Being Granted the Right to Marry Gives One the Liberty to Divorce

For some time now, there has been much debate over giving homosexuals the right to marry, but what about the liberty to divorce?

Yes, I am a Christian.
Yes, we believe the Bible.
Yes, the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Yes, the Bible says divorce is sin.
Yes, Christian people divorce.
** I am fully aware scripture gives some grounds (if you will) for divorce, though it does not state one must divorce or that one should look for reasons to divorce.

Now that we’ve gotten past that argument, let’s proceed with the ideals of those who do not believe what the Bible teaches but demand homosexuals be given equal rights within the already defined term: marriage.

I found this article today which talks about a lesbian couple who were married in 2008. They were apparently “among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged California's gay marriage ban in 2008.” In 2010 one of them said, "Marriage is so important it's the most important relationship that you can have as an adult when you get older." Presently, they are seeking a divorce.

What happened?

How can two persons having a relationship for 18 years + fight so hard for 7 years for what they claimed to be equal rights + believe God must have wanted it for them = even consider the possibility of ending such a liberty after a mere 3 years on the basis “"We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.”?

Why can’t persons (or rather, why do persons choose not to) fight for their marriage as much as they fight for the right to marry in the first place? If God wanted them to marry, does He now want them to divorce? How scripturally based is this? If one is going to use God’s name, then they need to acknowledge and obey His word. And this goes for the heterosexual marriage just as much as the homosexual unions. How many times is God/rights used to justify both the marriage and the divorce?

My point is this: What purpose did it serve for these persons to fight 7 years for a right they were only committed to for 3 years? Same holds true for those who live together for years, only to divorce shortly after marriage. Why are we so prone to leave, rather than to cleave?

When we see marriage as a right, then we view divorce as a liberty.

Marriage is a privilege: A sacred opportunity instituted by God between a man and a woman, giving the couple the honor of sharing their lives together in a committed relationship.

It’s interesting (and rather sad) how something worth fighting for to obtain as a right can be easily dismissed as worthless by liberty. May God help us!

Courageous Motivation

So, I went this weekend to see the movie Courageous with some people from our church. I thought the movie was pretty good, possibly even better than Fireproof. Of course you can’t really compare the two completely, as they focus on different aspects of the home. Fireproof speaks to the husband, as Courageous speaks to the father.

Courageous was filled with an emotional roller coaster, holding different principles that most likely every father in the theater could easily grasp hold of as something presently in their lives. Shifting from laughter to sorrow, self examination and the reality of what others may be going through, it helps expose the many different things we may actually not even take notice of though they are going on in our very own lives around us every day.

As I walked out of the theater I couldn’t help but feel motivated to be a better father. But, then I thought, if that is all there was, then surely it would be short lived. I mean, what am I going to do – wait till the movie hits DVD and watch it again? Then in a couple of months watch it again? And so on…

As much as I enjoyed the movie, I realize that if we really want to become better fathers, we need to do more than merely watch a movie about being better fathers. We’ve got to actually do what ‘Adam’ did in the movie. I’m not talking about signing the ‘Resolution’ from the movie – I’m talking about the actual seeking God and studying the Scriptures he was doing to arrive at the Resolution.

We can’t simply ride the coattails of someone else’s convictions. We have got to purpose in our own hearts and in our own lives to be better (1) Christians and then we can become better (2) husbands and (3) fathers. Sometimes – well, a lot of times – it seems we fall very short in our potential of being better. Not because the Holy Spirit is not moving us to do so, but because we simply have a ‘fleshly’ motivated time period (whether a movie, song, sermon, etc.) and merely fizzle out when it comes time to actually put our ‘motivation’ into action.

So, what am I saying? I’m saying that Courageous and movies like it can be great motivators that hit home in our hearts, maybe even at times we wouldn’t listen to the message they present any other way – BUT – if that motivation stops at the credits, then what good has it done us? If we fail to actually make a change in our lives – and not merely acknowledge or think about changing – we are no better off than before we saw it.

It all goes back to the Bible and fellowship with God through Christ. Like me, if you saw Courageous – or a movie, program, sermon, etc. – and felt the emotion, wisdom, and Spirit of God exposing parts of your lives that need repentance and growth, then pray, read, study, and mediate on Scripture to allow it to change your life (as a husband, a father, a Christian) forever – and not merely 120 minutes.

