An Uncooperative Tool

image_pdfimage_print

Running and managing a blog is an interesting exercise in patience, particularly when that blog is in your own webspace and you are solely responsible for all the management, housekeeping and troubleshooting of the problems that can occur when it is upgraded, features are added, etc.

Recently, I upgraded the software that runs the blog, turned all the added features back on, and tried to post. The posting part went well, but the e-mail notifications of the posts didn’t occur like they were supposed to. After considerable troubleshooting, it was narrowed down to a server issue of indeterminate origin. The author of the feature (called a “plugin”) that allows the automatic e-mails, had developed a workaround as my problem is not that uncommon. Apparently there are quite a few web hosts that have interesting server configurations.

For now, the problem is resolved and the e-mailer is working. Some of you will have received a “test post” notification. Kindly delete it. Hopefully, I will not have to go through this again, but I kind of think that is like hoping the sun won’t rise tomorrow. But, for now, it’s fixed.

Keeping the Feasts?

image_pdfimage_print

One of the things I learned early on as a technician was the axiom that anyone can mess anything up, and usually in very short order. But it takes a knowledgeable, skilled individual considerable time to make it right again.

It is no different with doctrinal errors. Anyone can come up with a doctrine that is in error. However, explaining why the doctrine they came up with and promote is erroneous, takes time and considerable effort. This is the essence of apologetics, and what makes apologetics such a difficult endeavor. However, there is a wonderful thing about apologetics, in that it provides an excellent springboard for teaching and instructing in the Scripture, particularly concerning the doctrine in question and the why of it.

So it is with yet another error promoted by WorldNetDaily and El Shaddai Ministries. According to Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries, we should observe the feasts that were given to Israel as part of the covenant called the Old Testament:

“The spring and fall feasts, Biltz says, were not intended only for the children of Israel. They are, the Bible says, “the feasts of the Lord” – and they have special meaning with respect to the life, death, resurrection and return of Jesus.

There’s still time to learn these important lessons before the fall feasts are past.” ((Christians: Find out why Yom Kippur is your holiday, too))

The problems with the whole thesis promoted by Mark Biltz are contained in a statement on page two of his notes that go along with the DVD:

The Jews were the first Pentecostals! They had been Pentecost for 1500 years before Pentecost. They called it the feast of Weeks! They still keep it today! ((Feast of Weeks notes))

What the above statement demonstrates is the strong tendency to view Scripture through the lens of Pentecostal doctrine, and make doctrinal determinations accordingly. This is not the correct way to view Scripture — at all. While I am a fundamental Baptist, the doctrine of Baptists do not rule when it comes to determining what Scripture states. In fact, that would be, and is, a sure road to error.

Am I then denying Baptist doctrine? Not at all. What I am doing is proving out what the Scripture states in accordance with Scripture:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thessalonians 5:21)

The problem that exists, and is part and parcel to this man’s error, is that he accepted Pentecostal doctrine without examining it and testing it by Scripture. To be sure, he is not alone, and has considerable company. However, that does not make it right. Rather, what it does do is make for a whole lot of folks with bad doctrine and a flawed way of looking at Scripture. What I found by proving all things is that Baptist doctrine is correct, and is dead on when it comes to the essential portions pertaining to the LORD God, salvation, the church, and the life to come. Certainly, there are a number of folks who call themselves Baptist, who hold variant doctrines, but each and every one must be properly tried by the Scripture — and proven out.

Certainly, this warrants a much more in-depth discussion, but it would digress from the intention and purpose of this article. Suffice to state that my doctrine is plainly published here for all to examine and test by the Scripture. I am a fundamental, unaffiliated Baptist by conviction, and not any other reason. Doctrine is supposed to submit to Scripture, and not the other way around.

Thus, when Mark Biltz makes the statement:

The Jews were the first Pentecostals! They had been Pentecost for 1500 years before Pentecost.” ((ibid))

This reveals an egregious bias toward Pentecostal doctrine and tradition and indicates plainly that he views Scripture through the template of that Pentecostal experience. There is also further evidence that Mark Biltz viewed the Scripture in the wrong way as he also purports to show:

The video series pinpoints the specific day on the Hebrew calendar for the return of Jesus. The only unknown, according to Biltz, is which year that return will occur – though he makes the case it is very near. ((Christians: Find out why Yom Kippur is your holiday, too))

Now, I have to ask how this can be as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself plainly stated, not once but twice that no one knows the day, the time, the season, or the year, and that He Himself did not know:

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. (Mark 13:28-33)

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. (Acts 1:6-7)

In executing the office of the Son, the Word refuses to know at what time the Father will command His return to take the Kingdom. This directly contradicts the claim of Mark Biltz and the marketeers at WorldNetDaily. This affirms that we ought not pay heed to anything else presented. In fact, the deception of this work is evident on page 9 of the Notes when Acts, chapter 1, verses 3 and 4 are referenced, and in the following paragraph, verses 9 is referenced, but verses 6 and 7 which I quoted above are skipped over and ignored because they specifically contradict the claim that only the year of Christ’s return is not known. The terms “times” and “seasons” mentioned in verse 7 refer to years and months, and do not refer to days and hours. In short, the Lord Jesus Christ is telling us that it is none of our business, and we can’t know it anyway, when He is to return. We are supposed to be busy about the work he has given us to do.

