-78489. The use of excerpts from this article are in accordance with the “Fair use” provision of the Copyright Act.↩

Today, LewRockwell.com posted a speech given by Laurence M. Vance at the June 8, 2008, Future of Freedom Foundation’s conference on “Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties.” In this speech, Mr. Vance spoke specifically on the subject of Christians and war. In his speech, he critiqued “Christians” severely for their support of war. He also drew no distinctions about what makes one a “Christian,” and where, in Scripture he finds the support for his contention that war, in and of itself, is wrong for a Christian to engage in. In the very first paragraph of his “talk” he states:

“If there is any group of people that should be opposed to war, torture, militarism, the warfare state, state worship, suppression of civil liberties, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government propaganda, and an aggressive foreign policy it is Christians, and especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Scripture and worship the Prince of Peace. It is indeed strange that Christian people should be so accepting of war. War is the greatest suppressor of civil liberties. War is the greatest destroyer of religion, morality, and decency. War is the greatest creator of fertile ground for genocides and atrocities. War is the greatest destroyer of families and young lives. War is the greatest creator of famine, disease, and homelessness. War is the health of the state.”

And if ever there were a broad brush, Mr. Vance has used it. About four-fifths of the things given in the first sentence do not even belong together. If we examine this list, we find some things that are strongly supported by Scripture, and others that Scripture expressly condemns. However, according to Mr. Vance, for one to be a Christian, one must oppose all items on the following list:

“If there is any group of people that should be opposed to war, torture, militarism, the warfare state, state worship, suppression of civil liberties, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government propaganda, and an aggressive foreign policy it is Christians . . .”

If we take this list at face value, according to Mr. Vance, King David could not have ever been a Christian.

Why?

Because King David engaged in virtually everything on this list almost his entire life. Now, was everything David did right and proper Scripturally? No, obviously not. However, there are only three specific incidents of transgression the LORD God was displeased with:

The unlawful and improper transport of the Ark of the Covenant. (I Chronicles 13, 15)
The matter of Uriah the Hittite’s wife. (II Samuel 11-12)
The numbering of Israel. (I Chronicles 21)

Funny how that only when it came to building the temple was King David told by the LORD God that his wars prevented him from doing that. (I Chronicles 22:6-8)

However, before going further, I suppose it ought to be established whether King David was a Christian or not, seeing that most do not believe that believers in the Old Testament were.. In a word: yes, King David was a Christian. The proof of King David believing in Christ to come is throughout the Psalms. The proof that people were saved in the time of the Old Testament by grace through faith in Christ (or the Messiah) to come is extensive in Scripture and I have written about it in the following articles:

Where Did the Old Testament Saints Go?
A Departure
A Departure, Pt. II
A Departure, Pt. III

Any proper study of the Scriptures will indeed show that, as Christianity is defined (a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ – the Saviour), all believers in the Old Testament were (and still are)¹ Christians. This applies to everyone from Adam and Eve forward. (Hebrews 11:4)

To return to the issue at hand: how can it be that someone who has a degree in Theology, and claims to have studied the Scripture, have such a remarkable lack of understanding of what the Scripture states about war, its origin, what a born-again child of God’s relationship to, and view of war ought to be? Instead, the extent of Mr. Vance’s citation of Scripture in his speech consists of three (3) verses, one of which is taken out of context and another is only partially quoted. Mr. Vance fronts his citations with the following paragraph:

“The early Christians were not warmongers like so many Christians today. They did not idolize the Caesars like some Christians idolize President Bush. They did not make apologies for the Roman Empire like many Christians do for the U.S. Empire. They did not venerate the institution of the military like most Christians do today. They did not participate in the state’s wars like too many Christians do today. If there was anything at all advocated by the early Christians it was peace. After all, they had some New Testament admonitions to go by:

* Blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9)
* Live peaceably with all men (Romans 12:18)
* Follow peace with all men (Hebrews 12:14)”

Then, Mr. Vance goes on to begin the next paragraph with the statement:

“Aggression, violence, and bloodshed are contrary to the very nature of Christianity.”

Now, whatever evidence Mr. Vance has for his contentions concerning early Christians, he certainly does not use the Scriptures to support it, and indeed mixes things that are valid Scripturally, with things that are invalid. For instance, it is true that aggression, violence and bloodshed are incompatible with spreading the gospel. But, they are ordained and given to the state by the LORD God. The assertion that “early Christians” did not participate in state wars is patently against what the Scripture plainly states concerning Cornelius and many others in the Roman army:

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. (Acts 10:1-4)

What we find in this chapter is Cornelius’ obedience to God in sending for Peter, Then Peter coming to Cornelius’ house and preaching the gospel to Cornelius and all his house and close friends. During Peter’s preaching we find the following occurs:

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:44-48)

Now, we will search in vain to find where Peter explains to Cornelius that he must leave the Roman Army to serve God. Why? Because it is not there, and it is not there because it is not required nor demanded. In fact, the relationship of the child of God to military service was explained much earlier by John the Baptist as he preached the gospel and prepared the way for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ:

And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then? He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people. (Luke 3:10-18)

If we note what John told the soldiers, we will note the absence of any demand they leave military service. Rather, he tells them to uphold their duty in a right and just manner,² and be content with their wages. He does not say “Don’t go to war.” or “Leave the military.” or Don’t support the Roman empire’s wars.” Those statements, and others like them are notably absent throughout the New Testament. Surely, if a Christian serving in the military were such a serious issue, don’t you think the LORD God would have addressed it directly?

To be continued . . .

