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.

Peace for a weary soul

I didn't do much this weekend. Among the list of things I didn't do: sleep. The worst part is the fact that I have little to show for how I spent my time staying up. Sin was heavily at work in this part of my life. The devil has temporarily moved his fight out of lust into sloth. (How it is strange that one's sin and depravity often turns into a game of whack-a-mole.) I know this shift has happened but I have not been convicted of sloth yet. I will pray for such. Even without godly repentance and conviction, by God's grace I have been spared from the full effect of this deadly sin, spiritual apathy.

This weekened of sloth ended with me going to setup and church exhausted. (Awake for 24hours is not the best way to attend to church.) Luckily there is grace for the weary soul. It is a sweet grace. This grace is magnified when one's weariness is shown to be merely physical rather than spiritual. This grace is spiritual. (Otherwise, it would be called caffiene.) Today was one of those days that I was in a half awake state. Occationally, this state is surreal. It is close to a dream but very much rooted in reality. The feeling is a close cousin is contentment. Yet, the surreal feeling comes from the yearning and experiencing of comforts. How the discomforts are magnified when one is tired and the comforts are disproportionately the same. Yet, being tired sometitmes helps me to better relish these sparce comforts that I find along the way, especially those that come through faith.

Everyone knows what being exhausted and weary feels like but understand that God has appointed a time for sleep. It is for our good. Tired people easily yearn for the time at which they can retire. Yet, it is different that suffering for that time to arrive. I can be at peace without stress for I do not doubt that I will rest later. Likewise, God has ordained a spiritual rest for us all. Faith tells us this. I look forward to the sweet day on which I shall rest from my santification in the beams of heaven's light. I know that this time of rest shall is in the future. Let us get through peacfully wait through this last day without falling asleep so that we greet Christ from afar. Let us recognize that a little grace and Holy Spirit can go a long way.

Coffee and Tillich

I was stopping by a non-establishment coffee house to chill and relax. I sat down drinking a large french roast coffee. It was kinda tasty. My eyes began to wander as they finally came to rest on the bookshelf and then something written Paul Tillich. I had heard of him before somewhere. Yet, I was pretty certain he was not reformed (as in Calvinistic) before I picked the book up. I decided to take a read. It started off about religion being a function of man's spirit. Not necessarily belief/trust but religion itself in a broad sense. Jumping between different faculties like morality, art/myth, reason, and feelings before realizing that it could not be at home in any of these. It is the ultimate ground for all of those and outside of those things rather than a single one. I thought some of these examples really applied to only people who were 'religious' but not christian. It showed that religion finds its ultimate expression as something integral to life itself. It is interesting because it agrees with Reformed thought.


He continued to discuss the ontological arguement and cosmological arguments. I don't read much religious philosophy about these things. (I would rather understand doctrine in relation to the Word.) He discusses Western christianity's attempt to prove God by reason. I didn't spend time to understand it completely. (It would be a waste.) Yet, I have thought about the arguements for God before with different terms. Christianity is rational unlike a lot of religions but reasonings are self-consistent. That is to say that to God himself is the ground for that knowledge. To continue down a path to prove God, one must already believe Him. It is an impossiblity unless one is taught of God. It is impossible for those who aren't spiritual to spiritually discern the things of God.

Furthermore, the only places in nature that we can discern God in are the places he has interacted with nature. This means creation, Christ himself, and the actions of the Holy Spirit. We must show people Christ and him crucified if they are to know God, even in the use of reason. If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is futile.

Sensuality and spirituality

These two things from afar seem very unrelated. On the contrary, they both are the desire to commune with another person on a deeper more intimate level. One is Godward. The other is particularly towards others. With this understanding, they do not seem as different as people believe. The bible warns about how fallen sensuality, or lust, will have dire spiritual consequences with one's relationship with God. And it does, as I know from personal experience. It is for this that God says sexual impurity aught not be named among the saints.

I could say like some in today's church that this problem is really just what it is to be human. Yes and no. The original desires were good but sin distorts them. This is no justification for the sin. Yet, we were created with good desires and there is always a proper outlit.

First, the correct expression of sensuality is marriage. In marriage, it relates to the pleasure of esteeming one's spouse, like Christ esteems the church, rather than oneself. Christ's death for the church is described in marriage terms. It is not hard to see why Marriage aught to be seen as a little church in a big church. The two flesh became one. One aught to cherish his spouse as much as he cherish his own flesh. In a way, spirituality is very much the twin of sensuality. Spirituality and sensuality also fell in the same way. Lust is similar to idolatry. They both make seek to make the wrong objects, the center of one's affections and devotions.

Singlehood is discussed by Paul in relation to ministry for this reason. Paul, being the chief among singles, considered that freedom from caring for a wife allowed him to be more devoted to God. It seems odd for today's ears to hear but this link between the two explains a lot. Sensuality and spirituality can step on each other's toes. He did not try to reconcile that it with the idea that they both can coexist in equally. Or explicitly state that they can feed off each other.

Now, the option of outworking of our innate desire of sensuality and sex is not available to singles. (In the single state) So, we must learn to be self controlled and content. Paul exalts this character trait even for couples by saying that marriage will be better if people are first self-controlled, for worldly difficulties are less likely to creep in. To what end is this self control? In marriage and in single life? In marriage it is helps put off one's own desires so that they can focus on another's. Sex is not the problem lust is.

In singlehood, this self control is not emotional frigidity. Merely suppressing these desires and being emotionally frigid does not solve the problem. The sin must be dealt with. One must redirect their attention and desires toward God. One must always return to the cross and make their stand on that hill. It is from recognizing his provision and his authority that we can say with Joseph to the Jailer's wife when tempted. "Why would I do such wickedness against my God." One must also be self controlled enough to confess their depravity and seek forgiveness and grace. Finally, spirituality also can affect sensuality. One cannot as easily lust after someone when they are praying for them. It is a strange curiousity but perhaps it is explained by a link between sensuality and spirituality. I am in no ways an expert but this seems to tie together some loose ends. These things are much harder to do in practice than to say. I am still very much a sinner in this area in need of grace.

Why does God love us?

Does God love us because of Christ's atonement or does He love us before it?
Even if Christ's death secures love. Should this be seen as a means to an end rather than its source? This question seems difficult to answer. It seems that people don't stop to consider God's love. They take it for granted.

I say with Ephesians that God loved His own before the foundations of the world. Yet, Christ appears to die much later. Only to complicate the matter is election. Let us cast our focus from it alone for this is resolved slightly by Revelations which says "The lamb slain before the foundations of the world." It also causes problems. It can appear unclear whether atonement or election in eternity past is the source of God's love. Why does God love us?

Let us look into: if Christ's death and intercession are effective at securing God's love.
Or did God already love the man whom Christ was sent to effectively redeemed?

Lets look at scriptures and specifically for what Christ asks for in his prayers. Since, it will show what Christ tries to secure by his efforts and his interecession now that he is in heaven.

First, His intercession is not necessarily for his believer's prayers, on their behalf. It is redundant for God loves them. Too many people have this mistaken idea of intercession. Lets clear it up John 16:26-27 "In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask my father on your behalf; for the father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God."

Second, this makes Christ's intercession much different than how it is often viewed. It is no longer based specifically on our wants and needs in prayer. It is rather based on what His wishes for those given Him, and for those who believe in His name. His intercession is for the outpouring of grace. Namely for granting: the Holy spirit, sanctification, glorification, and the salvation of souls.