However, since the supposition of Mark Biltz is that Christians of this time ought to partake of the feasts, and many are snared by that idea, it is profitable to examine that issue to the extent of proving or disproving the assertion.

It is undisputed that all the feasts and laws were given to Israel to observe so long as they were in covenant with the LORD. What is disputed is whether those observances apply to any of us today. I noted in the 57 pages of notes provided as a teaser for the DVD, that certain passages of Scripture were never brought up. I do not find this unusual in that most everyone who promotes bad doctrine omits the passages of Scripture that expressly contradict their position (some do try to twist the Scripture to fit their doctrine). There were two specific passages omitted from the 57 pages of notes that expressly and directly apply to the old covenant the LORD had with Israel.

The first passage is from Matthew, chapter 23:

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matthew 23:34-39)

This is a chilling condemnation of Israel by the very one who was in covenant with them. We should note His words:

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Plainly, they are declared to be by the mouth of the LORD, enemies of the one with whom they had a covenant. Moreover, that the shed blood of all the prophets would be laid upon them as a people. But it is the ending statement that contain the declaration ending the Old Testament covenant:

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Every time before this during the ministry of the Lord Jesus, we find Him referring to the temple as “my house” or “my Father’s house.” Now, immediately after condemning the leadership of Israel, and immediately before the last Passover he was to hold with His chosen disciples, He breaks the covenant by stating:

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

It is now their house, and they can do with it what they will. This hearkens us back to the prophet Zechariah and the words given him by the Holy Ghost:

And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. (Zechariah 11:10-13)

So it is that the Old Testament covenant is ended. But what about the feasts, ceremonies, offerings and such like? What became of them?

In Hebrews we are given to understand much concerning the ‘whys and wherefores’ of salvation and the necessity of it being accomplished in the manner it was. In so doing, the matter of the Old Testament covenant is addressed as well. Beginning in chapter 9, the explanation of the Old Testament rituals and ordinances begins:

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. (Hebrews 9:1-5)

This sets the context for all that follows, in which we are expressly told that these ordinances were nothing more than figures, shadows of things to come.

Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:6–10)

We are also instructed that these ordinances, sacrifices and rituals did not please the LORD, and that Christ has come and done away with those ordinances, sacrifices and ceremonies and established a different ministry and witness:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:1-10)

It is very plain at this point that all that was done in the old covenant with Israel was to show a picture of the work of Christ to come. That is was not effectual for salvation, but was only done to maintain a picture and object lesson concerning the Redeemer that would, in the fulness of time, be born of a virgin and fulfill the work set for Him.

Thus, when the Lord Jesus Christ’s work was accomplished, we find a signal event occurs:

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; . . . (Matthew 27:50-51)

If we then examine this account in light of that which is explained in Hebrews, chapters 9 and 10, we should understand that all of the types, shadows, pictures and illustrations of the Old Testament covenant are taken away and replaced with a new covenant that pictures the finished work of Christ. Where before, the work was not yet accomplished on this earth, it was necessary to explain the work to be done; now that it is accomplished, we must show the end of that work and all it signifies. Hence, we have but two simple ordinances, water baptism by immersion, and the Lord’s Supper. The first signifies the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and can only be done by someone who is born again in Christ. The second commemorates Christ’s death, and can only be partaken of by those who are members of a local, New Testament church. The sweeping away of all other ordinances then pictures the translation that takes place in moving the individual from under the power and sway of the law, to being placed under grace and the believer establishing the law.

So what would it mean if one kept any one of, or all the feasts?

Since it was quite plain that all the ordinances of the Old Testament were to show the Messiah to come, picking them back up again and performing them would illustrate the same. Hence, it would be a not so subtle denial that the Messiah has come in the flesh, and His work is accomplished.

There is a term for this:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (I John 4:2-3)

It does give rise to question the discernment and understanding of those who claim that we should keep any of the Old Testament ordinances, even just to experience them once.

See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (Ephesians 5:15-16)

Distorting the Word

image_pdfimage_print

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

. . .There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Romans 3:18)

Of the more common things assumed by people concerning the Scriptures, there are a couple that really don’t sit well with me. It’s not that I get angry or anything, it’s just distressing to consider that people do not understand certain, very important items with regard to Scripture.

First, not all Bibles are the same. For as long as the word of God has been around, men have been perverting it. This is done mainly to justify themselves and their strange, ungodly doctrines and arcane religion. Most folks, even in solid fundamental churches, do not know that the King James Bible comes from the line of Scripture that never saw Roman Catholic influence, and is of the same source text as the Bibles used by the independent, autonomous churches that were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church, the Muslims, and various other pagan religions ever since the first church at Jerusalem. Fundamentally, the underlying text is different, and in the case of the King James Bible, the method of translation is different as well. These things cannot help but bear strongly on the doctrine contained in the Bible one chooses to read.