So, Whose Fault Is It?

In reading an article today, apparently about six scientists are being put on trial for suggested manslaughter for “failing to predict an earthquake that killed more than 300 people in central Italy in 2009 despite signs of increased seismic activity in the area,” I found something very peculiar. One of the lawyers (Alfredo Biondi) declared, “You cannot put science on trial.”

I find it interesting, because we often hear the claim from unbelievers (yet believers of science):

“If God is real, then why does He not stop bad things from happening?”

Could we not also ask, “If science is real, then why does it not stop bad things from happening?”

Would anyone doubt the existence of science simply because we do not completely understand it, sometimes incorrectly devise ideas about it, become confounded in its complexity, get lost in our formulation of the yet unseen, or its outcome is not what is expected and less than what we hoped for, while other times it is surprising and overwhelming interesting, even though we are limited in our ability to grasp its fullness?

My purpose is not to merely compare God to science or science to God, but rather the mindset of man. We find no error in putting God on trial by declaring He is either non-existent or at fault for not stopping or warning against disasters, yet we have science which has been created to warn us but declare “You cannot put science on trial” when it fails to do that which we believe it should.

But, perhaps they are right. Maybe it is neither God nor science which can be put on trial; for maybe both have indeed given the warning, and it is us (mankind) who have chosen to disregard it. Would not that then make us individually responsible for ourselves and each other? So, then, as a Christian (or a scientist in this case), it would not be God or science at fault but us who know the warning signs and refuse to warn others about it.

Dear Christians, we have the Word of God, we have the gospel of Jesus Christ. Are we sharing the warning of spending eternity in hell if one does not repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, or will we be accused as these scientists before God: "No one expected to be told the exact time of the quake. We just wanted to be warned that we were sitting on a bomb." (Vincenzo Vittorini)

Are We Bringing Others To Christ?

We find in Matthew 9, Mark 2, and Luke 5 a story of a man sick of the palsy, which had persons who were determined to bring him to Jesus for healing.

1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.

2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.

3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.

4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

I would just like to make a few points here I think we could all do to remember sometimes in our busy lives:

1. Christ was preaching the Word.

2. There was a sick man unable on his own to come unto Jesus.

3. There were persons who were interested enough in the wellbeing of the sick man to take time out of their day to help him come to Jesus.

4. There was faith in Jesus that he could heal the man.

5. Luke says “there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by”, but the religious crowd did not stop them from coming to Jesus.

6. The place was apparently so full of people no one else could enter, but the mass of people and crowded building did not stop them from coming to Jesus.

7. By removing the roof to lower the sick man to Jesus, those who bore him went above and beyond normal expectations to ensure he came to Jesus.

8. When Jesus saw their faith the man was healed.

Had there been no faith, no help from others willing to care for another, or fear of the religious and crowd, how would the sick man ever have met Jesus and been made whole?

The Word is being preached. What are we doing to ensure we ourselves come to Christ, and those around us are brought to Him for the cleansing of sin also?

Do Your Social Network Friends Really Matter?

According to an article on FoxNews.com, a lady died from apparent suicide sometime after posting her actions – Christmas Day – on her Facebook status.

The article declares: Simone Back, 42, had 1,048 Facebook “friends,” none of whom came to her rescue or alerted authorities of her suicidal post that read, "Took all my pills be dead soon bye bye everyone."

It also states: [she] received responses calling her a “liar,” “she OD’s all the time and she lies” and saying the fatal overdose was “her choice,” The Telegraph reports.

And adds: Some out-of-town friends did respond wanting to help, requesting her address and telephone number to no avail. Not one of Back’s friends checked in on her.

This is a very sad story. Any suicide or death of an individual should never be seen as a light thing, because that individual has crossed over into eternity. At this point, their relationship in Jesus Christ matters the most, even though they have surely likewise left weary hearts inside family and friends.

But, this brings up questions regarding Facebook, along with other social networks, and how we allow them to take part in our daily lives. How much is too much? Are we spending more of our lives gossiping over the internet with cyber friends, in place of actually spending time with persons face-to-face?

