From The Berean Call
Whether or not you are a student of prophecy, a conspiracy theorist, or dabble in the art of biblical numerology, you may find interesting or disturbing the fact that a motion calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England has been listed in the British House of Commons as 666 -- the Number of the Beast.
According to Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent of The Times, Labour Member of Parliament (MP) John Austin, who has repeatedly tabled Early Day Motions urging disestablishment, put down his latest motion last night as MPs debated scrapping Britain's blasphemy laws.
The British Houses of Parliament building in London.
The motion appeared on the House of Commons order paper numbered 666, the number associated with the Antichrist in the Book of Revelation. Some scholars believe 666 referred to the Emperor Nero, Gledhill reported.
The King James Bible renders Revelation 13:8 as: "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."
Bob Russell, Liberal Democrat MP for Colchester and one of the signatories, said: “It is incredible that a motion like this should have, by chance, acquired this significant number. This number is supposed to be the mark of the Devil. It looks as though God or the Devil have been moving in mysterious ways."
Russell added: “What is even stranger is that this motion was tabled last night when MPs were debating blasphemy.”
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2008/s08010088.htm
Friday, January 18, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
What Are the Elements of Man?
By Kristina Y.
"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." -1 Thessalonians 5:23
The question of how many elements there are to man has been an important factor in every culture, religion, and people group over the centuries. It ranges from one (the physical body) to five or more. The most common belief, however, is that we consist of two parts: the physical body, and another non-physical element known as the spirit, soul, or mind; this is the seat of our thoughts, feelings, imagination, affections, etc.
Now, I must admit, I did not know just how common the dualistic (two-parts) belief was in Christendom until about a year and a half ago. I was listening to a Christian radio program and the subject of how to define the trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) came up. The host was giving various analogies, and some people called in to give their opinion. One of the people calling in suggested that we use man (meaning the human being) as an example. He said that man is made up of body, soul, and spirit, and yet is one man. I was expecting the host to agree with this, but instead he quickly brushed the idea aside saying matter-of-factly that man is not a trinity, so therefore you cannot use man to describe the Holy Trinity. This surprised me to say the least. Up until then I had always assumed that most Christians (especially fundamental) believed in a triune human nature, and it was only those with humanistic, naturalistic beliefs who would deny a second non-physical element. No honest person can get around the fact that thoughts and feelings are non-physical, but that's about as far as most unbelievers will go.
So, that is what prompted me to start researching the subject of man's elemental nature. The first thing that came to mind was the familiar phrase found in both Testaments, "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength." For some, this alone would be enough to prove that man is more than two parts. Here it lists four distinct attributes we are to use to focus on God. However, after further investigation, I found the argument against that to be rather strong. Those on the dualistic side say that it was only meant for emphasis. Even though each word has a different meaning both in English and the original Greek or Hebrew, it isn't enough to convince those who hold strongly to the dualistic approach.
However, that isn't the only Scriptural support for a triune nature. There are many passages that don't even mention the soul or spirit which demonstrate how man must consist of more than two parts. For example, John 13:3-11:
"Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself. After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. Then He came to Simon Peter. And Peter said to Him, 'Lord, are You washing my feet? Jesus answered and said to him, 'What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will know after this.' Peter said to Him, 'You shall never wash my feet!' Jesus answered him, 'If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.' Simon Peter said to Him, 'Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head!' Jesus said to him, 'He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.' For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, 'You are not all clean.'"
The obvious question now is, what part of the human nature does this feet washing apply to? Christ Himself said that once you are bathed you are completely clean, except for your feet. Bathing here must refer to salvation, being cleansed from one's sins. It is quite frankly absurd to think that Christ is speaking of literal, physical feet. Therefore, if you believe that man is a dual nature, it must be concluded that it is your spirit (which has become a new creation and is covered by the blood of Christ) which has become dirty and in need of cleansing, even though this is a direct contradiction of what Jesus said in the text. Your "hands and head" are already clean, and will always be clean. It is just the this one part of you, the metaphorical feet, which needs washing. What could it be?
Here is another passage which may put things into perspective. Romans 12:1-2:
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
Here Paul is asking his "brethren" (fellow Christians) to "present your bodies a living sacrifice.," and to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind." What then is our mind? If it is our redeemed spirit, why does it need to be renewed? It sounds like this "renewing of the mind" is the same thing Christ was demonstrating in the washing of the feet. There is some part of us which is touched, non-physically, by the world and needs to be washed or renewed.
Yet another passage from a Pauline epistle shows us a battle between two non-physical human elements. Romans 7:14-25:
"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
"I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
"So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."
Are we to believe that Paul was being held captive to his physical body? It is your stomach which hungers, but it is your hand which picks up the food and puts it in your mouth.
