Silent Art

I decided to post all my poems and lyrics over on Facebook's Poetry Shout. I have been silent about certain abilities of mine. My writing is one of those. These were written originally in private inspired by the Holy Spirit. They were not intended for public view. I do not know why God makes things beautiful that we may never see. Yet, that is how beauty and art are at times. You have to search far and wide. Down even into the depths of the sea.


Jesus seems to do this to. He does it in search of His bride. He had to go to the depths of hell to pull wretched sinners back up to the light of day. Just for something to start with. He knew far to well that beauty must first come from within, before it may be expressed on a page or picture.

I feel like being more open about some things about myself. If you already know me, you're in luck. If not, I'm sorry. I don't pass my name out or accept friend requests by most strangers on Facebook.

God with a sense of humor

I have only lead one person to Christ. It was over an Internet chat so I cannot judge the effects in her life or the ripples of that event. Yet, I shall tell the story. For she would be one of those definitely born out of due time. The evangelistic effort was conceived in my sin and in God's providence. It was from a two hour conversation in an online video game.

I was wasting time on Guildwars last winter break. I had been convicted of my laziness prior but I did not really care enough to do something productive. This thought sat in the back of my mind for I was busy in my sin. The one thing interesting about Online Games is that occasionally a random topic is discussed in a chat channel. This one was about how the decorations for the winter holiday were christian. Since I am not the biggest seasonal fan, I said that they were pagan. (For they are pagan! Its just that Christians have tried to attach symbols to them.) The conversation started from here. The details are below. Its long and convoluted but I am remembering it a year later.

I get a random IM slightly off topic asking "Why do people hate your religion?"

I answered something like "because they traded the truth of God for idols and want to be God themselves." I did not even try and start a conversation. She agreed with the response and I think asked something else. We then started to talk about God. It was not long after that She said was a rabbinic Jew and had read the bible many times. Her name was something foreign like Sahge but she was from NY.

She also said something like Jesus was not the Messiah. It was from here that I drew her out on what is necessary for atonement. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. It lead to talk about the day of atonement and the temple system. I discussed original sin and the christian doctrine of atonement throughout. It was not just contrition that causes sins to be forgiven. We talked about Jesus/blood being necessary. And that Christ necessarily had to be God. She tried to refute me many times but luckily I was able to knock down every argument. She realized that rabbinic judaism is not from the Bible. She abrupted ended the conversation by simply not replying to a question I asked back. This could have been the end.

I took the opportunity to pick up a bible and bring it to the computer. Throughout this time, I was like "ummm is this really happening." God must have a wry sense of humor to give me the opportunity to evangelize in the midst of my sin. I prayed decent amount as I was typing to her. It was shear providence. She finally returned and appologized for being rude. She said I was stubborn like her sister. I asked if her sister was a christian. She said yes.

Then she said "I don't know what to believe now." I said, "Well, We worship the same God. He still exists. It is just that I believe more things about Him than you." From here I transitioned from Christ as God back to atonement. I typed over Romans 3. She seemed to understand where I was coming from after the long discussion earlier. It was apart from the law because the law was impossible. I gently pressed her toward accepting Christ here but she was the one who took the initiative. She was the one who asked "how do I..." I said, "Accept christ." I thought it a bit strange to even ask how.

I told her about access in faith through the blood of Jesus christ. (*Apart from rituals of OT.) I then quoted Romans that talked about how the word is near. That one should confessing with their mouth and believe in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. She did this in prayer or aloud I dunno. I then asked if she had a Bible with a New Testament. I told her to get one from her sister and to read John first. I also told her to go to church with her sister if she could. I tried to give her as much advice as I could for not being there. The night had wore on till like 2:30-3:30am for both of us. She asked me to pray for her Jewish mom, and her agnostic Dad. She had a heart for them. That is my only evidence of regeneration. We said goodbye and went to bed.

I talked to her once the next day but it was very brief. I have never seen her since. I did not tell many people after coming back to knoxville about it because I knew I might have to be accountable to them in discussing my video game habits. I feel that I aught to get it out there now. I am still wasting too much time on the computer doing pointless things. Facebook etc. Just less video games. (I don't feel bad about wasting time on my blog though. I want to be more prolific.)

Now, I have the memory of God in his providence dropping a conversation that I didn't ask for into my lap amidst my flagrant sin. A memorable conversation in that lead toward me pointing my first person toward christ. It was not my doing anyways. I knew this far too well from the felt absurdity of God using me in that moment dropping the easiest evangelism ever possible into my lap.

Abortion

I usually restrict my topics to things that are Godward. I regret to inform the evils of the world tug at my heart to tell you my view about this topic. Here is my view. Its alive.


Now, What I find strange is there aught to be medical definition for the begining of life that is like the end of life. We can declare a person dead when they have no heartbeat, no brain waves, and aren't moving. Yet, we can't even declare them alive with rights at 4-5 months with all these things. This applies to 10% of abortions.

This is not even the best medical standard to apply for life. I always think it is better to play it safe when it comes to life. This is even true for death. Doctors don't give up on someone when resuscitating people unless the potential to live meaningfully is gone. If this standard is applied retroactively, it means that rights start at conception. Why should we give up on them? I personally favor this definition. I have not even dogmatically defined when life starts. Yet, it aught to be valued so much that this should not matter. I have not even touched the religious aspects of abortion. There is far more red meat against it there.