Second, that the Scripture belongs to the LORD God and Him alone. It is His word. It is really puzzling to me that people will scream bloody murder over plagiarism and the unauthorized alteration of someone else’s work, but don’t seem to grasp the enormity of altering the word of God, and the condemnation that brings upon them. No, it is as if they believe there is no consequence to their action. It is interesting that the translators of the King James Bible held a very strong belief that they were not free to change anything in the Scripture. Unlike a lot of folks, they believed the Scripture to be sacred and not be touched without consequence. In short, they believed the truth of the following statement:

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (II Peter 1:19-21)

It is the understanding that the Holy Ghost caused the men who penned the Scriptures to put the words on parchment, vellum, and whatever else they used as a medium for their writing, that caused the translators to hold the Scriptures as sacred. Moreover, that the words written were not really the words of the prophets who penned them, but are the words of Almighty God, given to the prophets to write. Thus, the words are not to be tampered with, as one king in Judah found out:

And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day. It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book. (Jeremiah 36:1-4)

When Jeremiah was done speaking everything the LORD had given him, Baruch took the roll and read it in the temple, in the hearing of all the people. In the events that followed, the roll was taken and read before the king. The king’s response was the same disrespect for the word of God that we see so much of today:

So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe’s chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king. Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words. (Jeremiah 36:21-24)

Though Jehoiakim, king of Judah thought that burning the roll would be the end of the matter, he found out that the LORD God does not take kindly to someone utterly disregarding, and then destroying His word. Not only would the words be written again, but judgement was pronounced upon Jehoiakim for his insolence.

Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned. And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast? Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. (Jeremiah 36:27-30)

Now, all the above is necessary to understand what a blessing it is that we, as English speakers have in possessing the word of God in the form of the King James Bible. English history is intertwined with the Bible and fundamental Christianity. This desire for the word of God is most visible during the time of Wycliff and Tyndale, but has existed since 63 AD when the gospel reached the British Isles. However, the pinnacle of the desire for the pure word of God culminated with King James the VI & I of Scotland and England, and the translation of the King James version of the Bible.

I call attention to all this because there is a third assumption made by the vast majority of individuals concerning the word of God. It seems that we implicitly assume that every language has a right Bible like we do. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sadly, most of the languages in the world do not have a Bible with the proper underlying Greek and Hebrew text, and are not properly translated either.

The reason for this lies in the way the Scripture has been handled in those languages from the time they first received the word of God. One of those languages is German. There is no right German Bible. Either the underlying text is wrong, or the translation suffers from the doctrinal/cultural bias of the translator. One of the reasons for this is found is a German religious poem tracing back to about 830 AD. The poem is supposed to be about Jesus, the Redeemer. But this Jesus is nowhere near the Lord Jesus Christ of the Scripture:

Der Heliand

Of the other religious poems, Der Heliand (Heiland – the Redeemer) is still mentioned. A showpiece of the Germanic Stave rhyme poetry of about 6000 long lines. The epic poem was written during the Carolingian times (around 830 A.D.) in the language of old Saxony. It is assumed that Kaiser Ludwig the Pious, the son of Karls des Großen, ordered a Saxon poet to poetically germanise the Gospel. The Redeemer is a gospel harmony, or a portrayal of the life of Jesus, which the poet put together from all four of the gospels.

In this epic Christ becomes, fully corresponding to the German feeling, a German king, his disciples, followers. The setting of the plot is not the Jewish Palestine, rather the German Saxony. The German traits of loyalty, honor, courage, masculinity, and heroism are brought forth strongly. Because the Germans were unfamiliar with loving your enemies, self sacrifice, humility, loving your neighbor, and the idea of peace, Christ is portrayed, not as a poor, humble man, but rather as a courageous, powerful king of the people, a man of the sword, who dies in the battle for his people and for God’s Kingdom. The shepherds in the field, don’t tend sheep, rather brave horses, Joseph is a loyal vassal, the holy three kings are noblemen, who come to swear loyalty to their feudal lord, the marriage in Cana is a German celebration, and in the Sermon on the Mount he promulgates his teaching to his followers. A few lines in modern translation should convey to us the spirit of this wonderful cultural document:

“Then was the quick sword-warrior Peter infuriated. His wrath boiled wildly, he could not speak, for it troubled him so deeply, that they wanted to seize the Lord. Wrathfully he stepped forward, the bold warrior, to stand up for his leader. Quickly he pulled the sword from his side and hit the nearest enemy with full force, so that Malchus was reddened with the sword’s cut, on the right side, his ear cut off, his cheek split. Blood shot out, seething from the wound. As the cheek of the nearest enemy was split, the people moved back out of fear of the sword’s bite.“ ((Deutsche Kulturgeschichte, 3rd Edition, 2002, Hans-Wilhelm Kelling, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-287027-3, pp 55-56. (Translated by SuAnne Droddy) ))