What does the hand care if your stomach is hungry or not? Or what physical need does the body have for a fancy car, big house, or fine clothes. Is it not our ego, our self (which we are to deny daily) which desires these things? It appears to me that there must be two sides to our non-physical nature, which are constantly warring with one another for control over our physical body.
What does the hand care if your stomach is hungry or not? Or what physical need does the body have for a fancy car, big house, or fine clothes. Is it not our ego, our self (which we are to deny daily) which desires these things? It appears to me that there must be two sides to our non-physical nature, which are constantly warring with one another for control over our physical body.
Here is a commentary on 1 Thessalonians 5:23 from the Scofield Study Bible, written in 1909:
Man a trinity. That the human soul and spirit are not identical is proved by the facts that they are divisible (Heb. 4:12), and that soul and spirit are sharply distinguished in the burial and resurrection of the body. It is sown a natural body (soma psuchikon = "soul-body"), it is raised a spiritual body (soma pneumatikon), 1 Cor. 15:44. To assert, therefore, that there is no difference between soul and spirit is to assert that there is no difference between the mortal body and the resurrection body. In Scripture use, the distinction between spirit and soul may be traced. Briefly, that distinction is that the spirit is that part of man which "knows" (1 Cor. 2:11), his mind; the soul is the seat of affections, desires, and so of the emotions, and of the active will, the self. "My soul is exceeding sorrowful" (Mt. 26:38; see also Mt. 11:29; and John 12:27). The word translated "soul" in the O.T. (nephesh) is the exact equivalent of the N.T. word for soul (Gr. psuche), and the use of "soul" in the O.T. is identical with the use of that word in the N.T. (see Deut. 6:4; 14:26; 1 Sam. 18:1; 20:4,17; Job 7:11, 15; 14:22; Psa. 42.6; 84:2). The N.T. word for spirit (pneuma), like the O.T. ruach, is trans. "air," "breath," "wind," but predominantly "spirit," whether of God (e.g. Gen 1:2; Mt. 3:16) or man (Gen 41:8; 1 Cor. 5:5). Because man is "spirit" he is capable of God-consciousness, and of communication with God (Job 32:8; Psa. 18:28; Prov. 10:27); because he is "soul" he has self-consciousness (Psa. 13:2; 42:5, 6, 11); because he is "body" he has, through his senses, world-consciousness. See Gen 1:26, note.
-C.I. Scofield, The Old Scofield Study Bible, 1909
Now, here is the passage being commented on, 1 Thessalonians 5:23:
"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spiritG4151 and soulG5590 and bodyG4983 be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Here are the definitions of the Greek words highlighted, taken directly from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
G4151 - pneuma:
pnyoo'-mah
From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy spirit:—ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Compare G5590.
G5590 - psuche:
psoo-khay'
From G5594; breath, that is, (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from G4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from G2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew [H5315], [H7307] and [H2416]:—heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.
G4983 - soma:
so'-mah
From G4982; the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, literally or figuratively:—bodily, body, slave.
One would think that all of this would be sufficient evidence for a triune nature to man. However, that is not the case for some. As with many issues within Christendom, no matter how much evidence one presents, straight from Scripture, there will always be those who deny it.
Another argument the dualistic side gives is that there is no evidence in the creation story of God giving man three natures. I beg to differ. Here are two passages out of the creation story which refer to both animals and humans, and the elements God created in them.
Genesis 1:24:
" And God said, Let the earth bring forth the livingH2416 creatureH5315 after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beastH2416 of the earth after his kind: and it was so."
Genesis 2:7:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathedH5301 into his nostrils the breathH5397 of lifeH2416; and man became a livingH2416 soulH5315."
H2416 - chay:
khah'ee
From H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively:— + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.
H5301 - naphach:
naw-fakh'
A primitive root; to puff, in various applications (literally, to inflate, blow hard, scatter, kindle, expire; figuratively, to disesteem):—blow, breath, give up, cause to lose [life], seething, snuff.
H5315 - nephesh:
neh'-fesh
From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):—any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.
H5397 - neshamah:
nesh-aw-maw'
From H5395; a puff, that is, wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect or (concretely) an animal:—blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.
You should be able to tell from the passage and definitions above that both man and the animals held two things in common upon creation: A body, "chay" (H2416), and a soul "nephesh" (H5315).
However, there is one thing God gave Adam which He did not give the animals: The breath (spirit) of life, "neshamah" (H5397). God breathed, "naphach" (H5301), something different and special into Adam.
So, according to Genesis 1 and 2, the animals have a body and a soul. But man has a body, soul, and spirit.
Thank you for reading this. I feel I have made my case to the best of my ability. Ultimately you must look at the evidence for yourself and decided what you believe. Obviously, this is a non-essential doctrine, and your view on this does not affect your salvation or status in the body of Christ. So, I will just leave you with a few more passages of Scripture to think about, and a simple illustration of how I believe man's trinity could be different from God's trinity. I encourage your feedback, positive or negative. I would like to hear from both sides proofs and arguments.