Luckily there is also grace for those who have had them. It comes christ and him crucified. He will never leave his children. His efforts are never... well... abortive. He will certainly comfort those in need, forgive, and cleanse people of all ungodliness. Call on him and he will answer. Even the murderer, Paul found grace. You can be forgiven completely.

Perhaps you were born out of due time yourself. Or even, you aught not to have been born at all. This applies to real life. I was 6 weeks premature and in ICU for 3 days before even being held by my parents. Perhaps if born to parents in the past, I would have died.

Now, an untimely birth may also apply to conversion. Have you considered this? You were born again when you aught not to have been. Your sins may be great. Maybe, the regular means for a person to become a christian weren't in your life. Your family doesn't go to church. You don;t have christian friends. Or maybe you become a christian by means apart from what you see as normal in your life. Maybe there is a flyer, a solitary stranger, or a small bible verse pasting by in your own little world. It was by no means impressive. It talked of things aught not be persuasive but were. Oh, how the natural world would reject this idea. Yet, it was more than an idea for it became real and it lives. Let, men continue to be born when they aught not to be. Especially if it is not wanted. It is god's providence, in life and in spirit.

Some Fundamental Problems

I have been slightly pressed to say that today's fundamentalists act like yesterday's liberals. Just read the NLT and the KJV next to each other. Go hear a 15minute sermonette about Jesus and Me. Let us all raise up a Praise Jesus to. Then you will see why.

Fundamentalists are content using bad translations or rather paraphrases, which go above and beyond any close translation of the meaning of the word. There seems to be far less focus on strictness when considering dynamic equivalent translation vs. a real paraphrase. Read the Message. I am one of those who never finds it helpful. Use a commentary instead. Protestant and Catholic alike would have burnt some of these translations as heretical if they were around 300 years. Where is theology and Doctrine? It is inserted.



Let us not forget the prayer cloths and the exercise of 'spiritual gifts' that verge on the signs for Demon influence/possession. Things that even God would find impossible to bless since they lack the gospel. It is like this cartoon. We do not have arms to grasp onto that grace ourselves. Furthermore, it is God's doing. It is not by our will that grace and gifts are supplied/received.



The seeker sensitive movement is horrible. Tell them what they need to hear! It is the gospel. It is not what their ears are twitching to hear. Sometimes this means telling them about their sin and their need to change.


Who can blame yesterday's liberals for being bad when some fundamentalists are just as bad. They invite heresy. They are not even content to believe one thing. I have not even touched the health, wealth, and self help heresies either. There is much more to say but I aught to stop.

Communication with God

Lets look at Isaiah 8:18-20 "Behold, I and the children whom the lord had given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the lord of hosts, who dwells on mount Zion, And when they say to you. 'consult the mediums and the spiritualists who whisper and mutter,' should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn..." NASB (a curse is then given as the passage concludes into chapter 9.)

My understanding/paraphrase:
"Behold the salvation of God and his children who the Lord has elected for signs and wonders in the church by God who is in heaven. Some ask you to consult occultic things. Should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the teachings (of God, law or christ) and to the testimony (of prophets or Isaiah(God's salvation) about such.) If they do not speak according to this word, they have not any light. (not enlightened)"

First point- it denies that the dead should be consulted on behalf of the living. It seems that dead saints should not be consulted either, even to help intercede. God has answers. Consult him. God intercedes, consult him for help. Not the dead. Catholic prayers for the saints, no more please. God may use unfit means to bless if it is done in faith. Yet, This does not mean that one should ride a horse backwards to get anywhere. How much more will he bless means that are fit to be blessed! No popery please.

Second point- God can be consulted. And when he is, the outcome is from two things; Teachings/law and his testimonies. Teachings/law can essentially can be curtailed as the Written Word of God without much objection. Next, the testimony is Isaiah's own (Vs16) particularly, chapter 8 but not only chapter 8 because it contains Christ typology.

Third, if one was to speak according to this word, they have dawn. What they say must be true according to the testimony and teachings. This always meant the Bible and the prophets for Israel! Not the majesterium or line of the church. One can hardly speak otherwise. Sorry Catholics again.

Fouth, the context seems to be about spiritual divination and unusual means used for communing with God. This is important because it seems to be addressing means other than study of law and teaching in which God can be known. This verse begs to ask "should not a people consult their God." Followed by, "if they speak not according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." Conversion has this kind of symbolism of light. Conversion is linked to the holy spirit. It is linked to a personal relationship. There is always communication in such a relationship. Consulting God in person and being taught of God are integral to this passage.

Fourth, God can communicate in means other than just the particular illumination of scripture. The word is to be magnified in preaching for sure. Don't get me wrong. God communicates through his providence also, according to his word. It does not limit the means but only the substance. This allows other communication with God outside of written word. It allows prophecy and discerning the actions of the holy spirit. From personal experience, I would say that this communication is often through prayer or a prayerful mind, not prophetic visions. From personal experience, it does not exclude these either.

This is almost "lesser prophecy" or direct communication from God. One can know the mind of the spirit by 'carefully' searching one's heart. Romans 8. This nullifies many arguments used for greater prophecy. (the spiritual gift) Some say that what is communicated back in prayer has less substance than the Word. This is to argue about its strength rather than the substance of its existence. One may argue about its accuracy or precision too. The same issue arise in real prophecy as the ones that arise from knowing anything that God communicates back to us. He has not left us alone. He has not let us unanswered. The communication from God in prayer and prophecy is just as concrete as the Word, even if we don't have ears to hear.