Ever wonder why the gospel and fundamental Christianity never seemed to get anywhere in Germany? Perhaps it also has much to do with Luther as well, since Luther often translated the words “reprove,” “rebuke,” and “teach” as “beat and thrash” in the Bible he translated, which is fully consistent the German cultural understanding of Christ expressed in Der Heliand. Now, to be certain, Luther had the correct underlying text for his translation work. But Luther’s doctrine was also skewed, and he yielded far to much to German culture, as it is expressed in the poem above. In Luther’s mind the wonderful passage in Titus, chapter 2 concerning grace, becomes something to be avoided. When we read it in English, we equate teaching with instruction, since the word “teach” does mean exactly that — to instruct.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; . . .(Titus 2:11-12)

But in the Luther Bible it becomes:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, beating and thrashing us . . .(Titus 2:11-12)

Now, the underlying word in Greek could be translated as “beating and thrashing.” But that would be terribly inconsistent with what “grace” is, and how grace works. No, the problem is that Luther was very much influenced by the culture he lived in, and translated the Scripture accordingly. This is apparent from the fact that the particular meaning Luther chose for “teach” is not the primary meaning of the word. Instead, Luther chose a meaning that was in minority usage, and out of step with how the rest of Scripture portrays the working of grace. Teaching and instruction do not require chastening unless the person being taught won’t learn any other way. Moreover, there is specific underlying Greek word for “chastisement.” The underlying Greek word for “teaching” is given below to demonstrate the error Luther perpetuated in his translation of the Bible. Luther could have used any number of German words that mean specifically “teaching,” such as “lehren” or “unterrichten,” et al. However, Luther chose to use the word “züchtigen” which has the specific meaning “to beat or thrash,” thus not even broaching the idea of teaching, let alone any other method of teaching. Since the rest of Scripture does a very good job of defining the methods the LORD uses for teaching, Luther could have used any German word for teaching, and let the context derive the meaning. In the following definition, please note that the meaning which includes striking someone, is very much the minority usage of the word:

3811 paideuo {pahee-dyoo’-o} from 3816; TDNT – 5:596,753; v
AV – chasten 6, chastise 2, learn 2, teach 2, instruct 1;
13 GK – 4084 { πpαaι?δdεeύ?ω? }
1) to train children
1a) to be instructed or taught or learn
1b) to cause one to learn
2) to chastise
2a) to chastise or castigate with words, to correct
2a1) of those who are moulding the character of others by reproof and admonition
2b) of God
2b1) to chasten by the affliction of evils and calamities
2c) to chastise with blows, to scourge
2c1) of a father punishing his son
2c2) of a judge ordering one to be scourged ((Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.))

What this demonstrates is the error of allowing culture to influence the translation of the Scripture into the vernacular of the people of a particular language. The translation is supposed to be a formal equivalence translation that is independent of the culture of the people. This is necessary as the Scripture is supposed to reform the culture. If the Scripture condemns a particular cultural ideal, then so be it. We all are, meaning everyone in this world, supposed to conform to the word of God, not the other way around. To do what Luther did (and so many others have done), is to pervert and distort the message the LORD God has in his word. To do that is certain to incur the displeasure of the LORD. Moreover, the people who are influenced by such distortion of the Scripture, will never truly understand what the LORD is doing and why He is doing it. Finally, there are some specific thoughts that we ought to keep firmly in mind concerning the situation we see with translations of the Scripture into different languages:

1. Since every word of God is pure, changing the words in the slightest is certain to make them impure, and distort the meaning, thus changing the message.

2. There is a reason the LORD gifts some men to be teachers of His word. Things that are not so clear in Scripture must be taught. Nowhere in the Scripture does it declare the Scripture to be a “do it yourself,” self-teaching book. That is not the method the LORD chose to use. Instead, He expressly chose to use individuals to minister unto other individuals and teach them the things pertaining to the LORD, and what the LORD requires of man. This necessarily includes things that are obscured by the culture the man of God is sent to. Lest we forget, it is a glory to God that an individual voluntarily follows the LORD and willingly teaches His word unto others.

3. Tampering with the word of God does great harm and hinders the acceptance of the Scripture by the people to whom the Scripture is sent. Germany never has had a right Bible, and neither have the Spanish speaking people. The primary reason for this is the hearts of the people. The LORD God responds directly to the hearts of individuals, and when the predominance of individuals in a culture will not receive the things of God, the LORD responds accordingly. For whatever reason, the people of the British Isles have loved the word of God, and the things of God. This love reached its zenith between 1500 and 1700 AD, but has been evident from time to time since 63 AD. Clearly it has much to do with how the Scripture was handled by those entrusted with it. The LORD God responded to this by giving the English speaking people a pure and right Bible. Sadly, we do not see the same desire for the true word of God in history of either the German or Spanish speaking peoples. What is worse is the fact that we do not see that desire in hardly any other culture in this world — much to their detriment.