Take for instance, the “friends” list on Facebook. I personally have 300+ “friends” made up of family, friends I grew up with, church members, coworkers, persons I know and have known, along with others I have merely met online through numerous blogs, forums, etc. Within this list, I most likely only converse with a small number of them regularly in person or on Facebook, and do not even attempt to read the 300+ statuses, updates, etc. which happen daily – or even hourly. I just don’t have that much time, or the desire to do so. Sorry Facebook friends!

With that said, along with the numerous TMI and OMG (ha!) postings on just my Facebook Wall, I can somewhat understand how a status could go unnoticed (even a plea for help) by on-line “friends” (regardless how many) or even Facebook personnel. It is also practical to realize that many times we easily dismiss things, because the person is “known” to “cry wolf” or crave attention. This may not totally remove responsibility from us to seek help for those who may need it, but at the same time it does not place the blame on us and remove all the responsibility from the individual doing so either.

I mean, if we can dismiss the soul hurting we may see each day at work, in our homes, at church, or driving along our way, what makes us think we will pay more attention to our cyber relationships? How easy is it to click “Like” or write a quick comment “Praying for you” – but do we really mean it? Are social networks even used as a means to help one another emotionally and spiritually, to truly build better friendships and communication with those we care about? Or, do they merely make us focus more attention on ourselves, and the curiosity of knowing everybody else’s business – with a stand-off type of responsibility, leaving us with no commitment to intervene with hurting hearts and the needs of others?

Is it better to have 1,048 social network friends, or 1 who really cares? And, if we claim to be someone’s friend, what are we doing to make the relationship so? Are we simple appeasing our conscience, yet searing it at the same time?

Proverbs 17:17a, A friend loveth at all times…

Proverbs 18:24, A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award Contest

So, I haven't forgotten my Resolutions for 2011, but have simply added another short-term goal; at least for the month of January.

Here is an opportunity for anyone to submit an unpublished or self-published novel between 50,000 and 150,000 words (of their own writing) in the 2011 Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award, for a chance to win one of two $15,000 publishing contracts with Penguin USA and distribution of their novel on Amazon.com.

How to Enter: The submission period begins January 24, 2011 at 12:01 a.m. (U.S. Eastern Standard Time) and ends February 6, 2011 at 11:59 p.m. (U.S. Eastern Standard Time). The young adult fiction category and the general fiction category are each limited to 5,000 Entries, and we will stop accepting Entries for a category after we have received 5,000 Entries in that category.

Sadly, there isn't enough time for me to finish and submit my latest work, entitled Kristietiba, as I am currently only about midway through writing it. But, I have been slowly reediting and putting together the trilogy of Ekleipsis, Daegsteorra, and Andeis into one book entitle Land of Erde. Perhaps I will be able to complete and submit this work. I at least hope to.

Do you have a novel you have been working on? Give it a go! You've got a month to prepare and submit it. What have you lost?

Thou Shalt Come - Introduction

As I sit here this twenty-sixth day of December in the year of our Lord 2010, I am prepared to embark on a study less than few have intertwined into their lives. Some may find it an unnecessary learning – and perhaps they are correct in the large scope of life, if the mere reading should consume one – yet I cannot but hope that such will rather enlighten me in much greater things of importance along the journey. For what I find at the end may indeed be less significant – in practical purpose – than the gleanings and wisdom which shall become prevalent along the way. Of which, in no small means, would I be equally content with grasping at the understanding of. Though, likewise I am required to retain this expedition must not be satisfied without the acting upon such found knowledge; for what is faith without works[1]?

It is my belief[2] – from experience with myself, along with others I have conversed with throughout my life – when one is presented or seeks out information or questions concerning virtually all things, there appears to be already in place a sense of opinion, thought, or idea – whether partial or in full – concerning it. Even though scripture declares such is folly[3], mankind seems to find it quite easy to do – perhaps even subconsciously acting upon it. Whether due to previous learning we have received through school, media, society, or possibly from family, church, and books, we appear to find it difficult to simply say, “I don’t know” without actually having some preconceived notion of what it might or should be – according to us.