When Christ prays for the Holy Spirit in John 14:16. There are other questions about how the Holy Spirit is communicated to us from the Love of the Son and the Father in Christ's heaven intercession. Let's skip those for now to focus on the overall act of His intercession. His intercession is essentially his continual office as high priest. Hebrews links Christ's intercession as a single act of atonement with his death. This part of his intercession appears to be necessary for salvation rather than outside of it. Yet, this does not mean it is the only thing necessary. For like the act of atonement, it is part of a god-given covenant over a chosen people. (The covenant of grace.) It may be in this that the source of God's love rests. He is part of a greater agreement that is worked out from eternity past. In this context of Christ's prayer in John 17 appears to me related to his current intercessory prayers in heaven. In this, Christ mention's that he is sent.

Does this interecession then ask for His love toward the church? As if to secure it? Or does it assume a pre-existing love for the church based on something pre-existant? (election)

John 17 "... I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours... I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word. That they may all be one, just as we are one... so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.... I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them."

This particular love does not seem to be asked for. It seems to be pre-existent because it is based on God's sovereignty of those who were given to Christ. It is also based on those who believe. Yet, these same people were loved in eternity past in the same manner as God loved Christ. Yet, this love is assumed. It is not created or asked for by the prayer. He does not ask God to love them. For God does already. He does ask on our behalf based on that love, so that we may be filled with joy. It seems that election and God's hidden will play a small part in it all. I must hold that God loved the saints prior to their conversion in a way different than common love.

Now, this love must be hardy enough to exist beside God's holy wrath for the sinner. It must be an unconditional love. A love that reaches from hell and back. Christ died for men, while they were yet sinners. He must have also loved them while they were yet sinners. The end of this type of love is always salvation. This is the love portayed in the Bible. Yet, the Bible is clear that certain conditions will be meet in all saved, especially faith. So by necessity this unconditional love, worked out in election, causes or includes the actions leading up to one's faith in Christ.

Now merely allowing man to make these actions of faith is indistiguishable from being disinterested or even unloving, until faith. Like a seed, this love remains dead. I propose this type of love that cannot send christ or cause him to die for the joy set before Him.

Now, for the lamb slain before the foundations of the world. God's plan was complete. It was as good as real. It is in heaven that this intercession goes on. The sacrifice and its end of salvation were realized at the time of God's election. It was not plan B but always plan A. I shall not presume this statement is bound by the same linear constraints either. Yet, one would ask why give the linear narratives of the Bible that define God's covenants as such?

Im diggin' this song

Whatever my God ordains is right
In His love I am abiding
I will be still in all He does
And follow where He is guiding
He is my God, though dark my road
He holds me that I shall not fall
And so to Him I leave it all

Whatever my God ordains is right
He never will deceive me
He leads me by the proper path
I know He will not leave me
I take content, what He has sent
His hand can turn my griefs away
And patiently I wait His day

Whatever my God ordains is right
Here shall my stand be taken
Though sorrow, or need, or death be mine
Yet I am not forsaken
My Father’s care circles me there
He holds me that I shall not fall
And so to Him I leave it all

Whatever my God ordains is right
Though now this cup in drinking
Bitter it seems to my faint heart
I take it all unshrinking
My God is true, each morn anew
Sweet comfort yet shall fill my heart
And pain and sorrow shall depart

Original words by Samuel Rodigast, 1676
Translated by Catherine Winkworth, 1863
Alternate words by Mark Altrogge

The Silver Tongue

In response to my last blog. I wish to write about the opposite of Fire and Brimstone. It is a gospel in which one tries to entertain their audience and make them fell good about themselves. It is watered down truth at best. At worst, it is outright heresy spoken by false prophets. God is made a lion without claws. He is reduced to the status of a mere house cat that people can let into their lives at times and let out.

Many people can be entertained by the wonderful stories told by the brilliant storeteller. But always ask to what end? Is christ's sacrifice even mentioned? Is its direct rewards even mentioned? Is its alternative even mentioned? Can one get clothed when they scarely know they are naked? Can one get better if they scarely know that they are deadly ill. No, not just ill but dead. The Bible even talks about the people who listen to these evangelists (if they can be called that).

2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." NASB

If one wanted to be entertained, they would have been better off going to a theatre than a church! At least then, they would not be under the delusion that they were attending to the matters of their soul. This type of preaching cannot bred anything but false assurance. At least the sinner under fire and brimstone preaching knows he is a sinner. At least, that fire and brimstone preacher was faithful to present part of the truth. Even if it is not the good news.

This 'end time' seems as though people will entertain more and more of the myths like gnosticism/Tomb of Jesus/Da Vinci Code myths, even in churches. False assurance will be rampant. Sound Doctrine will be shunned by mainstream churches. The churches will preach in accordance with the desires of the World. (Health, wealth, and being a moral person.) They will wish to be entertained. They will come together in a fake kind of community based on nothing more than a group hug. Church is a mere social club.The world is not there yet. Although, I see the strands of this heresy encircling the church.

Oh, how people in the 1800s saw it begining to encircle the church. How almost every prediction of theirs has come true! We need a revival that includes the preaching of sound doctrine rather than trendy religious fads. Oh, how people need the whole gospel. They do not need the moralistic teachings of pharisees. They do not need the materialistic ambitions of the tax collectors. They do not need just the healing of the lame. They need their sins forgiven first. They need Jesus. They need the gospel. They don't need some sappy story. They don't even need a testimony about "How I feel all better with Jesus around.", like he is some friendly house cat.

No one dares to ask what Jesus? Or what God? He is not the God of our choosing. He is not the God that is naturally on everyone's mind. He is far greater than these. His truth is much more solid. His enjoyment is much more sublime. No one dares to tell anyone anymore that He is a lion. That he does as he pleases. That when crossing paths with Him, it is either life or death. It is a fearful thing to be in the hands of an living God. Yet, it is because of who he. First and foremost. God is the gospel.

Fire and Brimstone

I side with Spurgeon on Fire and Brimstone's use. I see problems with physicians who do more harm than good. The best physician's make the least amount of cuts. Yet, their cuts are in the right places. They do not go into an operation to excercise their skill with the scapel by slicing the victim in two. This makes me think of the problem with most open air preaching. It also makes me think of the attitude in which it is done.

Colossians 4:2-6 "Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving; 3praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned; 4that I may make it clear in the way I ought to speak. 5Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person."

It appears that one aught to evangelize with an attitude of thanksgiving and prayer toward God. That he might open a door and that the one might speak forth the mystery of Christ. Wisdom and discernment are needed to make the most of every opportunity. In all of this one's message should be seasoned with grace, so that we know how to respond to each person.

Having paraphrased what Paul has said. It is clearer that yelling out fire and brimestone without much grace, impersonally, is not the primary means that God has instituted in conveying His word. He will not likely bless means outside of what he has put in the Bible. Such open air preaching is easily done without thanksgiving, prayer, wisdom, grace, and leaves little room for responding to others. You are no longer their friend but their enemy for the sake of the cross. You cannot hate anyone over to Christ. I pray for Sal on campus occationally, for he is such a man that would rather love people over to Christ.

One can preach the gospel with much smoke and little warmth. You have a fire alright. It is quite ablaze. Yet, every passerbye will only find it obnoxious to their eyes. Let one rather provide a fire that gives off Light and warmth for those who can't see and are in need of being clothed in Christ. Now some believe that scaring people is the way that one teaches the fear of the Lord to others. They may quote 2 Corinthians 5 but this does not help.

2 Corinth 5:11 "Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience." ESV
The context is judgment before God. Some take it to be in response to his terror and wrath from judgment. But the context does not support only that assumption. It is a frightening thing to fall in the hands of an angry God. Yet, this is not the fear that Christians like Paul know about God. They know of the awe and holiness God. There is a reverence, awe, and respect (and usually distance) that God is due by his very nature. In this context, the fear of the Lord, is not scaring people. It is making him out to be as great as he is. In comparison, men are just like ants who God has called to account. This is just as scary as fire and brimstone could ever be. It is called the fear of God for a reason. Yet, it is not the same as the terror of the lord. This type of fear is seen in Psalms.