The very causes of this two-way communication are direct graces from God. It is not necessarily a "God laid it upon my heart. etc." kind of deal. I must say that this is sometimes quite particular. It fits in line with Isaiah 30:21. "and your ears will hear a word behind you, 'This is the way, walk in it,' whenever you turn to the right or to the left." It is hardly a nebuluous desire but a concrete command and instruction.

Fifth, This verse also seems to imply that God is worth asking! I am not saying anything extravagent. What I am saying is that christ has reconciled Man to God. We have confidence and boldness to approach the throne of grace by way of the cross. Let us not shrink back but draw near to God. The cross itself suggests that God will hear and answer our needs and requests! God is alive and real. He is not dead nor imaginary. Let us hold fast to our confidence and ask knowing that he shall grant us everything necessary for faith. Let us ask these things according to the will of God.


[On a side note, This does not mean asking questions about God motives. Let us not be like Job. Our motives here, too often betray us in asking the questions. They can easily attack God's infinite wisdom. This is sin even in the slightest. It needs to be repented of. Let's not question God about his secret council, not even about events in the present. This is far more common. I doubt God will answer such an inquiry anway. Be like Job and say "I shut my mouth". I know this from experience all to well. ]

Christian Fiction Crap

Where are the C.S Lewises of today? Where are the Flannery O'Conners today? Let us not forget the Tolkeins (to a lesser degree). Where are they?


Can anyone write christian fiction that isn't 'My Troubles and Faith testamony', 'My Rapture/end time charts', or 'Repent: a Gospel tract in Narrative form'? I have written about 100 pages worth of christian fiction. (A small but growing novel just for the fun of it.) Enough to know that it is better than some of this crap.

I ask. Where is the Aslan? Where is the incorruptable presented as reality? Why don't people write about grace so real that it whacks people up side their head. (At least so they don't skim by without realizing it.) We don't need escapism. We need Christ.

We need to write about God's side of events concerning man and his troubles. This is what is real. The wonderful cross engages mens hearts. Christian fiction aught to magnify it. As for 'My troubles and faith testamonies', There could be many solutions to our problems. God can't be presented as something that works for one person but may not for another. Authors must address the root problems of sin and grace in their works. God in this must stand alone as unique and uniquely valuable.

There is beauty still in that old rugged cross. The blood-stains and all. Throughout all these years, though the wood has splintered and the nails have crumbled into rust, its beauty remains incorruptible.

Fried Curry

Some people have tried to exhalt pagans into heaven. Well, Gandhi was perhaps the best among the pagans. He brought peace and non-violence. He did not kill, steal, or murder. Yet, I shall not exhalt this man as being perfect. Gandhi had a few faults.

It is true that He was good among men but he turned the truth of God clearly displayed in creation into an idol. He served creature rather than God. His acts did not glorify God. They were apart from God. Read Romans one. Believing to be wise, Gandhi was a fool. He even supported Hitler in Germany. So much so that he wished India to have a dictactor.

Gandi did hear the Christian Gospel but he rejected it. He was a man born under original sin. He was not perfect when God asks for such in his judgment. God lives in unapproachable light. That is why Christ is necessary even for a saint with many works, like Mother Teresa, to be in heaven. Christ must step in to supply grace to bridge this gap since no man but Christ is perfect. This grace isn't meeting the bar but rather shows us how much higher it is, only to take us another route. Christ does so only in this life. Gandhi is dead and without grace. It is better to be a living dog than a dead lion. There is hope when someone is still alive.

Gandhi lacked grace from all external appearances. It remains up to God to judge but it stands on this evidence that he is in hell. It is a place that every man deserves but not every man goes. Grace exists apart from doing some good works. Mercy does too. Man is still guilty for not being in the right relationship with God regardless of works. Christ, as only God could, must take the punishment ment for us. Otherwise, the wrath of God remains. Gandhi was outside of Christ. He was found outside of the church, which alone has salvation.

Let's pretend the standard for judgment was set by him, a man. Will you be as good as the pagan Gandhi in this life? I doubt it. Now if he is stuck frying curry in hell, what chance do you have with much fewer works for getting into heaven outside of christ?

Let us remember that we all need Christ without exception.

Little ditty about Calvinism

You can and you can't,
You shall and you shan't;
You will and you won't.
You're damned if you do,
And damned if you don't.

This is the definition of Calvinism from Lorenzo Dow, a former methodist, who became an independant evangelist. It is in fact the origin of the phrase "You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't." He staunchly said that this was the essence of reformed thought. Despite some errors, I shall agree with him to a degree and address total inablity.

First, You can and you can't. This stems from the deceitful desires of the heart that entangle man's will to do what is evil. Repenting is the easiest thing in this world. For example, I can repent of doing crack cocaine. I turn and repent of it as easily as one says no to eating limabeans. This is because I have never touched that stuff. For me it would be as easy as pie. For someone entangled by it, it is an whole other story. I would have to say that sin is even more of a vice than any substance known to man. Sin is, in fact, the most addictive vice. There is no repenting of sin by throwing it off lightly. This includes repentence of the sin of unbelief. One can but one cannot. The problem lies with the person not with God or His perfection.