Last of all, we must remember whose word it is that we have the privilege of looking into. The Scripture belongs to the LORD God, and he will give understanding of it to whosoever He will. Our attitude toward the word of the LORD dictates how much understanding of that word we will receive.

Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. (Isaiah 66:1-2)

Eternal Security

image_pdfimage_print

This is probably more a gripe than anything else. It pertains to something I see over and over again with those who reject some very provable Scriptural doctrines, even though the proof of those doctrines is overwhelming in Scripture.

Why do they reject those doctrines?

Because some who adhere to those doctrines failed utterly. Yes indeed, because some person, or several persons did not continue to live in a way that is proper and godly, they rejected the doctrines those persons held as being false.

Now, it should be no surprise that the doctrine most commonly attacked is the doctrine of Eternal Security.

Why?

Because someone might actually make it to Heaven without having to live more righteous than the Pharisees. (No, that’s not a cheap shot either. It is literally the way virtually all those who reject the doctrine of Eternal Security think.)

It is irrelevant to those who oppose Eternal Security that the following passages are in the Scripture, and are directly opposed to their “pet” verses:

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)

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:26-28)

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (II Corinthians 5:17)

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (I John 3:9)

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. (Jeremiah 13:23)

The ONLY way to go from being and doing evil, to being and doing good is to be BORN AGAIN.

Like the verse in Jeremiah makes plain, if the leopard could change its spots, or the black man his skin, then any one of us could become good without being born again. No, it is not possible for the leopard to change its spots or any of us to change the color of our skin — because we are born that way.

The new birth in Christ is SPIRITUAL, not PHYSICAL.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:6-7)

Nonetheless, these folks insist on using verses that are yanked out of context, conditional, or have unclear application, and refuse to consider those verses that are absolute concerning the eternal security of the believer. No, they plainly choose to use the false professors of Christ to invalidate one of the most strongly supported doctrines in all of Scripture.

It is very much like taking the ignominious end of LTC “Bud” Holland and his dumping a B-52H into the ground at low level, and judging the airworthiness of the B-52 design by LTC Holland’s failure and lack of judgement.

Of course, let them keep the law, and let those who believe the doctrine of Eternal Security is heresy begin by keeping the very first law of all:

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 22:35-40)

Notice what the Lord stated:

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.

Notice He stated very plainly ALL, not some, not most, and not even most of the time, or when you are awake. NO, HE SAID ALL, AND HE MEANS ALL THE BODY, ALL THE SOUL, ALL THE SPIRIT, ALL THE TIME.

Love the LORD thy God, with all your being: body, soul, and spirit, all the time, no exceptions. If you err in the slightest, even a smidgen, then you die.

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

Anyone who entertains the idea that they can do that on this earth, is a fool. They do not understand righteousness at all, and they are attempting to drag the LORD God down to their level.

And if they think they can be born again through Christ, and then maintain it by their “holy living,” then they need to understand the following:

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:5-6)

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:2-3)

Works are anything you do that you believe to be a quid pro quo arrangement with God. In plain English, if you think that God will keep you saved because you didn’t “walk away” or “live in sin” then that is a quid pro quo arrangement, and it is wicked sin.

Go ahead, try to keep the first commandment — I KNOW YOU CAN’T DO IT.

The real question is:

If you can’t keep the first commandment, what in the world makes you think you can keep any of the rest of them?

If you think you are keeping the first commandment by your “holy living,” then you are as hell bound as you ever were.

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:4-9)

A visit from Ike, a broke car, and other things

image_pdfimage_print

This last week has been utterly full, and I have been unable to post. However, I will return to the series on Freemasonry. The post “A Proper Interpretation” was necessary as it was moved by an all too common misinterpretation of Scripture.

I still have a ton of things to do, including getting a young lady’s car back on the road, and clearing a road for a older lady who cannot do it, or afford to hire someone to do it.

Fortunately, Ike spared us any real destruction. It did knock out power for several hours. Where I live fared better than most. Some in the area were without power for three days.

A Proper Interpretation

image_pdfimage_print

While looking at a listing of articles on a site this morning I was drawn to the headline “Unconverted Christians” and proceeded to click through and read the piece. Most of the article I could agree with, but there was a glaring error in interpretation of a passage that formed the core of the article. Sadly, this error is not unusual among Christians and particularly those who have extra-church, or para-church ministries. Worse yet, this particular error is even found among some otherwise solid local, New Testament churches. What is the error? I quote Dave Daubenmire:

As we sat around the flickering campfire I used a flashlight to locate a verse in my Bible that had troubled me for some time.