Psalms 130:3-4 "If You lord should mark iniquities, O Lord, Who would stand? But There is forgiveness with you, That you may be feared." NASB.

He is feared because he is great enough to forgive without injury to His great justice. He is a great God. He deserves His reverence, awe, and respect. At times he even deserves, His distance. Yet, he is never very far from each of us. No one is outside his power. No one is outside his Law. Yet, his arm is not to short that it cannot save. Let us drawn near to this God by the blood of Christ. Let us persuade others, knowing this fear of God. You will face opposition but this is not the purpose of evangelism. Let us tell others of the Good News. Let us not just dwell on the depravity of man.

Confession: Fearing God.

I have recently been convicted of something I have been failing to do. It is fearing God. It is not from some misbelief of who he is. Or a misbelief of what fearing God looks like. It is really from something in my heart. That is to say that it is a heart-issue. (I really don't like using that word. Maybe because it appears so cheese-ified.) I have not made it a practice to be aware of God's continual presense. Yet, I know it to be true. He exists everywhere and no-where. All things are sustained by the power of God. I also know in part, the feeling of awe and holiness of God and their relation to His presense. Yet, these are not brought to bear on everyday life. Self-sufficency and past enlightenment have served to make me act like an atheist. Past events and present circumstances don't help forward a relationship. They bring forth only the status quo.

Next, I have not made it a practice of seeking out and submitting to his authority and his care he would have for me throughout the day. Occationally, it is clear that this care consists of hearing and being feed by the gospel. Yet, this is a result of fearing God. I will work on it a little bit.

There is something interesting about the fear of God that I thought today. That is for the next post.

Lesser things, New music.

I like some modern christian music. Usually modernized hymns from Jars of Clay or Sovereign Grace but I don't discriminate heavily. I like diversity of music sources. I just haven't got into Shane and shane.

CCM is surprisingly more reformed than what I had thought. Reformed people are more vocal perhaps? This music lead to my own 'reformation' to a small degree. (Maybe some artists are experiential calvinists but don't know it yet.) I like songs only because of their words. This means that I can't stand Casting Crowns. I am sorry guys, not even if I listen to their big money instruments and great musical talent. The words are lacking.

I might as well make fun of my own self-identified 'denomination.' about modern music here. I use denomination loosely, only because I break denominational barriers all the time. Most traditional reformed baptists would have thought it blaphemous if Jesus was ever shown dancing to CCM. (or with anything but a KJV in his hand.) Needless to say, I am not a traditional reformed baptist unless you count my theology to be the same as that of Spurgeon or Bunyan on such 'worldly passions'. Well Heck, Spurgeon smoked a cigar for the Lord. Someone might as well sing and dance for the Lord if they are to do anything for the Lord.

It is inappropriate for church but not sinful in and of itself. The fear and legalism from reformed baptists at large is perhaps from an age old stigmatism of being called heretics like the quakers. From all that I have read these quakers were also quite the shakers. With this said, I am tired of modern dance in any church. It is a gross abuse of entertainment in the church. It is also fruity. All things should be content driven not fluff driven.

In closing, I find it is strange that Christians like those in CCM shift toward reformed spirituality at times when moved only by faith. It is not to surprising since Reformed Theology has the only explanations for some things in the Bible. I have yet to hear a good understanding of God being a faithful shepherd going after lost sheep and never losing them from an Arminian. Or about the effective intercession on behalf of all who Christ died for. (If Christ died for all universally why is he not interceding for them universally after he ascended? These two things are of the same event. They are both actions of Christ acting as high priest when he sacrificed himself on the cross/altar in heaven.

If you say these actions should be seen as seperate then it is in denial of Hebrews on the matter. If Christ intercedes effectually by virtue of his blood and God doesn't act. Then there is a breakdown of the trinity. The verses dealing with his death and intercession are both interrelated. Read Hebrews 10. Then Read what Christ prays for in John 17. Maybe we reformed folk are just more vocal at saying what the Bible actually says. Or maybe the Protestant Arminians are wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Experiential christianity

First, Experiential christianity without established truth gets you nowhere. Illiteracy in the Bible and of orthodoxy is the problem of the church today. This lends itself to be problem to those who have no firm grounding of objective truth in Christianity. It ruins experimental christianity for it cannot exist without objective truth. Experimental christianity is not about natural theology and speculations. Its more about worshipping in spirit and truth. Most Modern Experiential christianity has an anti-intellectual/anti-truth strain that seek not its answers in the Bible but in experience. It seeks the spirit but shuns the truth. I am weirded out by those who cannot establish a firm distinction on truth from mere speculation. Or the one who rejects the more 'normal' operations of the spirit as being suffiecent. One cannot teach without being taught themselves. True experiential Christianity does not look for new truths but seeks to relive old ones. It establishes current convictions, like the Gospel. (This conviction is by far the best sign of maturity.) This is not a new conviction. It is power and motivation to that end. It does not seek to establish the mindset of "seeking spiritual gifts" above all else. It seeks to establish love toward God as response to His love and grace. In so far as Experimental christianity should a vital connection that centers around the fruits of the spirit being poured out in a soul, not the spiritual gifts. Its end is God-ward. This does not boost a man's abilities above the normal station of his life into something superhuman for it a time. It rather gets the Christian to use his gifs in reliance and in greater confidence on the Holy Spirit in aiding his weakness.

This idea of nothing new in experimental christianity is consistent with the teaching of the Word. It is complete. New stances aught not to be formed in our experiences alone. No matter how grand the experience is. These things really should only reinforced what is in the Word. There is no new doctrine in real Experimental Christianity on which a new stance could be built. It is from Satan that new doctrine and heresy arise. True experience is consistent to the Word. We know that the entire word of God is profitable for doctrine, teaching, reproof, and correction. (2 Timothy 3:16) It will not be contradicted. Our life must be lived by it rather than by vain imaginations.

This means that we do not look here or there for Christ to return. We do not adulterate the Bible because we think it to be in error. We do not fight with hard chapters like Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and 2, or James 2. Yet, we do not subject ourselves to earthly institutions that add an infallible cannon, ex cathedra either. While we accept the clearly laid out understandings of past orthodoxy like the Trinity. Not because of experience alone but because of the vast evidence in the Bible that confirms it. We trust not the speculative. Yet, we trust in faith. For Faith is far less speculative for God has clearly said and written extensively on its object.

It is true that many positions of the Bible can be reinforced from experience but this is not adopting something new. It does not lay its foundation or modify the current one. For christ is the only foundation. This ADD, gratification now generation must slow down. Be still and know that he is God. He is the one that lifts our hearts. He is the one who lifts our heads. He does not attack us with crazy fits of passion. He slowly fills us with grace until it overflows in our hearts.

study of John 3:14-20, Part V. C v A

Now let us examine the third option. God's view of giving a chance. This is most notably done by examining the condition of those who are disobedient. Which is everyone, but more particularly those who have heard the Gospel.

God writes through the pen of John "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and the people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." This confirms our condition of disobedience. It adds on to this condition by saying that people LOVE darkness. It continues "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light lest his deeds should be exposed." This says that they love darkness because they are wicked for fear that they should be exposed as such.

It is a fear proper to encountering holiness. Was it not this fear that cause men to crucify Christ? It is a fear of being undone as in being discoved as scum. Look at Isaiah before the throne of God in Isaiah 6. He was exposed by an unapproachable light that eminates before the throne of God. He collapsed and plead for help. The imagery of light has always been Christ in the Gospel of John. God is the very source of that which exposes lies and burns the truth into us. The dark creatures of John 3 are not the ones who hold onto the light themselves. They hate it. Grace and light from God are needed. They come to the light if they do what is true. (verse 21) Yet, a wicked person cannot or rather will not because their sin and wicked deeds are too blinding and painful in such a radiant light. Isaiah merely had a bad mouth that needed to be atoned for in God's presence. Atonement is needed for there to be a change. Not all have faith. Faith is also a gift.