You shall and you shan't; You will but you won't. Man acts according to his desires. One desire, for example, is being rational. Another is selfishness. Another desire may be for another's benefit. Man does not come to decisions so lightly either; as to have nothing in the desire for an action yet do it. They are in fact our decisions. Desires may battle it out in our hearts and minds but be assured there is only one victor that is choosen. The will never defeats itself. Furthermore, People don't really act out of character. They only reveal their character in their actions. They only reveal what is strongest desire in their heart. This doesn't make us robots. It makes us human. The actions flow from the character of the person thus we are limited in our decisions by our own desires.

It is futile to change man's ways outside of God. It is God who changes man. No matter how much outer reform or appearance, one is still the same man with the same desires and without God. For even after religion, the evil will seek to escape any outward influence from the Holy Spirit. This is the state of natural man. The goodness of the will is broken. Though I may realize rationally that it is good to repent, my will in no way desires it. Likewise, it follows that anyone who desires unbelief and hates God, will not believe. Nor would tries to have religion by resolve gain anything. His original will shall prevail. One cannot be victorious against their self. This resolve would be motivated in and of itself by a selfish desire not befitting of the gospel. One cannot wish to love God. One can go through the motions but it amounts to nothing.

Next, the last phrase, damned if you do, and damned if you don't. It is certainly clear that you cannot for you will not. For you cannot effect salvation through deeds, good works, or church going. Your affections are in the way. Even a rash "decision for christ" means little because the natural heart is too deceitful and manipulative. The gospel is never a deceitful, manipulative twisting one's arm into an emotional and rash decision to assent to a truth. Some preachers try that. (revivalists*cough* *cough*) This emotionalism does not create conversions. It creates salamanders that thrive when placed under the fire of experiencies but expire easily at room temperatures. Such are not the eternal changes that make up a Christian.

Man must rest from his works and let God be victorious in all he does. Man's resolve alone is not great enough to keep himself from hell. It is not upon the man who strives or runs but upon God to have mercy. Even if a flesh-centered man desired to choose God; he would do so without real faith and trust in it. It is very possible that such a man only seeks to escape God. This choice would lessen his obligations to his soul. I would not trust even my own heart for such conversion. Man must be given a new heart.

Finally, The little saying would be more accurate if it said:

God can and you can't,
God shall and you shan't;
God will and you won't.
God damned you, even if you try and do,
but damned only if you aren't born anew.

The Art of Science and Religion

No one counts the seconds between drops of water from a steady drip to realize that they appear random at first and then become periodic but remain just as random. No one considers that a random number generator on a computer is not truly random. Few people understand that break pads or rather the discs they are on (rotors?) heat up in a non-uniform way. Such that hot spots form on one side of the disc and not the other when spun circularly. No one looks at the spot on Jupiter or Earth's air currents to realize that the semi-spontaneous formation of hurricanes and storm systems depend on the initial conditions. Conditions so small that it can arise out of the flap of a butterfly wing in China. Oh, how I could be changing the world by merely typing this blog entry. At the same time, there are strange attractors in Chaos. Sometimes, it doesn't matter what the initial conditions are. One will always get the same result from the system. Chaos is such a strange thing. Entropy is stranger still.


Sin and grace are very much like chaos in this chaotic world. Sin will always drag one to a single place with its corruption, hell. Yet, Grace is like the hurricane. It abounds such that mighty kingdoms are destroy by a single act 2000 years ago. Even the smartest scientist is but an artist when it comes to these things. The equations don't do it justice. They break down due to their lack of accuracy. Science can't hope to explain God when scientists can't even explain all the things around them by numbers.

Lesser things: Intellegence

Some think intellegence is a natural trait. Some have also considered me intellegent, for lack of intellegence. I know my mind. I know it quite well. I have to disagree strongely at times. I have felt my mind has shifted further from rogue memory toward being more analytic. During this time, I have felt as if I have become stupider. (It gets really funny when I have gone without sleep for more than 48 hours. I can barely piece together a sentence or coherent thought. At least then there is a reason.) I kind of know that this is not the case but rather my intellegence has become analytic. It is a strange thing when my mind is not at my command in the same way it was before. This shift is seen in my classes, I can only learn equations now in conjuction with theories rather than by rogue memory alone. I have to study now when 2 years ago I did not. My rogue memory before meant that I never had to study even for crazy hard thermo-dynamics. It meant that I never learned things for a test and end up forgoting them later.

Maybe it is because my mind has limits and is speciallizing in how it is used. My mind is more systematic and engineering oriented than in my younger days. This shift has its ups and downs. My mind can almost always tackle any of the tallest theological obstacles by force. I have hammered out my view of the covenant of works from scripture. It is appart from standard reformed tradition but it is not new. I find my view echoed in some of the early reformers and the dutch. I am almost done hammering out my understanding of the covenant of grace. My covenant of grace is going to consist of sin and grace in time feeding off each other. Theological mountains are becoming molehills. I am faced with fewer issues and there is less on my plate to contemplate.

Knowledge can puff up. It takes wisdom to deflate it. I am left with what was always there to begin with: God, sin, and the Gospel. My heart needs help, not my head. I am left with theological thought that cannot escape the gravity of the cross. There is an end to learning for this reason. On the other side of the coin, memorizing scripture word for word is very difficult for me. My mind remembers chapters and verses but not words. It is a strange thing indeed.

I bring all this up because I am sure that discernment and deep thought are part of my spiritual giftings. I ask to what end will my own mind and person shift. I have seen other things that disturb me arise such as immaturity. I have felt that I have gone backwards while going forward in things. I don't know if anyone understands this feeling. I am sure God has a reason.