But, is it so wrong to have predetermined ideas of that which we may not know or fully understand? Or, rather – should we ask – how shall truth overcome our presuppositions, if by chance we do not lend our ears and mind to that which is in contradiction? To limit our study to merely one side or the other – of any topic; especially if we are but novice concerning its intellect – does not make that which we believe true, but bounds us to it as though we have become the final authority by rejecting all other knowledge without evenly considering it. Neither do harsh words, name calling, nor misrepresentation of the other make our case stronger and more profitable for those we deem without. We must maintain that truth is truth, without our vain presuppositions; for we do not establish nor define truth, as truth is whole by itself. Just as our assumptions may lead us to the truth, they may likewise disperse us from it.

So, for this study, I shall try to put away my argumentative mind, while attempting to give equal standing with each author and all books, as they present their case for what they believe to be truth. Using the Bible as the final authority, as did those in Thessalonica[4], I hope to take every point of doctrine and exert its truth in my own life daily.

I shall entitle this study Thou Shalt Come, based on John 6:37; whereby, scripture declares, All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

So begins my study of Arminianism, Calvinism, and those who claim the truth – along with themselves – lies somewhere in between...

---

[1] James 2:20, 26 (It would do one well to read the chapter in its entirety.)

[2] I realize, possibly a mere presupposition itself.

[3] Proverbs 18:13

[4] Acts 17:11

Resolutions for 2011

As we draw to the end of 2010, upon reflection, it appears I have been neglecting my blog writing, having only 25 posts in 2009 and 17 posts for 2010. So, for 2011, I would like to make myself a few resolutions.

First, I would like to complete my current work, entitled Kristietiba this coming year. It is my latest book writing project, following my trilogy In the Land of Erde. The storyline is mostly coming about, but just haven’t had the time to formal continue writing it to completion; approximately, halfway through at the present.

Second, I was graciously given a book entitled Unabridged Christianity (Biblical Answers to Common Questions About the Roman Catholic Faith) by Fr. Mario P. Romero. There was a time when I did a good bit of reading about Catholicism and even participated on a Catholic forum, but it has been some time since then. So, perhaps I will make time to read, examine, and respond accordingly. Readers may see some of my musing regarding this posted here.

Third, I was also given a book entitled The Muslim Calvinism Connection by Moody Adams. This perhaps had sparked the greatest endeavor for 2011 (well, in the scope of this blog). For 2011, readers may see a good many posts on the context of Armenian and Calvinist theology, in regards to depravity, free will, predestination, foreknowledge, and the like. I have a shelf of books, along with a CD of writings in PDF for my Nook, which will challenge my presupposition, thoughts, and beliefs.

Of course, last but not least, I hope to increase my prayer and scripture reading time, which the above should also encourage. This also does not include my family time and church responsibilities, so we shall see come December 2011 what has become of these few resolutions.

May you all have a Happy Christmas and Merry New Year…

Christ-Mass at 180 Degrees: A Sin to Celebrate, a Sin to Not

I realize this post may come across as anti-Christmas, as the Grinch, or just plain argumentative, but actually it is more of just a note of thoughts for the individual reader to consider this year.

It is interesting that each year we hear an uproar about people, businesses, or whatever “trying to take Christ out of Christmas”, but I wonder just how many of us know anything about the history of Christmas or actually worship Christ more during the season supposedly celebrating His birth.

First, the word Christmas originates from combining the words Christ (the son of God) and Mass (the Catholic Mass). [1] “The Mass is the complex of prayers and ceremonies that make up the service of the Eucharist in the Latin rites.” [2] Both Baptists (of which I am) and Catholics believe the Lord’s Supper began with Christ [3], but the literal or symbolic nature of the Lord’s Supper is quite different between the two. The Eucharist or ‘Sacrifice of the Mass’ [4] carries with it the idea of Transubstantiation [4]; whereby “Catholic Christian belief [is] in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist” (meaning the bread and wine actually become the literal body and blood of Christ) by their interpretation of such scripture as John 6:53-56 [5]. Whereas Baptist realize the words of Christ were spiritual and not fleshly, for Christ did say in verse 63: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” One may notice all who are saved are also called “one bread, and one body” in 1 Corinthians 10:17. And if the ‘cup of the Lord’ is the literal blood of Christ, is the ‘cup of devils’ the literal blood of devils? [1 Corinthians 10:21]

Point 1: Baptists do not celebrate or believe in the teaching of the Catholic Mass, and the word Christmas appears to have originated with Catholic teachings.