1. An understanding of what it means to be “in Christ” is essential to understanding how one, once born again, will never leave the status of “in Christ.”↩
2. The statement “Do violence to no man,” does not mean to avoid combat in the line of duty. What it means in the context given is to not arbitrarily and capriciously, wantonly do harm to someone simply because you can. It is a frequent temptation for armed soldiers, especially stationed in a foreign land, to lash out and unnecessarily strike someone simply because they can.↩

The King James Version & The New Revised Standard Version

Copyright 2000; All scripture is Authorized King James Version, 1769 edition except where otherwise noted. This article may be copied and used without permission of the author, provided it is copied and used in its entirety

Note to the Reader
The following verses were selected for comparison as they are commonly used to teach the doctrine concerning the nature of man. This comparison is for the purposes of demonstrating the fact that the ‘modern’ versions do not state the same thing as the King James Version, contrary to what many who support them claim. Briefly stated, the issue is not one of merely updating the language, nor is it an issue of ‘better’ texts. Rather, it is an issue of teaching an entirely different doctrine concerning the things of God. If we understand the import of this, then we will understand that they also teach a distortion of the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. After all, if we do not understand our true nature, then we will assuredly not understand our real need for a Saviour, and will not turn to the Lord Jesus Christ in true repentance and faith. The sad and terrible part of this is that one will end up in Hell and not truly understand why until the day of Judgment at the Great White Throne. — Paul W. Davis

Verses Compared:

• Isaiah 64:6
• Psalms 51:5
• Deuteronomy 1:39
• Romans 7:8-11

New Revised Standard Version

Psalms 51:5

Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.

Deuteronomy 1:39

And as for your little ones, who you thought would become booty, your children, who today do not yet know right from wrong, they shall enter there; to them will I give it, and they shall take possession of it.

Romans 7:8-11

But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died, and the very commandment that promised life, proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

Isaiah 64:6

We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy cloth. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Definitions

Ordained — past tense of ordain: (1) To put in order, arrange. (4) To set up (something) to continue in a certain order; to establish or found by ordinance; to institute.

Promised — past tense of promise: (1) To make promise of; to give verbal assurance of; to undertake or engage, by word or writing to another person, to do or refrain from (some specified act), or to give or bestow (some specified thing: usually to the benefit or advantage of the person concerned.

Very — (1) Really or truly entitled to the name or designation; possessing the true character of the person or thing named; properly so called or designated; = True (2) With limitation(usually expressed by the or a possessive) to particular instances: The true or real; that is truly or properly entitled to the name. II(8) Used as an intensive, either to denote the inclusion or something regarded as extreme or exceptional, or to emphasize the exceptional prominence or some ordinary thing or feature. (9) Neither more nor less than (that expressed by the subject qualified); exactly that specified without qualification; = Sheer (d) The very thing, the thing exactly suitable or requisite.

Commentary
One of the concepts, or Scriptural principles and truths that must be understood for one to be born again is the nature of man. It is our nature to sin, and our subsequent actions that are in accordance with that nature, that is the cause of our guilt before God prior to salvation. Proper Scriptural doctrine plainly states that we have the problem of who we are; and who we are causes us to do what we do. In other words, we are born with a sin nature (Psalm 51:5). The Bible also teaches that children are not charged with sin because of their ignorance (Deut. 1:39 & Romans 7:8-11) and, that as soon as one becomes aware of the commandments (the age of accountability — Romans 7:8-11) that person immediately (because of the sin nature) rebels and transgresses and are now accounted sinners before the LORD God.

Now the King James Version is very consistent in the above verses to the point of Isaiah 64:6 where we are all as an unclean thing (child or adult). This is not as it is in the New Revised Standard Version where it is written that we become like one who is unclean. To say that we “become” unclean is to ignore the fact of our inherited sin nature. This is just one of the many inconsistencies in this version. Further, if you examine Psalm 51:5 and Romans 7:8-11 it is apparent they are contradictory.

When you look at these verses, look at them with an eye towards a doctrine and the verse support for it. I believe you will find it very difficult to use the verses in the NRSV for much of anything, let alone teaching about our nature and the results of it.

Two additional items I would like to draw your attention to are the verb tense changes between the KJV and the NRSV, and the use of the word “very” in Romans 7:10 in the NRSV. As the verb tense changes are plain I will address the word ‘very’.

The use of the word ‘very’ is quite strange in this context; for the whole passage speaks of the commandment in the general sense and not any particular commandment. The word ‘very’, when used directly with a subject such as the commandment denotes it as a singular, or specific thing. Furthermore, ‘ordained’ and ‘promised’ do not mean the same thing. This being the case, Romans 7:10 has a most different interpretation in the NRSV.

NOTE: This article stems from the Wednesday night lesson on 2 May, 2012. The audio of that lesson can be found here, on Ebenezer Baptist Church’s Audio: Messages and Lessons; The Everyone Test page.

When it comes to the issue of behavior, there seems to be an unwillingness to confront certain behaviors as inherently destructive. Rather than call those behaviors out, and ensure that everyone knows those particular behaviors are wrong, many leaders opt out of responding, leaving such behaviors unchallenged. In fact, there is a general attitude in this generation that all behaviors, unless they are immediately dangerous to life and health, are essentially equal and there is no real consequence for engaging in one particular behavior over another.

This thinking comes about because the moral absolutes have been generally discarded in favor of a subjective approach that inherently denies that there are behaviors which are always evil in their consequence. Behaviors which could not come about except the persons which engage in them, abandon reason and consideration for others, in favor of self and the immediate gratification of self. They do so because it appears to them that such actions are without consequence.

Naturally, this would seem to violate a principle which everyone observes from their earliest age:

That every action, no matter how minor and insignificant it may appear, has at least one consequence.

However, because the consequences of some actions take much longer to be realized than others, it appears (especially to those who deliberately blind themselves) that certain actions have no real consequence. Hence, they can be engaged in with impunity.

Continue reading . . .