My sin

John Owen once said of sin "Kill sin or it will be killing you." I feel like I am on the being killed end. I am convicted of this since I know that I have not resisted to the point of shedding blood. I am swinging from being closer and further from God both at one time. Sin has entrenched itself deeper into my life. Maybe it is just that I am seeing it now. I know the only cure is the gospel. At Anthem, I was closer to God while being farther away. Luckily, I know that I can draw near to God by the Blood of Christ. I trust in general the gospel but I haven't trusted it enough specifically for killing sin. It is strange. I am more reliant on it, recently, yet in more need of it.

I see that there is a general principle of sin in my life which is now shifting to find new outlets. It may be because I am guilty of giving it a foothold to launch every kind of attack against me. It seems that the provisions of just doing more church stuff does not help my condition. Anthem did not help in that way. Anthem may have helped uncover sin again. I was busy letting it catch fire on the back burner. Christian comfort isn't the problem. The problem is that I am too comfortable in my sin. This sin requires me to have more faith. I don't think I have done a good job at meeting the challenge.

My faith right now feels like John Paul Jones in saying "I have not yet begun to fight", while looking around only to see that my ship is sinking and on fire. Only to know: silly christian, you aught to be able to walk on water. It is our faith that must overcome the world. Merely knowing this does not help. I am strangely not dismayed at my uncovered depravity but I could use some prayer and grace to fight sin as I aught.

Holy Spirit at Anthem.

I definately felt the Spirit moving Friday night during the 3rd message, especially toward conversions. I began to pray for conversions at this point towards the end of the message. Without looking around at all the effects of the HS, which I saw afterward, I could tell spiritually that He was moving in a large way.

I am pretty certain that angels were rejoicing that night. The one thing I didn't do after the message was follow up by talking to some of the new guys. I only talked to Kip briefly. I know that I should have talked to some more people for certain now. Even the ones that I did not know. (which is most of them). I am hearing that many people (6+) were saved by that message. It is not something one aught to count that often. What counts is that God's word was faithfully preached in conjunction with the actions with His Holy Spirit. This is what gave increase.

Reformation and Repentance

I was quite immature at Anthem, like I have never been before in my life. I am not quite sure what came over me. I am usually too serious to do this kind of stuff. Some of this sin was from vanity. Some of it came from the large amount of suger and caffiene consumed.

Here is a list of my offenses:
1)Snorting crushed sweet-tarts
2)Ramming canoes at slow speeds
3)Rolling a place with TP by myself (in retaliation).
4)Throwing tic-tacs at someone.
5)Pulling a chair out from under someone as they were sitting down
6)Putting tatter tots in my pocket and eating them later in front of people. Like Napoleon Dynamite.
7)Having a quiet time precariously perched up on a high rock, just for the fun of it.
8)Burning candy with a candle till it caught on fire.
9)Eating burnt candy
10)Jumping on the low Burning coals of the bondfire... Multiple times.

I am sure I am forgeting something. My sin was active but luckily it was limited in its effect to others. I felt the need to appologize to the person for the chair prank. I think some of this is in response to a prayer a while ago that I see the difference between reformation and repentance. I have been a christian for a long time. I grew up in a 'christian' home. There was much reforming of my actions.

Yet, this is not the same as repentance. This means my sin and the cause often hides beneath a white washed veneer. It was in this state of prior reformation that I was saved. I'm still seeing refined sins appear out of nowhere and shift to another place that is restained by only inhibitions. Furthermore, my shy personality and my introverted nature kept certain sins at bay. This has changed a bit. The cause of sin often hid behind my inhibitions rather than convictions against sin.

Now, we can all see the evils of indwelling sin. One can think it is dealt with only to see that it returns because it hides under everything but convictions. It hides for a time, behind mere choices and inhibitions rather than real repentance. This is the depravity that I have seen in my own person as of late. The heart is deceitful above all things. Furthermore, I see that sin likes shifting its outlet when it is seen. Lust to sloth to lust to an additive personality to vanity to immaturity to lust again. Anthem was an extention of this rollercoster of shifting sin in my life. This is a strange period. I see my potential sins and tendancies outside of christ. I also see my reliance on Christ. I need to pray for real repentance from some of these potential sins. So that they don't take root. I can't say that I like the person that I was on Friday.

Presbyterian New Covenant

There is a confession of a Reformed Baptist I need to make. I almost became a Presbyterian. Its kind of complicated. I both love and loathe Presbyterians. Its because of my experience with them. This came about by considering some of old testament types in Hebrews used. This relates to the covenant of grace, warnings, and covenants in the Old Testament. It is related to the perseverance of the saints.

It began with a standard accusation by a Presbyterian, reformed baptists are somewhat dispensational in their thinking. (Knowing that most covenantal baptists hate the scourge called dispensationalism.) Yet, there are some interesting facts that were brought to my attention that go against some things Reformed baptists have said before. This made me consider every accusation.

The first thing was that the holy spirit indwelt people prior to Pentecost. Not just regenerated but indwelt. (Read about Elijah and his successor.) This is true. The spirit was around before Pentecost. I shall discuss this later.