2 Corinthians 3:17-18:
"Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."
Galatians 6:15:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation."
Ephesians 2:15:
"Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace."
Ephesians 4:23-24:
"And be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness."
Colossians 3:9-10:
"Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him."
Romans 7:23,25:
"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members… So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."
1 Thessalonians 5:23:
"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
You can see from these oversimplified drawings how the "Holy Trinity" could be understood as different from the human "triune nature." All persons of the Holy Trinity are interconnected: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Whereas with human nature, the body is not directly connected to the spirit. This is only a theory, however, and should not be taken as fact.
Kristina Y.
January 13, 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Romance Rooted in Purity
~Steve and Stephanie's Story~
Stephanie lived more of a quiet life. Being home-schooled in a Christian home she had never had very many friends her own age. But because she was always taught that having close friends that weren't true Christians was against God's will, she was content to just learn more about God through her mother who home-churched, so to speak, as well as teaching her two other children.
Then, through one of her favorite Bible teachers, Stephanie's mother finally found a church that taught the truth from the Bible. Stephanie started making friends and at the age of 15 was part of the "Collage" group, mainly for college-age and young adults. A man named Steve, 22 at the time, was also part of that group.
Steve hadn't always been a Christian. In fact, some of his younger exploits were not something he was proud of. He had two relationships before that ended up in transgression, hurting them both. But, because of this evident sin, he was more easily convinced he was heading towards destruction. He cut off the second relationship right away, and removed himself from temptation. He turned his life around by acknowledging his sin, asking Jesus Christ to forgive and save him, and to lead his life. Since then he had found the church Stephanie was also attending, and was really seeking God and praying for whoever it was that God wanted him to end up being with.
Steve and Stephanie went to many of the Collage outings, saw each other at church, and they liked to hang out together in group settings. This was the start of a friendship that would last. Steve started to go to Stephanie's house, more and more. Her family had accepted him as a friend. Stephanie would later say that Steve was her best friend.
One day after Steve and Stephanie had known each other for about 2 years, Stephanie's parents suddenly called Steve and asked to speak with him alone. He had a hunch as to what was coming. They asked him to meet them at a restaurant. Once they were all there and seated, Stephanie's parents told Steve that they wanted to talk to him about his relationship with Stephanie - Steve's hunch was right. He then proceeded to nervously take out a long list from his wallet. On it were listed all the reasons why he wanted – and should be allowed – to start courting (not dating, they had both independently read the book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" by Josh Harris, and agreed that courtship was the way to go with whoever they ended up with) Stephanie, and see if it would lead to marriage. He was so nervous, and Stephanie's parents watched somewhat amused as he talked to them and looked at his long list. Finally, he was finished and they agreed to his proposals, no pun intended.
Stephanie's mother had discussed with her this possibility before, and expressed concern with the fact that she and Steve had been spending so much time together. She felt that, if they did not end up being together, Stephanie would compare everyone she met afterward with Steve. He was such a big part of her life that it would be difficult not to think about him. Her mother and father already decided that, if Steve did not make a move soon, they would have to talk to him about either taking the next step, or seriously cutting down the time they spent together.
So, anxiously Steve went to Stephanie's house. Her brother and sister excitedly listened through the door as Steve and Stephanie talked in the carport. Steve told her that he wanted to court her, and eventually marry her. Stephanie agreed, she literally said, "I agree." She already knew what was coming, and had had time to pray and prepare for her answer. She and Steve hugged for several minutes. They agreed to take things slowly and work in God's timing.
Another thing they agreed on was not to kiss yet. They wanted to keep their relationship 100% pure at all costs. This included dragging Stephanie's brother and/or sister around with them everywhere they went because they required a chaperone, and continuing to hang out together in group settings. Although, they did have one day a month that they could be alone together.
That was in January. So, in May, four months later, on their "alone day" Steve took Stephanie to the beach. As they were standing at the shoreline, he asked her to marry him. Well, what he said wasn't all that romantic. What he said was, "I think it's time to take our relationship to the next level."
A little later that month, they picked out an engagement ring, and it was official. Time to start kissing? No. Once again, they agreed not to kiss until their wedding day! They knew that once they went past the physical boundaries they had already set, it would be even harder for them to stay completely pure. But, they would no longer have chaperones (a relief to all of them, I'm sure) so they were on their own as far as staying pure. They had God's help, but they needed to keep seeking His will. Either way it would require a lot of discipline not to have that kind of physical contact with the person you are in love with!
So, what do you think? Did they succeed in staying pure until their wedding day? Did they abstain from even kissing until their wedding? Well, they were engaged May of 2001. They were married September of 2002. That's almost a year and a half.