Second, according to some “Christmas history of America” [6], in 1645 Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans took over England, and cancelled Christmas as part of their vow to ‘rid England of decadence’ [moral degeneration or decay]. “Puritans by definition felt that the English Reformation had not gone far enough, and that the Church of England was tolerant of practices which they associated with the Catholic Church. They formed into and identified with various religious groups advocating greater "purity" of worship and doctrine, as well as personal and group piety.” [7] Oddly, during the 1600s, some pilgrims (English separatists, also Puritan in their beliefs) enjoyed Christmas in America, while for others it was outlawed. Even before the Civil War, the North “saw sin in the celebration of Christmas”, while the South celebrated it without guilty conscience. From there, it seems Christmas was promoted in books and Sunday school to the children, then with magazines and decorations to the women.

Point 2: Whereas the Puritans of England seemed to argue that Christmas was not for the Christian (or non Catholic), there were those in America who fought over the idea of whether Christmas was sin or worthy to be celebrated.

Thirdly, when I hear the yearly outcry from professing Christians that this place or that group is refusing the say or promote Christmas, I have to sit back and wonder what all the hoopla is about. Why? Because while we criticize those who do not display nativity scenes or say “Merry Christmas”, I do not see us as Christians doing any more for Christ during a season whereby we claim people are doing less or nothing at all for “Christ’s birthday”. I mean, really, if we would like to demand the lost world (or those “less” Christian) to say “Merry Christmas” to recognize our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (not to mention the Catholic Mass), then why do we as Christians not spend Christmas Eve and Christmas Day spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than sitting lazily inside our homes watching football, overeating, and often spending the day with family and friends we don’t always like, with gifts we usually can’t afford?

Point 3: Before we demand a change in other’s priorities, we need to ensure ours are in the right place.

Why does it seem that we - as Christians (or non Catholic) - have gone 180 degrees in stating that it was once a sin (or Catholic) to celebrate Christmas, but now it is apparently a sin (or non Christian) to not celebrate Christmas?

** note: this is not a post against Catholic's or Catholicism, but a post for my Baptists brothers and sisters...

Misguided Advice + Folly Discernment = Disappointing Outcomes

The other day at work, I was asked to help a coworker set their new office furnishing closer to the wall. The furniture was empty, so we proceeded into his office to reposition it. As we took our places on either side of the desk, we lifted it slightly to move it back a little less than six inches. Suddenly, I felt a sharp pain in my hand. Without ever having seen it, a painted canvas had fallen from the shelving attached to the desk we were moving. Neither of us had taken notice of the painting before we started the move; even though he had apparently placed it there beforehand at some point, and I did look at the furniture before helping him move it.

For some reason, a single scripture reference came to mind: Proverbs 18:13 says, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” I realize one may reasonably question how the two – the story and the verse – relate to one another, so let me explain. Within our move, we had the location (the office), the situation (move the furniture), the person familiar or part of the situation (the coworker), and the person invited or entering the situation (me).

Entering the location, even observing the situation and being told of it, I still did not discern the painted canvas which fell on my hand. My coworker apologized for not remembering he had placed the artwork there, and I apologized for not noticing the painting before helping him move the furniture. Thank goodness it was not damaged, but my hand was still hurt, he was still disappointed it happened, and the artwork could have been broken. All because we observed the location and took for granted we knew the situation; instead of taking the time to examine every possible detail before taking action.

This same principle applies in our daily lives, when we interact with family, friends, and those around us. Sometimes we make judgments or give advice, but how often are they possibly made or given without us noticing or discerning all of the key elements of a given situation? Perhaps we think we know all of the information, yet some is merely gossip. What if we have only heard a partial truth, by listening to just one side of the story? How many times have we apologized, only to leave the other person – or perhaps even entire relationships – worse off than they were? All because we answered a matter – by words and/or deeds – without really hearing and/or understanding the entirety of the situation and everything involved?

May we be mindful of our judgments and quick advice to others, as it may prove to encompass a much different – long lasting, opposite – outcome than we might first have imagined.

Ephesisans 2 - How Do You See Yourself?

Ephesians 2

God’s involvement in sending Christ and working in mankind for our redemption reconciles us in our relationship with Him and each other.