Luke 22:31-32 “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

Whoa…..Peter, who had been one of the Lord’s closest disciples, was NOT CONVERTED. For three years he had been part of Jesus’ team, one of his confidants, a follower of the Lord, yet somehow Jesus knew that this loud mouthed blow-hard was more bark than bite. ((Unconverted Christians))

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon interpretation of the passage and not an uncommon view of the apostle Peter. Granted, Simon Peter said and did some things that were, well — ignorant and prideful are words that come to mind. However, I learned long ago that when looking at the faults of others, the operative phrase to keep firmly in mind is: “There but for the grace of God go I.” We need to be very careful how we characterize someone else and their mistakes, frailties and flaws. Otherwise, we are likely to find ourselves doing the very same things we saw as grave character flaws in them. Kind of like using the phrase “yet somehow Jesus knew” when a proper understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ gives us to know with certainty that He is Almighty God in the flesh and thus knows everything.

Yet, the thrust of this article is not the mis-characterization of Peter, but of the misinterpretation of the word “converted” and how to properly understand the Scripture so that doesn’t happen. And yes, I am quite aware that I also can misinterpret Scripture unless I allow the LORD to lead and guide, and follow the rules He laid down in His word. With that, let us plunge in.

There is a fundamental error here that consists simply of taking our understanding of the common meaning for “converted” and applying it without checking the rest of Scripture. It is a deadly and dangerous error to commit when determining the meaning of Scripture as it will, sooner rather than later, yield very bad doctrine.

The evidence of the error in interpretation is found in the gospels and is supported by the rest of Scripture. Prior to this incident, there is considerable proof that Peter knew the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and was already “converted” in the sense Dave Daubenmire and many others mean it. We can begin looking at the proof in Matthew, chapter 16:

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 16:13-17)

And again in John, chapter six:

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (John 6:66-69)

Both of these incidents are prior to the foretelling of Peter’s denial at the last Passover the Lord held with his disciples, and the subsequent denial of Christ by Peter. Moreover, as additional evidence we have Peter’s behavior when the Lord chose him to be an apostle:

And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets. And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him. (Luke 5:1-11)

Simon Peter’s reaction to recognizing who was standing in his ship is consistent with the reaction we see from other men of God throughout the Old Testament, men such as Job (Job 40:1-5; 42:1-6), Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:28; 3:22-23). Moreover. Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God is fully consistent with Nathanael’s recognition of who Jesus is in John, chapter one:

The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. (John 1:43-49)

Peter’s recognition is inconsistent with the reaction of those who do not know the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. This is evidenced by the following incidents:

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. (John 9:35-38)

The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. (John 4:17-26)

And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. (John 10:22-30)

These are only three of many incidents recorded in the gospels where individuals stood face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ, and even saw Him perform miracles that are impossible in the physical realm, and yet could not recognize who He is.

Peter knew the Lord because he had already been born again of the Holy Ghost and was in Christ. He knew because the Holy Ghost that indwelt him confirmed to him that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. It is an error to say otherwise. We must understand that the Holy Ghost has always indwelt believers from the time of the Fall and whoever was first saved, until now. This indwelling will continue until the last saved person on earth passes away and the earth is no more. It is also necessary to understand the distinction between the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and the empowerment of the Holy Ghost which occurred at Pentecost. (Ref. John 7:39, it has much to do with the authority to preach the gospel — Prov. 11:30; 18:4)

Thus the problem here is one of applying our “common” understanding to words in Scripture without confirming that those words actually mean what we think they mean as confirmed by the rest of Scripture.

To say that Peter was not born-again when he erred in denying the Lord Jesus, is to say that the child of God cannot make mistakes, even egregious ones, after they are saved. However, we know from the Old Testament that is simply not true. Many of the Old Testament children of God (born-again in Christ) made some very bad errors. The difference here is the repentance they demonstrated after they where confronted with their sin. Peter’s problem was his brashness in not recognizing how frail we really are when it comes to withstanding the assault of the Devil. Peter did not believe this thing about himself, and the Lord proved him wrong. This is really no different than when the LORD confronted Sarah about her laughing within herself about having a child in her old age (Genesis 18:9-15)

Now, it is manifestly true that many claim Christ today who are not born-again and they do not know the LORD and are not known of the LORD. That is to their detriment. The truest indicator of whether someone knows the LORD is what is given in John, chapter 10:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. (John 10:1-5)

Hence, we can ask the question of someone who misinterprets Scripture as well: Can you hear the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Word, in the Scripture?

Can you hear the voice of the Word, who became Jesus the Christ, in the Old Testament? After all, He speaks as plain as day throughout the Old Testament. Sadly, without “words of Christ in red” many have no clue when the Lord Jesus Christ is speaking. Hence, they are not His.

Whether or not we desire to challenge individuals who claim Christ, and claim to be born again, yet show no evidence of it, we are not free to take a passage and a word and misinterpret it and thus misapply it to prove our point. What that does is invalidate the point we wish to make, and calls into question our own walk with the LORD.

Is there a proper interpretation of the passage? Yes, and it is utterly simple:

What the Lord simply meant was, when Peter got turned around back to the right way (after being sifted and failing), strengthen the brethren. After all, the first and plainest meaning of “converted” is “being turned” or “having been turned.” Did it sting and burn Peter that he had failed when he denied his Lord and Saviour? Yes, it did, and it was very humbling. It is a lesson we can all take heed to.