With strength from God, and encouragement from family, friends and the church, they did succeed. With her family looking on, the blessing of the church, a beautiful wedding dress, her sister as her maid of honor, best friend as her bridesmaid, and God's blessing because of her total purity, she came down the aisle to Canon in D. It was almost magical.
The pastor talked about how important it is to be pure, and have a pure relationship and the example Steve and Stephanie had set. Then, the time came to take the vows. The pastor said, "Repeat after me. I, Steve, take thee Stephanie...." Steve's voice was broken with emotion, he had to clear his voice to speak. Tears streamed down his face. He loved Stephanie so much, and he was about to be her husband. It was all new. It was all pure. It was wonderful and beautiful!
Stephanie was crying, too. This was the apex of their whole relationship. Everything that was building up to this point was about to burst. They had made it through the past year and a half, and now it was about to pay off.... hopefully. She had never kissed a man before. She was anxious, and excited, but she trusted God and Steve. The rings were placed on their fingers, and the pastor said, "And now, for the first time, and certainly not the last, you may kiss your bride!" Steve took Stephanie's face in his hands, whispered, "Yes?" Stephanie nodded back, "Yes!" and he kissed her for the very first time! It was done. They had accomplished what few have even thought of doing. They had their first husband-and-wife dance to Steven Curtis Chapman's "I Will be There." Stephanie looked into Steve's eyes the whole time, so in love!
Now, have a two-year old son (Josiah Michael), are expecting their second child in August (2008), own a home building/remodeling business, and are working hard for God and their future together.
Also, since their marriage they have spoken at a courtship presentation. Steve said there that even though he had had relationships before, and had kissed someone else before, when he kissed Stephanie, it was undoubtedly the best he had ever had. Of course, Stephanie had never kissed anyone else, but she definitely knew it was good, and it was all in God's will.
So, what this true story has set and example for is this: staying pure in all ways before you are married is not only staying in God's will, but you will enjoy it much, much more when you get married, because you are doing things the way God intended, and there is no risk of disapproval from the church. You have protection from the church because of staying pure. Steve had experienced impure relationships before, he knew what it was like to give into temptations outside the will of God. And he agrees that it is so much better to simply stay within the boundaries of marriage.
Read the Bible daily. You can't go more than a few chapters without reading about how God expects us to abstain from sexual immorality. It urges us to keep ourselves pure. Read the Song of Solomon. See how he tells in detail of different women he was infatuated with. But, then read Ecclesiastes. Solomon says it's all for nothing! He was the richest man in the world, he had thousands of women, but he knew it was all for nothing if you weren't in God's will. It was all worthless. Paul says of the GOOD things he did that he counts it as filth. So, how much worse are the wrong things we do? Let us consider the Word of God, and see how He speaks to us. It is our decision to make whether or not we believe the truth, but it is God's decision what truth is.
Then, through one of her favorite Bible teachers, Stephanie's mother finally found a church that taught the truth from the Bible. Stephanie started making friends and at the age of 15 was part of the "Collage" group, mainly for college-age and young adults. A man named Steve, 22 at the time, was also part of that group.
Steve hadn't always been a Christian. In fact, some of his younger exploits were not something he was proud of. He had two relationships before that ended up in transgression, hurting them both. But, because of this evident sin, he was more easily convinced he was heading towards destruction. He cut off the second relationship right away, and removed himself from temptation. He turned his life around by acknowledging his sin, asking Jesus Christ to forgive and save him, and to lead his life. Since then he had found the church Stephanie was also attending, and was really seeking God and praying for whoever it was that God wanted him to end up being with.
Steve and Stephanie went to many of the Collage outings, saw each other at church, and they liked to hang out together in group settings. This was the start of a friendship that would last. Steve started to go to Stephanie's house, more and more. Her family had accepted him as a friend. Stephanie would later say that Steve was her best friend.
One day after Steve and Stephanie had known each other for about 2 years, Stephanie's parents suddenly called Steve and asked to speak with him alone. He had a hunch as to what was coming. They asked him to meet them at a restaurant. Once they were all there and seated, Stephanie's parents told Steve that they wanted to talk to him about his relationship with Stephanie - Steve's hunch was right. He then proceeded to nervously take out a long list from his wallet. On it were listed all the reasons why he wanted – and should be allowed – to start courting (not dating, they had both independently read the book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" by Josh Harris, and agreed that courtship was the way to go with whoever they ended up with) Stephanie, and see if it would lead to marriage. He was so nervous, and Stephanie's parents watched somewhat amused as he talked to them and looked at his long list. Finally, he was finished and they agreed to his proposals, no pun intended.
Stephanie's mother had discussed with her this possibility before, and expressed concern with the fact that she and Steve had been spending so much time together. She felt that, if they did not end up being together, Stephanie would compare everyone she met afterward with Steve. He was such a big part of her life that it would be difficult not to think about him. Her mother and father already decided that, if Steve did not make a move soon, they would have to talk to him about either taking the next step, or seriously cutting down the time they spent together.