Think of your state when such a bright light of perfection and truth be shone forth. You would be irresistably be undone. To resist the light would be like trying to live as an ant under a magnifying glass. You would not wish to be at home in the light. Our choice isn't sufficent because our rational and natural choice is to skulk back to the shadows. It is not by faith and humilty ask for help from one's persecutor. Do you hold out that man has an island of goodness that would vouche for itself and embrace such aid? Our corruption is too great.

Let us look at the absurdity. Would you cast yourself into the desert without any food that benefits you? Would you not rather return to the verdant lands of abundance. Don't kid yourself, you would have gone back to Egypt. It is a fool who would not choose such. This attraction toward the light and what the world sees as foolish comes from a drastic change. It is not just a change of heart, nothing motivates it but foolishness. People would easily return the way they came. It is not as if we are merely chamelions that can change our skin by our choice. We cannot change our spots. It is God who changes us that is the only door to heaven. He changes us towards his own end. Salvation and his enjoyment. Would a moth not irresistibly fly into the flames of God? Something that appears to be foolish to others but quite natural for the moth. It is as foolish as spending forty years in a desert. Yet, our God does not burn those who come to him earnestly. All who put their hope in him shall not be disappointed. Now let us drop the pretense.

Let us look at the christian life without this change. The rain falls on both the righteous and unrighteous. The unrighteous are feed the same spiritual food as the righteous. (1 corinthians 10.) It seems to imply something eucharistic and salvational. Yet, clearly it does not benefit all. The unrighteous were still... Unrighteous. The food does not benefit them or save those who fall in the wilderness. Now having discussed this, what is the difference between the righteous and unrighteous here. One has real faith, one only has a resemblence to it. Now since everyone originally is unrighteous. One cannot partake of the lord's cup and that of demons. A real change must occur. This change is not merely a choice. It issomething much deeper. It is a literal change of heart not a figurative one with no more power than a fickle choice. We cannot be what we are not. Unless God changes us. We cannot by nature be warmed by God's rays if we are frozen under wrath. We cannot by nature lay claim of Christ's blood if we cannot lay claim to anything that is truly good. We shall see ourselves as counterfeit for that is what we would be if it was by choice alone without grace. Those who truly come to him, he shall in no ways cast out.

Looking back we encounter the same problem for unconversion. How can someone can reject the Gospel when they fully know the riches of grace that lie within? This is perhaps more appropriate to ask someone who thinks they are a chamelion. How do men resist the gospel? Is the gospel not the very thing that gives warmth. Has it not been the most wonderful blessing in one's life? Why would a rational person choose the cold if they knew of warmth? It is beyond me. It is rather because the warmth did not benefit them. Only God can change a believer back, but I see not why. Nor do I see how the cold darkness can creep back into designs of the warming light. The light is victorious. Absolutely.

Now it remains to be seen how ones deeds are exposed. "But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God." ESV. Another translation "his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." NASB. It is the nature of the person. It is not a chance in man but a chance in God. Wrought means profusely hammered and worked. Their deads have been hammered and worked in God. This is the chapter on the necessity to be born again. You cannot escape the conclusion. It is thus only possible for His great work to actually save, to actually make people come to the light. Giving a chance does not cause a work to be wrought by God.

This is consistent with Ephesians 2 that says we are His workmanship. It is also consistent with Paul again who says "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in us, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Phil 2:13,14 RSV. Some have become fancy by saying that God respects choice and changes us accordingly. The problem with this is that God is in our will. He is at work in our hearts. Scripture says of God. '"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or runs but on God who has mercy.'Romans 9:15-16

It does not say that the people chose to be rebellous so He didn't have mercy on them. It does not say they chose to be rebelous and God was not compassionate. There is an impossiblity with choice. It does not depend on man's will. It is true that God still outstretched his hands when the people were otherwise. He continued to do so for generations. He delievered every promise that he gave them. This does not mean the promises of the law. The law did not intend to save. This means the promises of giving the people a king, the prophets, the priests, a promised land, not forsaking them in trouble, helping them in war, and the blessing of the savior of the world coming their lineage were true. These were the promises of Abraham. As for the New Covenant, enacted by a better sacrifice and better promises. The change in heart and writing His laws upon it is promised in Jeremiah. These promises were unconditional. Likewise, salvation. Some have become fancy in saying that God respects choice and changes people afterward. If choice matters, it cannot be said that God didn't cause the choice. It rather -must- be said that he brought it forth for it does not depend on choice for God to be merciful or compassionate.

Study of John 3:16, Part IV

Now, we should drive clear of confessing pure universalism and/or say that God only saved creation rather than the particular people called Christians. Lets look the design of God's love or the correct object of that love. It may be seen from the previous verses in John and their OT equivalents that the serpent was raised toward Israel, not Egypt. Lets define Israel in this parallel as all those who have heard the gospel. This is fitting because no one can be saved without hearing the gospel. This is not everyone without exception. This is enough to prove, that everyone without exception is not the meaning of world, but a particular people. It leaves another door open. It leaves another question unanswered.

There are three obvious possible reasons of God for raising such a serpent on a stick to the Israelites. 1)To punish the disobedient who do not look. 2)To heal the sick who look. 3)To give everyone a chance to be healed. These three things are not mutually exclusive. One may look at these things and say they are all simultaneously true. Or only one is true.

Let's delve into this matter further. The condemned are condemned already. The purpose of Christ coming and being raised is not to condemn. Number one is not valid. Here the split starts. Two and Three or just Two. One person may say the intent was to heal. Another may say that it was to give the chance to be healed and by virtue heal those who look.

This is like the Arminian/Calvinist split. Did God come to save or Did he just intend to give everyone a chance and have the ability to be saved by raising Christ up on the cross. The same dichotomy arises with Moses. The Calvinist will say that the disobedient will remain disobedient without God. The Arminian will say that they have a choice and it is solely their choice that makes them disobedient. Yet, its it by chance and choice or by grace alone that men are saved. Part 5 gets into all the details.

Study of John 3:16, world part III

The change in world fits as being equally literal and more appropriate than everyone without exception. Before I say what change in 'world' is appropriate lets acknowledge that English has some of this variation in the use of the word, 'world'.

Lets look at the adjective 'worldly'. It in fact likely picked up its connotation from John in the Bible. This does not mean characteristic of every man without exception. Lets consider us have a little test on what worldly means. Multiple choice.

What fits best for describing a worldly strip-club.

A) 'Wooo look at the girl she has curves like the smokey mountains'. Worldly here is not characteristic of natural landforms.
B)'Wooo the strip-club is like every one without exception.' It is not characteristic of every man without exception either. It makes little sense.
C)'Wooo look at all the Asians, Europeans, Americans, Africans, and Australians in that Joint.' Nope, try again.
D)'Woo the strip-club is a degenerate place of immorality.'
E)'Woo the strip-club is full of living beings instead of Ghosts.' Otherwords, it means it is materialistic and of this realm.

The correct answer is obviously D. Some will try to make you believe the answer is B if it be found in the bible. We don't even transliterate 'Cosmos' into meaning the same thing as world or everyone without exception. The 'worldly' in English here means the evil and godless aspects of this world which shall pass away. This should clearly show that it is not as simple as picking a "literal" reading. Silly Rabbit, dictionaries are for kids! The Greek language has the same characteristic of multiple meanings.