Engaging Freemasonry — Pt. IV

image_pdfimage_print

Before continuing on, it is essential that a term be defined in as much as it can be defined. That term is the word “religion.” The really sad part of trying to define religion is that virtually everyone’s definition of what “religion” is, fails. Hence, this has to be approached from a strictly Scriptural point of view, with the attendant explanation of why men have not been able to define “religion.” Last of all, for the question that must be addressed concerning Freemasonry and its relationship to religion (whether it is a religion, or merely a very good friend to it) is: Can a religion include different or diverse religions in its particulars and still be a religion in its own right?

In Scripture, the statement is made:

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:26-27)

The rest of the references made to religion in the Scripture only refer to someone’s religion, but describe nothing about what religion is. However, it is indisputable that an integral and primary part of religion is worship, and that that worship has certain confines, or restrictions placed upon it, whether narrow or broad. The Scripture does discuss worship, and even defines it for us. One of the first instances where worship is clearly defined is the instance where Abraham’s servant went to find a wife for Isaac. Upon having his request granted by the LORD God, Abraham’s servant did the following:

And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the LORD. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the LORD led me to the house of my master’s brethren. (Genesis 24:26-27)

Thus, the simple act of prayer is worship, and is a primary element of religion. The second thing we can note about religion is that it self-evidently has a defined set of beliefs, irrespective of whether those beliefs are logical, sensible, reasonable, or even beneficial. The defining aspect of those beliefs relate specifically to the spiritual, its existence, or non-existence, and thus the existence of any spiritual higher power. However broad one may think this definition is, it nonetheless is necessary as one can even make a religion out of such a mundane thing as cutting the grass.

Moreover, religion also has the elements of rite and ritual in some degree. The rites and rituals of a religion may only be a single thing, simplistic in its form, or it may a multitude of things, and very complicated in form. In some instances rites and rituals are used as a means of justification before the higher power(s) of that religion. In others, the rituals and rites are simply a means of illustration of certain truths that the adherents of that religion are to be reinforced in as often as they are performed. The latter was the case throughout the Old Testament as illustrated in the following passage:

Give unto the LORD, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength. Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. (I Chronicles 16:28-29)

The bringing of an offering before the LORD was a picture of Christ to come, and was a teaching that the LORD God wanted illustrated continually. Failure to do so was indicative that one did not follow the LORD, but was bent upon their own way. In case it is not understood that the sacrifices and offerings were not efficacious for salvation the Scripture does provide the following as proof:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:1-10)

And from the Old Testament:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Jeremiah 7:21-23)

Hence, though rituals and rites were a part of the worship in ancient Israel, they were not necessary for salvation. In contrast, in the Catholic Church the ritual of Mass is necessary for the salvation they promise. By this contrast, we can see the varied purpose of rites and rituals and the fact that it is not necessary for a rite or ritual be specifically meant for salvation for it to be an essential part of whatsoever religion that incorporates it. In short, a religion may promise some sort of salvation or justification (and most do), but some of the elements of that religion may not be expressly necessary for the promised salvation to be effected.

So we now see that prayer, a defined set of beliefs (particularly relating to the spiritual), and some rites and/or rituals are all parts of what define a religion. We could say at this point that any system that incorporates these specific elements is a religion. However, for the purposes of this discussion relating to Freemasonry, there is a necessity to answer a final question:

Can a religion incorporate other religions, and still be a religion in its own right?

To say the least it is an interesting question. However, it does have an answer, and that answer is more obvious than most would care to admit. For the answer we must turn to two different systems of belief: Unitarian Universalism, and non-secular Humanism.

I will begin with Unitarian Universalism and its answers to questions that are commonly raised.

Does the UUA have a creed?
No. Although the bylaws of the association do contain a section on purposes and principles, it is not a statement of a religious creed.

Do you subscribe to any doctrines?
We have no specific doctrines to which members are expected to subscribe. However, the bylaws of the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) and member churches and societies do contain a Statement of Purpose and Principles (see page 18). These are the basis of a solemn agreement that member churches will support the UUA and that the UUA will support the individual churches.

What do you NOT believe?
We do not believe that any religious precept or doctrine must be accepted as true simply because some religious organization, tradition or authority says it is. Neither do we believe that all UUs should have identical beliefs.

Do some UUs have different beliefs than other UUs?
They certainly do. Since individual freedom of belief is one of our basic principles, it follows that there will be differing beliefs among us. Found in today’s churches are humanism, agnosticism, atheism, theism, liberal Christianity, neo-paganism and earth spiritualism. These beliefs are not mutually exclusive–it’s possible to hold more than one. While we are bound by a set of common principles, we leave it to the individual to decide what particular beliefs lead to those principles.