So, anxiously Steve went to Stephanie's house. Her brother and sister excitedly listened through the door as Steve and Stephanie talked in the carport. Steve told her that he wanted to court her, and eventually marry her. Stephanie agreed, she literally said, "I agree." She already knew what was coming, and had had time to pray and prepare for her answer. She and Steve hugged for several minutes. They agreed to take things slowly and work in God's timing.
Another thing they agreed on was not to kiss yet. They wanted to keep their relationship 100% pure at all costs. This included dragging Stephanie's brother and/or sister around with them everywhere they went because they required a chaperone, and continuing to hang out together in group settings. Although, they did have one day a month that they could be alone together.
That was in January. So, in May, four months later, on their "alone day" Steve took Stephanie to the beach. As they were standing at the shoreline, he asked her to marry him. Well, what he said wasn't all that romantic. What he said was, "I think it's time to take our relationship to the next level."
A little later that month, they picked out an engagement ring, and it was official. Time to start kissing? No. Once again, they agreed not to kiss until their wedding day! They knew that once they went past the physical boundaries they had already set, it would be even harder for them to stay completely pure. But, they would no longer have chaperones (a relief to all of them, I'm sure) so they were on their own as far as staying pure. They had God's help, but they needed to keep seeking His will. Either way it would require a lot of discipline not to have that kind of physical contact with the person you are in love with!
So, what do you think? Did they succeed in staying pure until their wedding day? Did they abstain from even kissing until their wedding? Well, they were engaged May of 2001. They were married September of 2002. That's almost a year and a half.
With strength from God, and encouragement from family, friends and the church, they did succeed. With her family looking on, the blessing of the church, a beautiful wedding dress, her sister as her maid of honor, best friend as her bridesmaid, and God's blessing because of her total purity, she came down the aisle to Canon in D. It was almost magical.
The pastor talked about how important it is to be pure, and have a pure relationship and the example Steve and Stephanie had set. Then, the time came to take the vows. The pastor said, "Repeat after me. I, Steve, take thee Stephanie...." Steve's voice was broken with emotion, he had to clear his voice to speak. Tears streamed down his face. He loved Stephanie so much, and he was about to be her husband. It was all new. It was all pure. It was wonderful and beautiful!
Stephanie was crying, too. This was the apex of their whole relationship. Everything that was building up to this point was about to burst. They had made it through the past year and a half, and now it was about to pay off.... hopefully. She had never kissed a man before. She was anxious, and excited, but she trusted God and Steve. The rings were placed on their fingers, and the pastor said, "And now, for the first time, and certainly not the last, you may kiss your bride!" Steve took Stephanie's face in his hands, whispered, "Yes?" Stephanie nodded back, "Yes!" and he kissed her for the very first time! It was done. They had accomplished what few have even thought of doing. They had their first husband-and-wife dance to Steven Curtis Chapman's "I Will be There." Stephanie looked into Steve's eyes the whole time, so in love!
Now, have a two-year old son (Josiah Michael), are expecting their second child in August (2008), own a home building/remodeling business, and are working hard for God and their future together.
Also, since their marriage they have spoken at a courtship presentation. Steve said there that even though he had had relationships before, and had kissed someone else before, when he kissed Stephanie, it was undoubtedly the best he had ever had. Of course, Stephanie had never kissed anyone else, but she definitely knew it was good, and it was all in God's will.
So, what this true story has set and example for is this: staying pure in all ways before you are married is not only staying in God's will, but you will enjoy it much, much more when you get married, because you are doing things the way God intended, and there is no risk of disapproval from the church. You have protection from the church because of staying pure. Steve had experienced impure relationships before, he knew what it was like to give into temptations outside the will of God. And he agrees that it is so much better to simply stay within the boundaries of marriage.
Read the Bible daily. You can't go more than a few chapters without reading about how God expects us to abstain from sexual immorality. It urges us to keep ourselves pure. Read the Song of Solomon. See how he tells in detail of different women he was infatuated with. But, then read Ecclesiastes. Solomon says it's all for nothing! He was the richest man in the world, he had thousands of women, but he knew it was all for nothing if you weren't in God's will. It was all worthless. Paul says of the GOOD things he did that he counts it as filth. So, how much worse are the wrong things we do? Let us consider the Word of God, and see how He speaks to us. It is our decision to make whether or not we believe the truth, but it is God's decision what truth is.
"Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."
----1 Corinthians 6:13
"Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body."
----1 Corinthians 6:18
"Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband."
----1 Corinthians 7:2
"For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality."
----1 Thessalonians 4:3
"Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity."
----1 Timothy 4:12
(Originally written May 2004 by Kristina; updated and posted here September 2005; updated again January 2008 [current post].)