I trust not the literal reading unless it is really literal and also in context. The question is which rendering to choose. We do not have a lot of help from the text here in surrounding context. Let it be know that St. John uses kosmos or 'world' many different ways in his books. Greek usage oratory often would witfully and contrast the use of a single word by using it many different ways close together. This Gospel has the marks of someone with a keen eye toward being an Evangelist over a historian. The literary tradition (Johannine) in which the Apostle John wrote shares this tendency of repeatition and rhetoric. This book was meant to be read aloud so it would have rhetorical wit in word usuage in the first century Hellenistic World.

Now having cast a shadow. Certainly this use of world in 3:16 here cannot be the same 'world' that we are told not to love or not to conform as found in first John. There is a big disconnect if God and Christ can love this world sooooo much. While we who are to being transformed into the image of Christ are not to love this world at all.

The World and adjective forms can also be used distributively to mean every tribe, tongue, and nation are represented. "The World court" is not the court of every one without exception. It is a small court made up of a few powerful nations that try cases. Again when we say 'the ancient world' we generally mean the important ancient civilizations. Not dirt diggers in south America. This use of 'world' often excludes a lot. No one really cares about the Nomads of Mongolia. Or the tribes in Africa outside of egypt, in the ancient world. This is not even everyone but only representational of what we know about the society at large. It is not everyone without exception. There are other examples but I don't want to be trite.

Finally, I wish not to write a meaning for world here with any complete certainty. I tend toward the nations or a Gentiles and Jews definition of world. It is by far the most common one found in the OT with respect to Christ's salvation. It is similar to a 'world' court use of the word 'world'. A world with every nation, tongue, and tribe represented. This is the most common use of the word in Bible. It is especially common because Christ was talking to the Jewish people. They understanded the distinction between Jew and Gentile quite well. Some Jews would not touch the Gentiles even with a ten foot pole. This interpretation falls in line with the Great Commission. It is not to covert everyone but it is to reach everyone. This world is representative not complete. Not all have faith. This definition of 'world' falls in line with God's aim. This goes into the design of God's atonement in the previous verses of John 3:16. This shall be expanded in part IV.

Study of John 3:16, part II

Let us keep the verse as many understand it. God is 'so' loving. I do not disagree with the extent of his love. I disagree with its extension. Furthermore, let me demolish the idea of the world as necessarily including everyone rather than those who actually are, elect and believers, scattered across it. Now if I were to say that the world hates George W. Bush. Would I be wrong? No, even if there are people who still liked him. The problem is not the offer or description of the gospel. It is with extending the world to mean everyone without exception. This is hardly plausible. Not all are saved. Not everyone hates Bush.

Let us indulge ourselves in believing that 'so' demonstrates the extent of God's love. This kind of love can only come from the love that Christ has for his Church, new israel and his bride. To believe that this world in 3:16 is everyone without exception is to destroy the truth of the great love between Christ and the church. There is no greater love than laying down one's life for another. Does this apply to everyone. No, for this is to deny Ephesians clearly states that Christ died for the church. No, for the greatest love is symbolized by marriage. To say otherwise is to wed Christ's love to a harlot. It is to destroy Ephesians verses about marriage. For the love for his bride is not so great anymore. Everyone will consent that this absolute love has its rightful place between a husband and a wife only. Ephesians would be utterly meaningless and without force if this unique, exclusive, and absolute connection of love between Christ and the church is severed or extended to mean everyone by virtue of saying that he died for everyone.

To enforce the great extent of love over this verse by necessity 'the world' here must be represented by believers only, being of all tongues, tribes, and nations in God's eyes. To hold onto the word "so" is equally damaging to modern interpretation. If the extension held for christ dieing for everyone, How can someone with such a great love upon them be cast out from God or be damned? Such a God would be cruel and unloving by keeping 'world' (everyone without exception) under judgment. We must maintain that it is right for God to condemn the world, everyone without exception. We must more clearly see that it is gracious that does not damn all but saves many. It should be clear that people should jump toward accepting 'in this fashion' over 'to such an extent' in the use of 'so'. It destroys the very fabric of Christ on our behalf not to do so.

The last No comes from the fact that the word 'world' has many nuanced meanings. Yet, is this change justified? See part 3. Yes, Let us return to what the bible actually says. Let us return to what the language unequivocally allows.

Study of John 3:16, part I

Many of the most quoted verses are understood with the most error. I was reading something about John 3:16 it was rather interesting. The verse basically says in the Greek text: (literally translated) "For God in this fashion loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

Compare it to the standard translation:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

It seems that many people have been enamored by tradition on its translation.
There are two distinct greek things to notice. The change from whoever and so. 'Whoever' in Greek usually begins with 'pas' followed by a specific verb form. 'Pas' means all or everyone. The verb after pas modifies pas to mean all who are doing the verb. In English, it becomes whoever believes or whosoever comes instead of all who believe and all who come. This may seem redundant to some but 'whoever' seems to broaden the meaning into an invitation beyond 'everyone doing such and such verb'. Strangely, this verse has even been used to argue ability of the world to respond for being such a broad invitation.

The next change is 'so' to 'in this fashion'. This is the more appropriate translation from the original Greek. So? 'So' has more than one meaning in English. So can be evidentary as 'in this fashion' or mean the extent as in 'so much'. The KJV translators originally meant it as evidentary, not just in the extent of God's love. We have kept 'so' because it is popular. The historic change of meaning to "extent" from "in this fashion" is very understandable since God is love. Yet, John 3:16 is not the proof of it.

The use of "so" has obscured this verse. The change back is merited because 'so' obscures the literal reading in respect to the context. People now are content to use this verse out of context with the impression that is what it really says. Furthermore, some preference should be given to a purely literal reading. This alternate one links the verse back to its preceding verses. 3:14 speaks about the serpent who was lifted up to heal the Israelites (a specific people) by Moses. It parallels this act to Christ and his believers. 3:16 verse cannot be ripped apart from its context as easily as it has been in pop culture. Christ has been lifted up in the wilderness for all to look upon and be healed. That is how God loved the world. All who believe in him are saved. He will in no way cast them out. They shall in no way perish but inherit eternal life. We are save by looking upon christ and him crucified. The invitation is in this event. 3:16 certainly is not an invitation but is a mere link in a chain. The ESV is kind enough to foot note the literal rendering. When I first studied this, I did not have an ESV on hand. John 3:16 begins to look different after this subtle correction. It is not the key evangelical verse that should be on every bumpersticker. It is rather a link of a chain to all of John 3.

I am not a hypercalvinist. The bible has other places clearly exhorting and earnestly desiring for all people everywhere to believe. John 3:16 is just not it. We are saved freely by his grace. Yet, as many as those who receive him, to those he gave the power to be sons of God. They aught to receive him and we should encourage them to receive him by invitation. While it is true that, no one can receive it unless it is given from heaven; We do not presume. Let us sow the seed widely as God commands. Christ is not so small that he cannot save someone who has fallen by the wayside. He is not so small that he cannot save one the chief of sinners. There is more onf John 3, see part 2.

Blog status: Mired down in things

I still haven't finished all the charismatic stuff in general that I wanted to do. Or fit spiritual baptism into my Covenant Theology. I really just wanna get past it. It is low on scripture and gospel.

Like, it is all well and good to discuss it.

Yet, we need to remember the God behind it. We need to remember how he is not a God who is too far away to care. He took on flesh and humbly came to our aid. He cares so much that He sent His Son to die for our sin. Yet, He also died for us himself. He cares so much that God did not leave us alone on this dust ball after having made atonement. He cares so much that He wishes for us to be where he is. Heaven. How far both heaven and hell have been moved to make a way for us. Will he not give us all things? Oh, how great a God he is.

Oh yeah expect a radical John 3 study. I worked on it a long time ago. I need to fix it and bring it back.