Hebrews also says Spiritual Israel was not content to just dwell in the promised land. They wished to be given a further rest. They wished for an imperishable inheritance that could not be lost through their corruption. They wished to further commune with God. There was much of the gospel in existence, hidden such that mere flesh could not understand it. Thus, in John 3 when Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus. He is calling him to account as a teacher of Israel for why he does not know what about what he is teaching. Especially about being born again, it was not something to be done only later at Pentecost. It was already in existence among the prophets. Old testament saints could be saved and given the pledge of salvation. Luckily, Christ and the gospel have been clearly displayed in these times and the spirit is poured out in a way that even we can see it. Especially in Christ's flesh and in His ressurectiton.

Now in the framework of the old testament covenants, there were blessings and curses. The Presbyterian question that Hebrews brings up in relation to the new covenant is this. Is the new covenant filled with warnings such that it also includes unbelievers? A cursory reading suggests this, while it is enforced by its negative that says that the promises of the new covenant comes by faith. This seems to allow a larger group of people in the new covenant. (Including unsaved.) Now, this partial picture allows church children to be included in the new covenant. The church/covenant here looked closer to a nation in which people may be born. After a reading of Hebrews, I felt that I understood it as a Presbyterian would. Upon further consideration there were catholic traits too. It also allows the necessity of sanctification in the new covenant to distinguish faith from one group verses the other. I put off converting my 'allegiance' to presbyterian till I clearly convicted of this truth. (If such can be said. My allegiance is towards Christ. I would have been faithful to the Word and my conscience if it stuck.)

I read it again but it was not as Presbyterian or Catholic upon further inspection. The warnings arose from considerations of an Exodus type for Israel. It should be known that Israel requires another Exodus. An exodus from the covenant law into a greater rest, a rest of the spirit. Israel requires another law. It required another savior (not moses). They require more blood to cover their door post for they are under judgement. The new covenant is a fulfillment of the law and promises. Thus, the warnings pertain to reliance on the old testament covenant after the arrival of the new covenant, which consists of the Spirit in greater measure. The warning is not for the unfaithful of a church or the children of a church. These were not for the church period. It is for the Hebrews.

There is an importance placed on the graces of the spirit and on the sacrifice of Christ in these warnings. Now these very things are not new. Some exist under the types of the old covenant. These things increased visibly in relation to Christ in this last age. Yet, some eternal things were hardly new. The warning was for those of the old covenant to spiritual discern and turn. Those who have been enlightened, given grace under the law, believers of the goodness of God's word, and who have experience and observed heaven's power. As well as those, who have partook of the holy spirit in some limited fashion. The details of this relationship are a point of contention.

The next verses seem to suggest that this relationship may simply be for those who lie under the streams of grace (non-specific) but yield up thorns. This non-specific grace can apply to Israel and people in the Old covenant. Yet, this is the issue for the church when one says that the holy spirit ineffectually indwells or sanctifies people in the church (by baptism). It is just as vague and destructive to the gospel. Unfortunately, this type of relationship of the Holy spirit outside of saving grace destroys the incorruptibility of the new covenant. This corrupts the truth about God writing laws on people's hearts as is common practice in the covenant of grace which is fulfilled more completely in the new covenant. It also places an importance on faith itself that aught not be there. The importance is rather on God alone. The relationship to the doctrines of Christ mentioned prior to this warning implies the old covenant for those who had known of God already but required instruction in Christ and basic christian practices. This also speaks of why Paul is so confident that it is apart from the things that accompany salvation.

A Presbyterian is not wrong on a lot of things. They are wrong only in one or two. Yet, they are more often wrong in their focus. I need to pray for them instead of both loving and loathing, the church and denomination, that I was not saved in. Or esteem myself to never be saved in.

Storyline of the Bible

I thoroughly enjoyed the seminar last Friday by Jeff. I saw the outline with "kingdom of God" and thought 'Oh, no this is going to be fullerism or Dispensational kind of crap.' Luckly it wasn't. He did not stress the holy nation aspect to the exclusion of a chosen race, a royal priesthood, and a people proclaiming God's excellencies.

He seemed to touch on the Exodus and similar instances in the OT as types of the things in the NT. It shows God's faithfulness to be increasingly gracious when the people deserve much less. When sin comes grace abounds. This often involves different types of the gospel. I have thought a lot on the OT along those lines. It was nice to hear it from someone else.

Furthermore, if you ask me what I learned I don't know if I can say that it was from Jeff. I was too busy following rabbit trails in my own thoughts with what Jeff said to know if he actually said it. Particularly in formulating my thoughts on the Covenant of Grace. In a way, The gospel is similar to previous exodus models but the inheritance is unperishable. It cannot be lost by corruption, he has put it in our hearts. Furthermore, the covenant of grace extends further into new creation in an already but not yet fashion. For we do not have this unperishable inheritance but an unperishable pledge.

This covenant involves election, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a people meant to proclaim God's excellencies. It is meant to contain a new israel, not based on works but grace, with much greater promises to a larger audience. It contains God's kingdom or rather God's intended purpose and relation for mankind. (Ever since Eden.) I might do a commentary on Romans 5 to discuss this further in a little while.

Incomprehensiblity and Calculus

It seems that I have explained the calculus of the trinity, if you will, in the last post. I barely scratched the surface of who God is. There are parts that are understandable with difficulty. I tried to be clear on those. There are also parts that are too impossible to understand because God is beyond us.