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
The Only True God
By Dave Hunt
As we all know, the “Lord’s prayer” was never prayed by our Lord. It was a pattern for prayer: “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name...” (Mt 6:9). To repeat these words over and over (instead of using them as a pattern for prayer from the heart) would be to disobey our Lord and to engage in what He strictly forbade: “vain repetition” (6:7).
Certainly this prayer is only for those who know God as their heavenly Father. It is a grievous error common to pseudo-Christianity to assume the universal Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man. The typical Unity church service, for example, includes this affirmation repeated in unison, “I am a child of God and therefore I do not inherit sickness.” Such “positive confessions” have led multitudes astray. Paul declared that we become “the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26).
The fact that this relationship with God as one’s Father does not come by natural birth is clear. To those who boasted of being “Abraham’s children,” Christ countered, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do” (Jn 8:44). The rebellion of Adam and Eve, by which they became the followers of Satan as “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4), made the devil the patriarch of mankind.
That is why Christ told Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3). This spiritual birth is an absolute requirement, allowing no exceptions. No one will be in heaven who has not been “born again,” both “of water and of the Spirit” (v. 5).
There is a common abuse of this prayer among American athletic teams. A high percentage of teams across America (especially in high school football) pray the “Lord’s Prayer” either before or after games. Attitudes of participants vary from skepticism, to suppressed ridicule, to a shrugging acquiescence to something that might now and then bring “good luck.” This American tradition is an abomination to God.
Phil Jackson, one of the most successful coaches in NBA history, turned from the Pentecostalism in which his co-pastor parents raised him to Zen Buddhism and the occultism of Lakota Indian “spirituality.” Yet he still repeats the “Lord’s prayer” and has for years encouraged his teams to do so without knowing God or Christ. This unbiblical practice has been one of Satan’s major tools of deception.
Confusion reigns over what it means to be “born again.” The teaching is rather common that Christ’s words, “of water,” refer to the protective amniotic water sac that breaks in natural birth, while “of the Spirit” refers to being born of the Spirit of God at the second birth. The latter is true, but the former is false.
Everyone enters via the amniotic fluid into the human race. “Born of water” must mean more than that. It would be redundant to say that in order to be born again one must have already been born once. Furthermore, that doctrine would place an unbiblical restriction upon entrance into heaven! Such a proposition would mean that there would be no salvation for anyone who had not experienced natural birth. Thus no fetus that died by whatever means before coming to full-term delivery could be considered a real person eligible for the second birth and heaven, thus allowing abortion at any stage.
The biblical teaching of the “new birth” (becoming a “born-again” Christian) has caused much controversy. Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and others believe this occurs at baptism. As previously noted (see TBC 8/04), every Lutheran church follows Luther’s Small Catechism. At baptism (usually as a baby), one receives a certificate stating, “In baptism full salvation has been given unto you; God has become your Father, and you have become His child through this act....”
In fact, the Bible teaches that baptism (like the “Lord’s prayer”) is only for those who have believed the gospel. Baptism testifies to the faith by which one was born again. Otherwise it is meaningless. Infant baptism defies Scripture, denies the gospel, and is a major net by which “the god of this world” gathers multitudes into his kingdom, providing them with false assurance that prevents them from seeing their need to receive Christ as Savior and Lord.
How could a church defend baptizing an infant that cannot understand or believe? It was necessary to claim some efficacy, as the Catechisms say, “in this act of baptism....” This occult lie of spiritual power innate in and released by baptism, burning a candle or incense, doing rituals, priestly hand motions, voice tones, etc., has been for thousands of years the essence of ritual magic, witchcraft, paganism, etc., which anthropologists now call shamanism.
This pernicious delusion is also known as sacramentalism—a heresy so vital to Roman Catholicism that it has its own Latin term: ex opere operato (i.e., “in the act itself”). To deny this doctrine concerning any official sacrament is to deny Roman Catholicism, for which the penalty is automatic excommunication (tantamount to being sentenced to hell). Here it is from The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Seventh Session...third day of March, 1547, Decree Concerning the Sacraments...Canons on the Sacraments in General [still in full force]:
Can. 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but...that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification...let him be anathema.
Can. 8. If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema.
The grievous heresy of sacramentalism continues to seduce in various forms most “Reformed” churches. R.C. Sproul, for example, justifies infant baptism by likening it to circumcision: “The scriptural case for baptizing believers’ infants rests on the parallel between [O.T.] circumcision and N.T. baptism as signs and seals of the covenant of grace....The Old Testament precedent requires it” (Geneva Study Bible, p. 38).
The Ethiopian to whom Philip had just preached Christ from Isaiah 53 (Acts 8:29-35) asked, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (8:36,37). Philip then baptized him—not by sprinkling or pouring water over him but, obviously, by immersion, for “they went down both into the water” (v. 38). Baptism publicly declares one’s faith, identifying the believer with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. One does not sprinkle dirt on a corpse. One buries it.