Charismatic? Tongues

It is my belief that I must hold to what the Bible says and I bind my self to a conclusion. Well, I am open-minded enough to become reformed by my own study. Yet, I became reformed first and foremost by the experiences of my life. The church i attend merely pointed me in the right direction. I have some disagreements but they are slight. With this said, I cannot say that I would ever want a perfect church. If I found one I am afraid that I would have to leave it unless I spoil it.

Now let's discuss my Charismatic leanings for they are unique to me:

If you ask whether I am a third or second wave. I am neither. I fall more along the lines of a pre-charismatic like John Bunyan. I seek being filled with the spirit none-the-less. If you ask me about Prophecy, I will put it neatly into a box of what I believe it is and is not. It is turning old truths over anew. It is strengthened convictions and impressions, not new convictions or ethics. This allows bringing doctrine to bear on a person's life, opposed to the creation of new doctrines for their life.

Next, You ask me about "Praying in the spirit", I will first and foremost point to understandable prayer over tongues. I do not look favorably at one of the proposed purpose of tongues, when other means can be employed to the same end. These other means are not just equivalent. These means are far superior in every way. God's gift now becomes inferior in showing His sovereignty, grace, and care. Why even bother to even bestow it. I don't think gifts that ignore these aspects are bestowed. Tongues also must be informed with truth that is understandable and coherent. It is not fit to be used in worship otherwise. Worship must be in both spirit and truth. I have spoken in Tongues before and found it only mildly edifying. I am not moved to speak in tongues often but it may be in my gifting. The time would be better spent through the normal means of earnest prayer. This perhaps proves that it is the least of the spiritual gifts. It also proves that it is abusable. Yet, I don't think this is the right answer for it as a gift. I think it just proves that it is ill-suited to that end.

The previous christian contemplation article got me thinking on mysticism. Tongues would seem much more pagan if it is merely something one does for prayer, when it is not informing one of truth or conveying truth. I tend to doubt that tongues is a "prayer language" for this reason, even if spurious interpretations existed for it. Tongues here becomes like a meditation technique. A technique inherited and used by pagan mystics also. Tongues cannot exist as such for today.

This does not rule tongues out, especially when it comes other uses or real languages. Tongues would be more suited in dealing with truth in real languages. It is that simple. It is not suited for prayer. We are not conversing with angels. We are conversing with God. Furthermore, I do not believe tongues has any relation to spiritual baptism beyond that of other gifts. This is to say that tongues has as much relation to Spiritual baptism as Water baptism does. Period.

Next, If you point to extraordinary gifts, I will point to that which is really extraordinary first. Conversion is an extraordinary gift. Faith is an extraordinary gift. Repentance is an extraordinary gift. Grace is an extraordinary gift. This is in no way a limit, but rather the obvious. We need the seemingly ordinary gifts first. For they are surpassingly extraordinary. I love the focus on the ordinary means of the Gospel at my church for this reason. Tongues exists to edify the church, but misuse of it as substitute for prayer is not right. I cannot condone it. There needs to be interpretation of it so that it can serve as a sign gift. Or there needs to be a real means of grace in speaking it for other christians. (such as a prophetic word) Perhaps God can use gibberish to convey words of a real languages. I dare not presume it impossible. I find it more likely since the Greek word for tongues is the same as languages. (This is not the same as being fluent hearing/speaking in that other unlearned language, such is a sign of demon possession.)

Christian Contemplation

I have been looking over this stuff about christian contemplation or christian mysticism. I thought it would be relevant to discuss because it is not very well understood. Furthermore, experience driven christianity is a horrible abberation of the truth of God as reveal in the word. God specifically calls for Christianity driven experiences.

From my readings, some of this christian contemplation, (which is really not an action of active contemplation but a grace from God) runs parallel to charismatic occurences and experiences. Different language but same thing among non-charismatics. In short, the charismatic areas that fall into christian contemplation are that which follows: Being filled with the spirit/Infused contemplation. Presight of God/heaven from afar (everything leading up to the Beautific vision.), Apo-'something' prayer/praying in the spirit. (not tongues), etc.

Evidences of such are scattered among various writers There are often the evidences of the Holy spirit in their life. Not just normal means but evidence of a real active relationship. It shows up in diverse places with the impression that it could not be from any other source originally but God. I have come across such instances even from John Owen. Perhaps you know what I mean. It is like reading A.W. Tozer at times. It is as if a truth and conviction was so specific and strong that he would have had to encounter God to be so moved to write it. It is as though it was seared into his heart and memory by his union with God. This essentially is a mark left by Christian contemplation or charismatic encounters with God.

Yet, lets talk about the terms. Christian contemplation is hardly something one contemplates. Many try, but it is grace. Yet, not all of the practices of Christian contemplation fall in this definition. There is a large gap that forms, especially when it comes to the relevance of truth in practice. Various contemplation and meditation techniques that are not explicitly christian slip in. People seek the experience without the truth. This includes subjectivity but is not limited to it.

They say meaningless words and sounds (mantras) over and over. They rock back and forth. They do things merely physically like Yoga. Or try things that are merely psychological. They may also do things that are truthful and right but not motivated by the truth or that which is right. This is phariseeism or living the quiet life of monasticism. It now appears that christian contemplation is not something you do but, more or less, live according to the truth. It is something that must follow from worshipping in both spirit and truth. Being close to God and feeling our union with Him does not come from mediation, active contemplation, and doing good deeds. It comes from devotion specifically towards the truth and God. Some doctrine is needed. It is called doctrina sacra by Thomas Aquinas. Or sacred doctrine. It has roots in all good theology.

It is for this reason that C.S Lewis wrote: "For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that "nothing happens" when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand."

Yet, theology is dead bones without the spirit. All theology is be circular. It must lead away from the cross and back to it. The spirit at times must show us the way back. As for most Christian contemplation, it is stuck by its narrow focus on love. It is also stuck on catholic doctrine. I think love is important but not like the gospel which shows us love and much, much more like holiness, justice, power, grace. etc. It is not our will but His.

Predestination

There is a belief that God works all things in invisible and unknowable ways. Some call this belief predestination. I laugh at such an attempt to label it. It is those who put this label on the actions of a sovereign God on our behalf who are in error. They are obsecessed with the speck of fatalism when they do not see their own log. Free will and choice do not solve fatalism. The choices and the events of history move out of God's hands and into man's. Our fate does not lie in the infinite wisdom and goodness of God but in the hands of our sinful selfs and many times other sinful men. No man is an island. Our fate, in part, comes from the actions of other people. It is subject to the free choice of another man. It is by this that wars are started. Jobs are lost. People drink and drive. People commit crimes. People ruin lives. People lie, cheat, steal from others. The actions of people are causes the worst evils. Our fate is not commited to a person with infinite goodness to work on our behalf in ways unknown but to one who is fallen. If God cannot help in these things, where is God?

Now let us look at predestination for a sec. It is really God's absolute sovereignty as seen in the future. I must admit predestination has one problem. It become the worst monster if God was not all good. If there be but a shadow of evil, even the smallest part. God turns into a white whale. He works evil towards us. I would hate predestination if God be 99.999% good and .001% evil. I would hate God for it also despite being 99.999% good.

It is from this vantage point that we see predestination is always attacked by attacking God's goodness. They bring up the Old testament with its sanctioned genocide and slavery. Or they can just bring up the evils everyday life. It is as if they believe that the small strand keeping them out of hell already, is not grace. What is hell anyway but the genocide of all unbelievers. What is hell but the chaining up of unbelievers? They attack God and say that God is good but not all Good. This is unbelief. They expect they can get away chipping just enough off to discredit predestination.