Lets look at different dimensions. How does a 3D creature explain a 4D universe? Or rather How do we treat our existance time? With much difficulty and not with time's full meaning. We see a bunch of moments in time, rather than time itself. We try to fit slices of time on top of each other (in differential elements for you engineers). So we see multiple layers of our 3D universe and understanding rather than a 4D one. This is the calculus. We may understand parts of the 4D universe but we will never know what it is really like or its real internal workings.

We may understand parts of God but never fully. He is holy. He is transcendantly set apart. We are but creatures that exist on but a slice of His power, wisdom, and understanding. In him we have our being. We cannot fully understand or extend our existance back to Him. Christ manages to describe God in our universe but even he cannot be known by flesh and blood. A complete understanding of Christ is beyond us for He is also God. What we do know; He has had to reveal to us. Yet, this simplified equation that governs, the integration of Who God is, pieced together by slices, hardly describes the totality of God. For God has no bounds. It leads to a general solution that leaves out details. God is incomprehensible. This does not mean God is totally unknowable, rather He cannot be known fully or rightly. He can only be abstracted by what He reveals himself to be. He rightly says to Moses in describing himself, "I AM WHO I AM". Being that this definition is outside a stack of mere principles rather about real substance; within an incomprehensible statement.

Trinity and Filoque

There are two ways of looking at the trinity. One is by looking at the Actions of God.(Economical) The other is by looking at the being of God. (Ontological)

There are three persons in the trinity. Yet, There is one God and substance of the Trinity. Furthermore, the trinity is balanced. No one is any less than who God is or are subordinate to the other two. Many also believe that their is no imbalance in what each person in the trinity does. (That is its economy) This means that Christ's, The Father's, or The Holy Spirit's individual actions are all necessary to bring about a overall single action of God.

In this an action has different parts ascribed individually to the persons of the trinity. While the whole is made up of those parts is done by God, who is singular in his will. The three persons are also united but distinct in this will. An example of this is Salvation. It is ordained in time by the Father. It is obtained by the Son on the Cross. It is applied by the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Overall it is a single action of God in saving man despite the three appearant actions. These three actions are all important, interrelated, and necessary. It is to say each action is in balance with the others for a single purpose. The trinity acts when God collectively saying, without internal debate "It shall be done." and by the power of God's word it is done. There is also the idea that two never act or are, independant of the third, to be or do so is to break the trinity and subordinate the other. Yet, they can be refered to all collectively or singlely in part.

The only mysterious question is how these persons in the Godhead determine how to relate to each other, in the execution of God's will being that their substance is the same. The trinity is united by its very substance. The Son could ordain time. The Holy Spirit could have come to die. And the Father could have applied the Spirit's sacrifice. Each is capable of doing another's duty by nature. Yet, there is a real reason that the father is seen as the eternal. The Son is eternally begotten from the father. The Holy spirit is eternally proceding from the Father. The distinctions, actions, and even names for the distinctions, are divinely there for a reason. They should be respected as three persons. He should be respected as one God.

Now, there is something called the Filoque clause. One thought to add that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Son also. It makes some sense in that He was sent due to Christ or through Christ who is seated on the throne with the father. Yet, the wording of this clause does not establish this as an action. It rather establishes something about the Holy spirit's being. In altering, this statement about the being of the Holy spirit with "proceding from the father and the son" which is true only in Christ's actions, not his being. This appearantly reduces the Holy Spirit's divinity by making him subordinate to the other two.

This was what the split between Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox claim that the Pope with his papal infallibility was proclaiming a heresy that denegrated the Holy Spirit. They also reject his authority in being able to do so and excommunicated him. Whoops! Perhaps the See of Peter is wrong. Once Again.

Limited Atonement

Christ died for the Church made up of individual believers. Furthermore, he died for actual people, literal people whom he foreknew. The Bible does not talk about Christ dieing to give God the ability to forgive based on man's free will or based on external church membership. This is all well and good. I would perhaps still love God if he said such but it is just not there.

It does not talk about Christ dieing so that people can reject him or save themselves when confronted with the gospel. This would also appear good but that is not what is actually said. The Bible rather says that Christ is a stumbling block, because they are too blind to see it. It tells of a God who open eyes and open hearts. It also tells of a sacrifice that actually does the work at forgiving sin. Rather than a sacrifice that just make it possible. This idea of only a potential sacrifice or partially effective sacrifice destroys worth of what was offered. Christs blood is of infinite worth.

The Bible rathers says that Christ dies to save unbelieving enemies of the cross. People are saved by grace, unmerited favor. Through faith (That is the avenue of that grace). It is not of our own doing. For, We are God's workmanship. People cherry-pick Ephesians 2 to say that salvation is by faith. This is true but it is rather by grace received -through- faith. That is the avenue of that grace. Let us not consider if Ephesians implies that faith and grace are both gifts or just grace. The gospel is something one must receive. They do this by faith. Yet, One cannot even receive anything unless he is given it in heaven. John 3:27

I would be ok with Christ dieing to give God the ability to forgive men based on their choice. The Bible does not present this view. It talks of Him dieing to actually save. It is his act of dieing that saves and pays our debt to God. It is not our choice that makes his death worthwhile. However rosy this alternative is, it is not true. I cannot say that Christ's death is worthless in even the smallest circumstance. God accomplishes what he intends. Some might counter that all are saved. I certainly believe that God did not intend for Christ to save all but it would have been possible. Faith is the avenue through which salvation comes to a person by grace. One is not saved without it. Not all have faith.