Do you believe in God?
We do not have a defined doctrine of God. Members are free to develop individual concepts of God that are meaningful to them. They are also free to reject the term and concept altogether.

Most of us do not believe in a supernatural, supreme being who can directly intervene in and alter human life or the mechanism of the natural world. Many believe in a spirit of life or a power within themselves, which some choose to call God.

What are the bonds that unify UUs?
While there are no written or verbal doctrines designed for that purpose, we have both stated and unstated bonds which unify us. The stated bonds are the Principles and Purposes of the UUA which we support individually and collectively.

Among the unstated bonds are our mutual respect for each other and our appreciation of the many religious, philosophical and spiritual paths which our members pursue. We are bound together in our mutual concern for one another’s well being, and our willingness to aid each other in time of need. ((UU Church of Nashua, NH., 100 Questions: Chapter 1 – Beliefs, Creeds and Doctrines))

To be continued . . .

Engaging Freemasonry — Pt. III

image_pdfimage_print

There are those who have argued that Freemasonry is anti-religion. However, this is largely (but not totally) confined to the Catholic Church. This charge the Freemasons dispute strongly. I would have to agree with the Freemasons that Freemasonry is not anti-religion or anti-religious. In fact, Freemasonry is a very good friend to religion, and encourages religion to an extent that many churches do not. In the writings of the major proponents of Freemasonry, it is very clear that they seek to encourage religion as they believe it makes a man a better Mason, and a better citizen. ((Messages for a Mission, Freemasonry and Religion-Friends or Foes?, 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.)) Additionally, it is plain in all the rites and rituals, that religion figures prominently in Freemasonry.

However, it is incumbent upon us to realize that religion, and truly being in fellowship with the LORD God are not the same. In fact, one can be, and the vast majority are, quite religious and involved in religion, yet have no fellowship with the LORD God at all. There are some significant examples of this in Scripture that we would do well to pay heed to.

And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Luke 11:37-42)

Now, we must remember that these are the very same people the Lord Jesus referenced in His sermon on the mount at the beginning of His ministry. In this dissertation the Lord plainly stated that the Pharisees possessed a certain righteousness, but that righteousness was not sufficient to enter into the kingdom of heaven:

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20)

Thus, as religious as the Pharisees were, they had not sufficient righteousness to enter into the presence of the LORD God as that would require a righteousness that exceeded theirs. This clearly meant that they, as religious as they were, had no personal fellowship with the LORD God. This also the Lord Jesus made plain while preaching on the mount:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

The logic of this statement the Lord made plain immediately prior to that when he stated:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The problem the Lord highlights here is one that many have when it comes to understanding how to please the LORD God and be obedient. They think that “good works” are what will justify them before Almighty God, and all they really need is to have more “good” works than “bad” works. However, the reality is there is only one work that one can do which will please the LORD. It is given in the following statement by the Lord Jesus Christ:

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (John 6:28-29)

This draws a definitive distinction between religion and what the LORD God actually requires of man. In religion there are rites, rituals and dogma, with the LORD those were never required ((The fact that salvation has always been the same is explained to the post A Departure: Pt. III. It should not be necessary to repeat here the extensive evidence in Scripture of this fact. Additionally, the evidence that the LORD God has always required man to “Repent and believe the gospel” is found in the article What does God Require of Us?)) to be justified before Him. No, what the LORD God requires of all men is a personal relationship available only through reconciliation by the blood atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. This reinforced in Scripture extensively, and that contrast with religion is crystal clear in the following passage:

Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. (Galatians 4:8-11)

Now, is that to say that all religion is worthless? No, not quite. The Scripture does clarify that there is one, and only one religion that is undefiled in the sight of the LORD:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

Which is to say no more or less than what the Lord Jesus Christ answered to the lawyer who asked what the great commandment in the law was:

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 22:37-40)

And is confirmed again in the epistle to the Romans:

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)

Now, what religion and all its attendant “good works” are woefully deficient in are not the supposed “love” of visiting the fatherless and widows. Rather, it is the love of God and the keeping of oneself unspotted from the world. Like the scribes and Pharisees of the time of Christ, the works that are done in religion are primarily done for the edification of self and justification before God, without any understanding that the first and foremost thing God requires of man is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as only Lord and Saviour. Hence, religions fail in the love of God, and can never please Him. This also the Lord Jesus Christ made clear:

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. (John 14:23-24)

And again from I John:

And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (I John 3:22-24)

Knowing these things then, I must ask:

What is the point of religion when I have (which I do), or can have (which anyone can) a personal, one on one relationship with the LORD God of heaven and earth? Moreover, when the LORD God dwells within me, who or what group or organization can make me any better a person than He can?

Thus, though Freemasonry is indeed a friend to religion, it is a friend to an utterly worthless exercise in self-justification that cannot please the LORD God, and cannot gain one entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

To be continued . . .

Chrome

image_pdfimage_print

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.

Engaging Freemasonry — Pt. II

image_pdfimage_print

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? ((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.)) 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 . . .

Translate »