(vs. 1) And you hath he quickened - to make alive

1. So, the first question is: Have you been quickened, made alive?

You say, made alive from what? (vs. 1) Being dead in trespasses and sins
• Just as Christ was dead and resurrected to life – so are we dead spiritually have a need to be made alive.

Before Conversion (spiritually dead)
(vs. 2-3) Scripture makes reference to our natural state before being quickened.

1. Walked according to the course of this world (is the world in unison or contrast to God?)

2. Walked according to the prince of the power of the air
a. (2 Corinthians 4:4) In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

3. Conversation in the lusts of our flesh, and fulfilled the desires of the flesh and mind
a. 1 John 2:16: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life
i. Genesis 3: saw tree was good for food, pleasant to the eyes, make one wise
ii. Satan: saw God, desired His position, wished to ascend over God

4. Were by nature the children of wrath

Change of Conversion (spiritually alive)
(vs. 4-7) BUT GOD!
1. God’s mercy
2. God’s love
3. God’s grace

God has given us mercy, love, and grace (through Jesus Christ) – not because He saw something good in us, for we were by nature the children of wrath fulfilling our own desires – BUT in spite of our sin!

Why? That the riches of His grace through Christ may be shown to others.

(vs. 8-9) Salvation is ALL grace through faith in Christ Jesus! WITHOUT works!

Purpose of Conversion (spiritually active)
Though we as Baptist often quote Ephesians 2:8-9 as to our beliefs that one is saved by grace through faith in Christ without works, we seldom quote Ephesians 2:10 to get ourselves out of the pew and into the work.

(vs. 10) We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (ordain = to decree, establish, predestine before hand)

2. So, the second question is: What are you doing for God, as the result of salvation not to gain salvation?

(vs. 11-12) Scripture reminds us Gentiles who we are in the flesh.
1. Gentiles (Uncircumcised)
1. Without Christ
2. Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel
3. Strangers from the covenants of promise
4. Having no hope
5. Without God in the world

Not only were we (1) dead spiritually, we were (2) without hope in the flesh.

To be alien from God and without Christ, is to be without redemption!

(vs. 13-19) BUT NOW
We have been grafted into Christ by the circumcision made without hands (Colossians 2:9-13); the separation of our sinful flesh, and our quickened spirit.
1. Once being dead in sin, we have been quickened by Christ and the Spirit of God.
2. Once being uncircumcised in the flesh, we have been forgiven of sin and reconciled to God.

We have a double reconciliation through Christ:
1. Satisfying the demands of justice, reconciled the Jew and Gentile to God.
2. Abolishing the Mosaic institutions, reconciled the Jew and Gentile into the unity of one body.

Christ
1. Abolished the enmity between us and God
a) Sin always causes enmity (a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred)
 "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed" (Genesis 3:15).
 The friendship of the world is "enmity with God" (James 4:4; 1 John 2:15, 16).
• 1 Jn. 2:16: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life
 The "carnal mind" is "enmity against God" (Romans 8:7).
• 2 Cor. 10:5-6: Cast down imaginations and bring into captivity every thought unto God.

3. So, the third question is: Do you have enmity (hostility or hatred) between the flesh, the world*, and the devil, or do you have enmity between you and God?
* the system of beliefs and lusts against God, not individuals.

The Jews bragged they were the children of Abraham, God’s chosen people, were the carriers of the truth – yet they chose idols, men, and lustful desires over God and His Word. Are you doing the same?


Christ
2. Abolished the enmity between the Jew and Gentile
a) Reconciled both to God
b) Made twain at peace in one body (body of Christ, the Church)
c) Though once ‘a far off’, we have been made ‘nigh’ to God
 To the Jew, God dwelt in the temple where Gentiles could not go.
 To the saint, God dwells in our temple, our body.
• 1 Cor. 6:19: Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you.
• 1 Cor. 3:16: Ye are the temple of God.
d) Access by one Spirit unto the Father
 (Ephesians 4:4-6) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. *not multiple ways*
e) No more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and household of God
 1 Cor. 10:32 mentions the Jew, the Gentile, then the Church of God.
 Being in the church, we are one body, neither Jew nor Gentile – we are saints!
 I pray you are in the church of God, more so than looking at yourselves as Jew, Gentile, or even Baptists!