If “born of water” does not refer to amniotic fluid or to baptism, what could it mean? The second birth is by the Spirit of God and by water (Jn 3:5), symbolic of the Word of God, as in “the washing of water by the word” (Eph 5:26), and “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (Jn 15:3). When we believe the gospel, we are regenerated and washed clean. “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” Peter declares: “Being born again...by the word of God...which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Pt 1:23-25).
Having been brought into the family of God, we address Him as “Father” in prayer. In His high priestly prayer (the true “Lord’s prayer” that Christ prayed), He declared, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (Jn 17:3). So the new birth involves knowing the only true God—not being “born again” through baptism, especially of infants.
There are millions of so-called gods and numerous prayers to each of them in the various religions they represent. The Bible condemns every one in unmistakable terms:
For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens....Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name....[F]ear before him, all the earth....[H]e cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth. (Ps 96:5-13)
Such language is ridiculed by the “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, who says the atheists must “spread the good news. Evangelism [to convert the world to atheism] is a moral imperative.” Although the Bible clearly distinguishes Christianity from all religions and separates their leaders (Buddha, Muhammad, et al.) from Christ, who is unique, atheists make no such distinction. Consequently, most of their arguments are irrelevant.
The Bible denounces all religions as instruments of Satan to keep mankind in darkness, shut off from the light of the gospel by which alone one can be saved, for “the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor 4:4).
Atheism is just one of the world’s religions, and Satanic blindness is reflected in its arguments against God and Christianity. A recent secular article about the New Atheists was titled, “The Church of the Non-Believers.” And it is a church—a church to which everyone must belong, if atheists get their way. In their religious fervor to destroy “religious faith” and to convert the entire world to their religion, they are blind to the true faith that motivates biblical Christians.
Dawkins says, “Faith is one of the world’s great evils....[It is] belief that isn’t based on evidence [and] the principal vice of any religion.” Francis Collins, however (in charge of the Human Genome Project involving 2,300 scientists), who turned from unbelief to faith in Christ, says that Dawkins’ definition of faith “certainly does not describe the faith of most serious believers of history nor of most of those of my personal acquaintance.”
Many famous scientists, Nobel Prize winners, and some of the greatest historians and legal experts have turned from atheism to faith in the resurrected Christ—not by mystical or emotional experience but from verifiable evidence. The early pioneers in science, like Kepler, claimed that it was precisely their conviction that there was a creator that inspired their science to ever-greater heights.
“Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil,” atheists fume, unaware that biblical Christianity is not a religion but a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Leading atheists harangue against religion, blind to the fact that the Bible is not about religion. In its more than 1,000 pages, the phrase “religious faith” is not found once, the word “religion” appears only five times, all in one verse, and the word “religious” twice in the next verse. All but one of these seven references is critical of “religion.” Furthermore, in these few times that it mentions religion, the Bible never means what atheists foolishly denounce.
In their war against God, Dawkins and his fellow crusaders dishonestly equate Christian “fundamentalists” with murderous Muslims. In fact, atheists are themselves fundamentalists, seeking to impose their warped interpretation of the fundamentals of science on the world.
Nor can the New Atheists be ignorant of the fact that the fundamentals of Islam (according to the Qur’an, Hadith, the dogmas and example of Muhammad, and 1,300 years of history) teach that Islam must be forced upon the entire world by murdering all who refuse to submit to Allah. Christ taught and lived entirely otherwise. Yet the New Atheists persist in equating Islam and Christianity simply because each is considered to be a “faith.” Such irresponsible accusations permeate their arguments.
Yes, some who have called themselves Christians (Roman Catholic popes, Eastern Orthodox leaders, crusaders, numerous televangelists, et al.) have been guilty of all manner of evil. In the process, they have violated the teachings and example of Christ. But Muslim terrorists follow both Islamic teaching and the example of Muhammad and his successors who tortured and slaughtered millions from France to China for 13 centuries. Today’s terrorism is just a hint of what Islam would continue to do if it could.
The fundamentals of true Christianity promote love, freedom of choice, and forgiveness, not hatred and violence. The latter are the trademark of fundamentalist Islam. To equate the fundamentals of Islam with those of Christianity is reprehensible.
Atheists also perversely equate Christianity with the fanaticism and violence of the Crusades and Inquisition. Yet the crusaders were not biblical Christians; they violated everything Christ taught and slaughtered His brethren, the Jews, everywhere they went. It is gross dishonesty to attribute the crusaders’ misconduct to biblical Christianity.
From the days of Christ, multitudes of Christians have never given allegiance to Rome but to the Bible and to Christ alone. They were martyred by the millions by the church of Rome for centuries before the birth of Luther. From the 16th-century Reformation onward, millions of Roman Catholics embraced faith in the Bible and Christ alone and were martyred by the hundreds of thousands by the popes and their armies. To fail to distinguish between martyrs and their murderers is unconscionable.