It is with this I take issue. It is to make Him less than holy. It is to make him less than good. It is to make Him less than God. I only want my God to be all powerful on my behalf, even in my own choices and the choices of others. I cannot see this happening without accepting some form of predestination. Do I dwell on the predestination then? Never, I dwell on a mighty God, mighty to do good, mighty to save. All on my behalf with an invisible hand. It is too high for us to understand. It is too wonderful for us to know. Job 42 and Psalms 139 put it in the right perspective.

American christianity

We have historically been the most God-fearing nation. The revolutionary war even had many religious overtones. It seems we are now losing that base set down. We have already moved past the Christianity they believed. Yet, never so far. It is entrenched in our folk religion. We still pray for pastors to be effective. Not at being a good orator, but we pray for the holy spirit. This is distinct from most other christianity. It is as if we still believe that God is required to act in conversion. While, the official doctrine says man must act. It is in this belief in which we see that God is the one who opens hearts and eyes to save. Man does not open them.

There is hope yet that God has a place in our society and in our lives as the only sovereign. What evangelism denies in belief has been entrenched by the grace of God. It may take one to become a missionary or evangelist to see it but God still acts in mighty ways. The churches that aught to see this truth do not send out missionaries who bring the truth back with them. They send out a social gospel that is nothing but an invitation to a group hug. Let us waken them to the belief the God works all things. Let us show them his mighty works. Especially in his sovereignty

Modernist myth: The individual

There is a tendancy to respect the individual outside of the context of a community. One can create theology outside of discussing who are we, and what we can do in general; by discussing only who am I, and what I 'think' I can do. This myth is to say that importance is placed more and more on the individual alone. This is seen in choice and modern evangelism.

Choice is hearald as an individualist right in salvation. God forbide, that God is a respecter of individuals. (Yet, this claim can be leveled just as well against Arminians as calvinists.) It does not discuss the context of grace towards the community of believers. Or the necessity of grace for the placement of that person into the community. It is also the community that gives context to an individual. Someone, who i generally disagree with, once said, "No man is an island." Modern Evangelism has fallen into such. It says Christ died for you, without saying Christ died for sinners and you are one in fact in that community. It does not say that Christ died for the church on a community level; he did not die or spill his blood for those outside it. By placing worth in the individual, rather than the context given to that individual, is to sacrifice the gospel. Postmodernism does not like defining individual, much less anything. It is right in this rejection of modernism's individual but it does not establish community.

We can see how modern churches have become groups of individuals rather than communities. It is perhaps a cause to why we see people date churches. I realize that there are individual considerations but they are not independant from the context given to them.

I am not exhaulting the church but rather am exhalting the means that God has instituted. They are not from or for the individual alone. Election was the selection of a nation of individuals that are to be built together. It was not the selection of individuals who would remain such. It is not the choice of individual to gain an individualistic salvation, apart from a community, by themselves.
Such rugged individualism helps exhalt pride, merit, and choice of individuals in salvation rather than grace and faith lived out in a community. Without a community, believers are fish out of water. Life takes place in a community of God. Life does not take place in the solitude of an individual.

Now when the prodigal son was called home. He was coming home from a life of rugged individualism. He was came home to a family. Let it be like such in Christ. Christ seeks to have communion and fellowship with us in this life and the next. Men were made for such.

Death to Serventes--Rant

Before people start accusing Calvin of being a murderer. I am accusing Arminius with being one. Worse, I accuse him of participating in crimes against humanity by proxy. I am sure Arminius was an expert witness against the protestants. If he was a good Catholic he would even consent to the means that the Catholic church used in his time. For the catholic church is inerrant in its papal anathemas that were enforced. A good catholic follows the leader. (Or rather swallows the leader)

Arminius would consent with the lutheran wars. These wars ended because Germany's population was so badly decimated. It was 1/2 of pre-war levels. It was like the war on the hussites fought to decimation.

Arminius would consent with the persecution of protestants in France. He would consent with killing the Hugenots. What? Who are they? They are the 2million protestants living in France who were exterminated. They don't really exist anymore.

Arminius would consent to brutal child kidnapping of protestant children so they can be raise catholic in monestaries.

Arminius would consent to a St Bartholomew day massacre. At least 8,000 protestants killed in one day. Furthermore, He would not consent to an apology. The catholic church still hasn't apologized,

Arminius would consent to much much more than just this as an expert witness. So why are we still talking about Serventes. He is dead. The world was probably better off. I can't say the world is better off with so many dead protestants who are not heretics.

Now why don't we start talking about Arminians and the head of their theology? That Arminian theology must be demonic from a demonic institution. Let us not even touch that stuff. You call it unfair. You prove my point on total depravity. Now shut up about calvin.

Now all things considered. This is like people who charge Calvin, instead of Geneva (who even kicked Calvin out once), for the murder. Then manage to some how extrapolate an impact on the man's theology. It is an absurd log in one's eye!!! Yes, Arminianism came straight from Catholocism. I can debate anyone under the table on that assertion. Death to serventus because I can show anyone that protestant were a lot more tame than Arminians of that time. Furthermore, I can show that religious freedom later came from not the Arminians but the Calvinists!

Kudos to JI Packer

Quote: "The amount of misrepresentation to which Calvin's theology has been subjected is enough to prove his doctrine of total depravity several times over."

The way I see it Rant-

-Christ died for the church.
-He died to make two flesh one.
-Marriage shows this unique and particular union between Christ and the church.

Gay marriage, Gay marriage. I have had enough of trying to explain why I hate it.
It is an affront to God. Even more so than the acts of Homosexuality.

You know whatelse I hate, people's understanding marriage. They don't see that Marriage requires love to be mainly for the wife. I hate Adultery!

To say Christ’s love lay outside of primarily this union, indiscriminately to everyone, is to ascribe a universal love for every harlot as being equal or greater than that toward a wife. Some call this doctrine unlimited, universal, or hypothetically universal atonement. I would much rather call it, slutty.

Spiritual baptism

Charismatic theology has some influeces into baptistic theology. Unfortunately, they are very nebulous. They often break apart Ephesians 4:5, one baptism. It is not discussed enough but I find that this appearant inconsistancy that needs to be examined. This is really an extension of the line of thought I had at VQ06. I was using strictly a presbyterian heurmanic. This makes it impossible to accept the third wave anwser to spiritual baptism. Only at conversion. Yet, i know that this need not be the case.

I cannot resolve Acts with a third wave approach because I arrive at what I see are greater errors. I cannot just allow a second wave approach to call it two baptisms either. I cannot allow such for i am not strictly second wave. Nor do I hold a strictly pentecost understanding of the occurance. I am pre-charismatic in similarity to bunyan. Also, the second spiritual baptism cannot any more be a sign of regeration than water baptism is. Yet, spiritual baptism is distinct from both of these as a sign and as a grace.

I hope to spell something out more specific on this baptism. As well as relation between the three. We know how water and regeneration are related. Spiritual baptism cannot be the weird uncle in this match. It is related in some means too. I am afraid I may walk new ground in part of my justification of 'one Baptism' but I see no other way. This is for later posts though.

I am not as far away as I thought from what others have said over a particular verse. In short, the Presbyterians are in error here in one part of their covenantal theology if spiritual baptism is thrown into the mix. Yet, I dare not take a dispensational approach on discussing the newness of the spirit at pentecost. I believe that is in error. I rather believe it has been poured out throughout time in the covenant of grace. But specially at pentecost.

Finally, my last thought on water baptism. I have no strong opinions about immersion other than it is more preferable.*

Persuasion

I can explain something logically and thoroughly until the cows come home, but some will still never be persuaded. Some will not care. I have been wondering if I would be better off ringing aloud the bell of truth rather than resting upon on the erosion of the ocean tide in proving something.