4. So, the fourth question is: Are you doing as the Jews in keeping God to yourselves within the local church building, or are you sharing the light of the gospel with the strangers to bring them into the household of God?

Pride and race seemed to affect the relationship between the Jew and the Gentile; does it affect your ability or inability to share the gospel with people?

(vs. 20-22) Christ laid our foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11), and is the cornerstone of all that we are:
1. In our becoming one body
2. In our indwelling of the Spirit
3. In our habitation for God

5. So, the fifth question is: Are you building on the foundation of Christ, merely sitting idle, or tearing down the household of God, the body of Christ? Or trying to build your own building in the flesh?

Read Colossians 3:8-17
• But now… (10-12) And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

Galatians 5:14 says, For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. That love includes sharing the gospel with the diversity of people.

1. Can you see and feel God’s involvement in your life?
2. Is it changing your relationship with God and with man; making it better?

Christ lived and died calling unto men to repent and believe, to have their sins forgiven and to be reconciled unto to God. What are you doing?

Do You Perfer D.E.S.I.R.E. over T.U.L.I.P.s?

I was recently presented an article, whereby the author suggest the concept of D.E.S.I.R.E over T.U.L.I.P.; stating “There it is—God’s “D.E.S.I.R.E.” for you. It isn’t the T.U.L.I.P., but its not Arminianism either!”

I am not so sure even this article (belief or conviction of D.E.S.I.R.E) gives one “a model of election that would allow me, or any preacher, to expound every verse of Scripture with equal confidence and not have to soft pedal or ignore those passages which are problematic to one view or the other,” as the author hopes himself.

Can Abrahamic Election and Salvation Election (as presented by the author) really be limited to only corporate (Abrahamic) and individual (Salvation)? I mean, we also have those that could be “cut off” individually from their people (the Jews) by breaking the covenant, and a corporate “church” or body of Christ (similar as collective groups seen in “all that the Father giveth me” and sheep “folds”) spoken of in scripture. And wasn’t the picture of individual fleshly circumcision a picture of individual spiritual circumcision? I am not saying Israel and Church are synonymous in Scripture, but I’m not sure I can agree with the author’s limitation of corporate vs. individual regarding Abrahamic and Salvation Election.

Here is a little confusing, or where I am failing to see what the author is saying:
"From God’s perspective there can never have been a single moment when God has not had the totality of His experience (their acceptance and after, or their rejection and after) with each and every human being as part of His “present” (i.e. eternal) experience and knowledge.
God has always experienced those accepting him and praising him in the New Heaven and New Earth as well as those who have rejected him and have been sent to perdition. Thus, the ones He has always experienced accepting and worshipping him are elect and He works in an especially solicitous way to make their call effectual and they will believe as opposed to must believe.”

I can understand the “present tense” of how God sees things (past, present, future as present), but it appears the author suggest that because God sees presently (though future to us) “those…praising him in the New Heaven and New Earth” THEN or BECAUSE OF THIS “He works in an especially solicitous way to make their call effectual and they will believe.”

So, it seems the author is saying that since God experiences the presence of certain individuals in the scope of eternal salvation (future), He works effectually in them (presently) so they “will” believe.

If such is what the author is saying, then by equal contrast, those “He (God) has always experienced the rebellion and the rejection of those who are lost and they will not accept his invitation and call” He will NOT “work in an especially solicitous way to make their call effectual and they will believe.”

I don’t see how the author escapes having foreknowledge contradictions or questioning as he claims TULIP have.

If God works effectual within an individual toward salvation “based” (as the author appears to note) on whether He “experiences” the individual in salvation (New Heaven and New Earth) or perdition (Hell), then how is this different than saying foreknowledge is based on God “looking forward into time” (our time) to see who will accept Christ and who will reject Christ – then only working effectually in those He already knows will accept Him? To me, it seems what the author has done is base God’s “effectual working” choice on man’s “electoral” choice to accept or reject Christ.

And if God presently (though our future) sees an individual in Heaven or Hell, can it not be said one “must believe” or “cannot accept” – for if the future is set (for in God’s eyes it is), then how can the individual do anything but believe or reject – even without the effectual calling of God (per the author)?