Someone else might counter that God is not loving to damn people to hell. Well how so, men are getting what the deserve. The great multitude that is saved are getting what they don't deserve.

I would be ok with it if God let us choose. The bible does not present this view. Many reject the idea of one is rather chosen or elect by God. Some distort the plain meaning of election to say that this means mean we choose. Since when did our election of public officials consist of them electing themselves? Greek work -Elektos.- One does not elect themselves to an office. Election never meant that. How can God's electing purpose really be our electing purpose? I would be ok if God did not institute election per se but that is what the Bible says he did.

Even without election atonement would be limited. It is self-destructive to attack limit atonement. Arminian atonement is limited, albeit differently more than universalism or calvinism. If it was a hypothetically universal atonement in which everyone could gain salvation, it is limited in potential because man's choice. Even if it isn't limited by scope, its limited. Furthermore, even if everyone conditionally chose, 'yes' and gained salvation. (Or was granted it without the necessity of belief. As a universalist would claim.) It is limited in scope because the creation is such limited! Christs death is limited anyways!!!! All atonement by nature is limited to a number less than infinity. Only God is infinite! Now why should one believe that Christ's atonement is limited in scope and potential. When his blood is of infinite worth. I propose that it is of infinite worth toward the end he wishes. That meaning, towards a particular people to save.

The question is how did He save? It is pretty clear in my mind and that of the Bible. The answer is that God choose to pay our sin with the death of Christ. Not purchase himself a liberty. Not purchase himself an indefinite number of people from which, there was a possibility that no one would ever be save. The battle must be on how he saves, not the limit of who God saves. He does it individually. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Communion and Maturity.

My experience suggests that christian maturity is related not to knowledge or crafty words/thoughts of wisdom. It is rather related to a soul's time spent dwelling on the Gospel in communion with God. At times this maturity may be called "fanaticism" for in it, one never moves beyond a single belief, the Gospel. One is also fanatical in that they focus on salvation by faith and focus on God himself in everything. Some think there are bigger and better things in faith other than the gospel. I would call it Christian maturity to see otherwise.

Some may equate the gospel with spiritual milk that only babes in Christ need drink. Yet, they neglect that Christ himself is the true food and true drink. He is also the meat and substance of belief. In a way, God himself is the gospel. We must partake of his very nature to benefit. This is not literal consumption but rather we must experience and commune with his nature through the Holy Spirit to benefit our souls. This is christian maturity; it is to have increasing peace and communion with God.

Communion to some has become the outward acceptance of bread and wine. The bread and wine at times are no longer accepted as symbols of Christ and the gospel within our sanctification but the graces and the nature itself. This produces some serious problems. The bread and wine sacrimentally can avail to nothing without one receiving them as they would Christ and the gospel, especially in sanctification. The provisions for sanctification (and even justification) are related to Christ's atonement by the effects of his high priestly intercession. Roman Catholic Liturgy could support this link in communion. Such an understanding would also show how they have errored so far so fast. Primarily by changing what His interecession and what God's application of atonement looks like.

John Piper:
"The first meaning was that the Lord's Supper is a proclamation of the gospel ("As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." 1 Corinthians 11:26). The second meaning was that the Lord's Supper is a remembering of Christ ("Do this in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:24). The third meaning was that the Lord's Supper is a spiritual feasting by faith on all that God is for us in Christ ("I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." John 6:35). And the fourth meaning was that the Lord's Supper is a savoring of the promises of the New Covenant ("This cup is the new covenant in my blood." 1 Corinthians 11:25). Now today we look at two final meanings—not that there are no others, but these are the two we will focus on in conclusion. One is that the Lord's Supper is a call to love the people of Christ, and beyond. And the other is that the Lord's Supper is a call to self-examination. Both of these meanings are found in 1 Corinthians 11."

I would also add that the meaning of this sacrament is also to invoke communion between saints within its relation to sanctification and the unity of the holy spirit. Hence, it is done congregationally. I have not touched on the significance of this sacrament to covenant. Within the context of the covenant it is a memorial to that which has been done. It is a memorial to the sacrifice, once and for all time, done by christ. It is not the re-offering, the re-application, or the re-sacrifice of christ. Nor can it be making that old sacrifice present again. For it is already present in the works and acts of grace that flow from Christ's intercession.

Theology & Reformation

"One article, the only solid rock, rules in my heart, namely, faith in Christ: out of which, through which, and to which, all my theological opinions ebb and flow, day and night." -Luther

This is kind of similar to my thought on the matter of theology. That all theology is circular to christ. It may take a path away from the cross at times but it always returns to it. Theology is christ-centric. It is strange how I find my own independant theological opinions are rarely new. Christ, furthermore, is the center of reason for the whole universe. (Logos of John 1.) Why should he not be placed as such in theology that explains the universe's existence and purpose? That men are saved by God alone for his glory alone by grace alone.

With this idea of centrality of christ coming from Luther, it was perhaps Luther who should have gone further in developing all theology to match this pattern he saw. Rather than just fix it for justification by faith. He aught to have removed what is not necessary in order that He may have centered everything back onto God. It seems that this role in the reformation was reserved for Calvin. Calvin was theocentric in much of his theology. While he is theocentric, it is far from putting God in a box. It rather places man in one. Calvin and later confessions were not perfect in there beliefs. It thus remains our duty as protestants to center everything back upon God. It also remains our job to have those beliefs and our minds remain centered on God rather than centered on a dead orthodoxy.