To what degree should I be fast, strong, and concise with my statements.
To what degree should I be thorough, steadfast, and calculated.

It is hard to strike an appropriate balance since I cannot decide if I should be defensive or offensive in stating things that have been suffiecently proven in the past almost as fact. Or in stating things that are suggestive but not proven.
I would have little trouble if I did not feel also feel that I had to prove the same eternal doctrines as the people who preceded me theologically.

Do I have someone's shoulder to stand upon or do I need to build something up myself these days. This impasse shows up in the problem of retaining an orthodox. Am I to establish orthodoxy or Am I to maintain it? I side with BB Warfield. I have more problems with people who are perfectly content with orthodoxy than with those who will test it against the Bible and their theological system.

Fixing orthodoxy in places like the emerging church seems to have this two-fold problem. There are some who openly attack it. It would seem that their position need to be eroded from under them. There are others who just need their convictions awoken to truth.

I am taking up some old drafts for some work. Ironically, this is one of them. They are likely next on my list of updates. Ultimately, the reason boils down to how much logic do I wish to use to prove my position? Or how much conviction do I wish to show on their behalf?

In all of this, I am sure on the presentation of the Gospel. It needs to be sounded off to people. It is not something that people need to hear a complete and calculated presentation of logic in support. The Gospel is something needing to be heard concisely and with the strength of conviction. It is in these other things that I have not yet considered what persuasion is appropriate. Or even if the use of persuasion is appropriate.

Baptism and regeneration 2

Lets move on to 1 Peter 3:18-21
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 And (A)corresponding to that , baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(A) Greek word: antitupon- a type or copy. This means that it is like that which does. It is does not do it itself.

Within these two contexts you can see how proclaimation to spirits in prison responds not to dead people but ones in bondage to sin. Ones spiritually dead who are baptized. It follows that it is upon the appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus. Not upon water.

Christ was raise for our justification. Not so baptism can save but rather he can save. This justification is in regeneration which is shown in water baptism. This justification is further shown through sanctification with grace from Spiritual baptism.

Baptism and Regeneration

Having dealt a blow to the catholic idea of baptism by desire and wedged in salvation by Grace through faith. (A while ago.)I have hopefully said that salvation follows the grace not the outward act.

I shall also show that the act of baptism is a type/sign of sanctification and salvation; not what saves. It brings us to what scripture says particularly in Romans 6 and in 1 Peter 3.

6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self [1] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free [2] from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

The link to baptism with God's redemptive plan cannot be over looked. Nor can God's work at causing obedience cannot be overlooked. Yet, Paul leaves little room for such a link not to be present in baptism. The question becomes what is this link.
Paul says also elsewhere: "As many of you as have been baptised in christ have put on christ."(Gal 3:27) This clearly states the numbers between obedient to teaching from the heart and baptized are equal.

To hold that water baptismal regeneration happens, one must also hold that it always does and achieves the result of putting on Chirst. The aorist verb for "put on" is indicative without respect to time. Meaning it has indeed happened or is happening. Yet, the continuance of baptism and newness of life that are also seen in Romans 6. The charge of water baptism being rejectable cannot be sustained from the discussion of ongoing nature in sanctification. It is guaranteed because of the perserverance of the saints and God who both wills and works in sanctification.

Since there is no escape left for "As many of you as have been baptised have put on christ" " One counter example destroys the argument. This is to say that the grace of baptism must always attend water baptism. I can say from personal experience that it does not always attend a person being thrown underwater or sprinkled as a child or an adult. It rather attends itself than externals.

Let us consider colossians 2:12 "11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. "

Circumcision done without hands. It is not done by a person or a substance/tool in a person's hand. It is done by christ as is stated in the verse. It puts off the body of the flesh. This circumcision is what is ascribed to this baptism. Not of water but of Blood. It is from the application of Christ's blood. This baptism is seen as putting off the flesh and putting on Christ. This is confirmed in verse 12 as being from God not man. It is the grace of baptism in which one is raised through faith in the powerful working of God. This is while being dead in transgressions and in uncircumcision. This is faith not the works done by us in righteousness.

Christ's grace in baptism is the lavar of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. It is confirmed in Titus 3:5. "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." Since Water baptism follows under works done by us in righteousness. It cannot save. This washing of regeneration is nothing but atonement by the sprinkling of his blood at conversion. It is a rightly a baptism but it is of another type. Lets move on to 1 peter

covenant and baptism

Baptism now can be discussed in covenantal framework. Being baptised into christ's death is very similar to the idea represented in union with christ with our iniquities of the flesh and our person being punished on the cross. It shows how the flesh as a whole is condemned in Christ and killed, dead and buried. And how we are in a way. Yet we are raised also. This applies to how new humanity is raised in 2nd adam.

Yet, true grace of baptism occurs in regeneration and not necessarily in water. Water is merely a sign because it is outward truth not an inward one. It can never be an inward one for it is a sacrement. Its efficacy depends on what is inward. Water baptism fits with circumcision as an outward covenantal sign on all its members. Yet we also know that the water does not reveal those who are sons of light but only does so in part. The egyptians also circumcised yet were not of abraham nor under the covenant. Their circumcision was counted as uncircumcision.

In this idea, the perserverance of saints seems to be reject if water baptism of the external church is meant to reveal sons of light who are not such. Such we must consider the baptism of unbelieving childs as uncircumised but not necessarily unclean. We know that Water Baptism is a sacrement so if efficacy does not arise from what is outside but rather from the inward truth of baptism. (Like circumcision) It then appears that water baptism is as much of a part of being shown justified by likeness within the revelation of covenant as it is to covenantal adminstration and identification to the covenant. This is to say it is for believers who have been regenerated and part of sanctification. It follows from the idea that christ's blood cannot justify a believer and be ineffectial. I call into question the purpose of a sacrement otherwise. One would dare not give communion to a non-believer. Why should baptism be different?

Now should paedobaptised people be rebaptised. This is difficult to say since one cannot be recircumsized. Yet, baptism is like the sign circumcision. While regeneration is like the truth and seal of circumcision. Paedobaptized are only accounted uncircumcised even if they are. It follows that it may be possible to be rebaptised since the first one was a sacrement without grace. Yet, does the grace arrive after someone who is clean is next considered circumcised. It was not a covenantal sacrament originally but merely a ritual denoting change. Yet, does it become one? Is this proper to rebaptise? I do not easily know.

Spiritual baptism remains to be discussed at a later time. Yet, it is related to the grace and power of showing Christ's image outwardly.

My Confession of Religion surfing

I came across an interesting link about religion and the internet. It was after 9-11 but I am sure some of it still holds true. Or else I would not be up writing this blog entry.

Religion Surfers

I can only speculate at the future of religion in Cyberspace and church life. The internet is fastly growing into a prime source of spreading information to large groups of people. It also stores and makes information so very accessable. We take it for granted. This story is 6 years old, even before wiki was big.

The web is able to be searched very effectly to. You don't have to be as well read or hunt through books. I admit that I am a big googler and a wikipedian. The quality and quantity of what is online is also improving. This raises some issues to discuss.

First, new sources of error arise. There will be an overload of lies and heresies that are no longer isolated by geography or by number. The people influence by them will be more informed than before by strong delusions. The pastors of a local church will have to be more educated likewise to refute theses errors or let them drift further into them.

Second, the truth is out. (No, not like the x-files.) This will open up doors for those who live with lies. It thus serves as a medium for advancing the truth and the Gospel.

Third, it will speed up the business of how Religion is done.

Fourth, there will be a greater source of information to help pastors and the laymen alike. (Thank God for public domain)

Fifth, there may be more latitudinarians who will not care in what one believes. This is the lazy way out of information overload.

Sixth, there will be religion surfers out trying to educate themselves on these things as the article mentions.