The New Atheists, led by Dawkins, call themselves “the brights” and look upon theists as dimwits. Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg recently said, “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion....Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.” Richard Dawkins says: “I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing on religion.” Religion? As we’ve seen, atheists are tilting at windmills.
In their fervor to convert the world to their religion, atheists betray their complete ignorance of biblical Christianity. The Bible is not a religious book and does not promote “religion.”
Many Christians try to be “scientific” by adopting theistic evolution as compatible with Christianity. Their compromise does not impress atheists. Unashamedly, Dawkins declares that “evolution must lead to atheism” and “the atheist movement has...a moral imperative...to aggressively spread the good news....”
Dawkins declares, “Should [theists] be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in?” This is dangerous totalitarian talk that makes one fear for parents and children alike.
James Perloff put it well: “But remember; ‘The princess kissed the frog, and he turned into a handsome prince.’ We call that a fairy tale. Evolution says frogs turn into princes, and we call it science....Is that science? Or is it, like the fraud of Piltdown Man, the forgeries of Haeckel’s embryos, the misrepresentations of Inherit the Wind, and the coercions of the Supreme Court, merely part of a long effort to deny God?”
Atheists who end up in hell cannot blame the God they hate for excluding them from heaven. We need to rescue as many as we can from atheism’s lies.
December 31, 2007
From The Berean Call
Happy New Year
From The Berean Call
Encouraging words taken from William MacDonald's devotional book, “One Day at a Time”:
New Year's resolutions are good but fragile, that is, easily broken. New Year's prayers are better; they ascend to the throne of God and set answering wheels in motion. As we come to the beginning of another year, we would do well to make the following prayer requests our own:
Lord Jesus, I rededicate myself afresh to You today. I want You to take my life this coming year and use it for Your glory.
I pray that You will keep me from sin, from anything that will bring dishonor to Your Name.
Keep me teachable by the Holy Spirit. I want to move forward for You. Don't let me settle in a rut.
May my motto this year be, “He must increase; I must decrease.” The glory must all be Yours. Help me not to touch it.
Teach me to make every decision a matter of prayer. I dread the thought of leaning on my own understanding. “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:23).
May I die to the world and even to the approval or blame of loved ones or friends. Give me a single, pure desire to do the things that please Your heart.
Keep me from gossip and criticism of others. Rather, help me to speak what is edifying and profitable.
Lead me to needy souls. May I become a friend of sinners, as You are. Give me tears of compassion for the perishing.
Lord Jesus, keep me from becoming cold, bitter, or cynical in spite of anything that may happen to me in the Christian life.
Guide me in my stewardship of money. Help me to be a good steward of everything You have entrusted to me.
Help me to remember moment by moment that my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. May this tremendous truth influence all my behavior.
And, Lord Jesus, I pray that this may be the year of Your return. I long to see Your face and to fall at Your feet in worship. During the coming year, may the blessed hope stay fresh in my heart, disengaging me from anything that would hold me here and keeping me on the tiptoes of expectancy. “Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”
Encouraging words taken from William MacDonald's devotional book, “One Day at a Time”:
New Year's resolutions are good but fragile, that is, easily broken. New Year's prayers are better; they ascend to the throne of God and set answering wheels in motion. As we come to the beginning of another year, we would do well to make the following prayer requests our own:
Lord Jesus, I rededicate myself afresh to You today. I want You to take my life this coming year and use it for Your glory.
I pray that You will keep me from sin, from anything that will bring dishonor to Your Name.
Keep me teachable by the Holy Spirit. I want to move forward for You. Don't let me settle in a rut.
May my motto this year be, “He must increase; I must decrease.” The glory must all be Yours. Help me not to touch it.
Teach me to make every decision a matter of prayer. I dread the thought of leaning on my own understanding. “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:23).
May I die to the world and even to the approval or blame of loved ones or friends. Give me a single, pure desire to do the things that please Your heart.
Keep me from gossip and criticism of others. Rather, help me to speak what is edifying and profitable.
Lead me to needy souls. May I become a friend of sinners, as You are. Give me tears of compassion for the perishing.
Lord Jesus, keep me from becoming cold, bitter, or cynical in spite of anything that may happen to me in the Christian life.
Guide me in my stewardship of money. Help me to be a good steward of everything You have entrusted to me.
Help me to remember moment by moment that my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. May this tremendous truth influence all my behavior.
And, Lord Jesus, I pray that this may be the year of Your return. I long to see Your face and to fall at Your feet in worship. During the coming year, may the blessed hope stay fresh in my heart, disengaging me from anything that would hold me here and keeping me on the tiptoes of expectancy. “Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
