THE REFORMATION RESOLUTION

NEW YEARS DAY Approaches. With the New Year typically comes "New Years Resolutions". I hereby resolve to stop drinking soda. I hereby resolve to loose ten pounds. I hereby resolve to exercise everyday...or at least 5 days aweek, weather pending, and if I can squeeze it into my schedule.

How often have we set out to reform a particular area of our lives only to find out that the hard facts of life are we rarely control even our own activities. The scroll on the left illustrates religion that is man centered, self-help driven and based in a personal reformation.

Biblical faith includes none of that. The teaching of the bible is that salvation is God oriented, God directed, and free to the sinner. The bible also teaches in the area of sanctification that this too is the work of God, not the activity or the result of the will of man. Man can do nothing to make himself acceptable to God and all efforts to do so are "Like filthy rags".

A religion that is man centered is by default a religion that rejects God. Biblical religion is God centered and to when we add to that, the efforts of man, it reveals the hopelss and godlessness of that religion.

Romans 11:5-6 "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. BUT IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IS IT NO MORE GRACE: otherwise work is no more work.

Works and grace are incompatable in the salvation of sinners. So for this new year, put aside all human effort. Lean on the finished work of Christ and the will of the father to apply that finished work by the soveriegn Holy Spirit, who, like the wind, blows where he wills and no man can tell where he comes from or where he goes. John 3:8

Happy New Year...May yours be God centered.

(Thank you to my good friend Howard Wilson for the clip art of the 5 points of Arminianism).

HE THAT KEEPETH ISRAEL...

Poor Santa, had to take a nap. But as you go into the New Year be aware of the fact that our God never sleeps and is diligently looking out for his own. We can take comfort going into the new year the words of the Psalmist.

Psalm 121:3-4 “He will not suffer thy foot to be moved; he that keepeth thee will not slumber. Behold, He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.”

This picture reminds me of Proverbs 6:10

“Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep.
So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man.”

There are many like Santa in the world who would promise comfort and ease (A fairy-tale). Many false shepherds who claim to be watching out for us;

“He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you’re awake”.

The words of that song are a false promise…

The only one who knows our coming in and our going out is our Jehovah, our Prince of Peace, Our King of Kings, our Bright and Morning Star, our EMMANUEL-GOD WITH US. Our one and only savior Jesus. It is He Who watches over us in this year and the next. In this life and the next. Put not your hopes and dreams in the illusion that is the world’s holiday, put your life in the hands of the king-born in a manger, born to set the captive free, born-the King of the Jews, and the savior of the world.

Merry Christmas.

And yes that is a very cute picture…I know that is not the real Santa anyway…lol

A CHRISTMAS STORY

A True Christmas Story for patriots and Christian alike…Give thanks to God for our freedom and the men who have won it and those who have kept it.

On Christmas Day, 1776, nearly all thought the Revolution was lost, except for a valiant few who still believed in “The Cause.” We owe our liberty today to those valiant few.

Led by George Washington, most of his army, dressed in rags and barefoot, faced a winter gale of rain, sleet, ice and snow. This band of patriots braved a midnight river crossing and a nine mile march over frozen roads to win a spectacular victory at Trenton, New Jersey, the following morning. Those were indeed times, as Thomas Paine would write, that “try men’s souls.”

In a season that has become too commercialized and -- worse yet -- had much of its religious meaning driven from the public square, Washington’s Christmas crossing is a story that should be remembered and celebrated, this Christmas and every Christmas.

Christmas is a time to celebrate the birth of Christ, to be with family and friends, and, I would add, to give thanks to God for those who endured so much on that Christmas night, 232 years ago.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

THE BEAUTY OF COLORADO

(CLICK ON PHOTO FOR LARGER IMAGE)

Colorado Beauty

PIKES PEAK

Looking from my office on the Air Force Academy...this is what I have to look at everyday...What a blessing

PIKES PEAK

Two beautiful vistas of Pikes Peak in recent days. Yesterday we got a good layer of snow on the peak so it will be looking different for quite a while now. Enjoy.

THE REAL STORY OF THANKSGIVING

Did you know that the first Thanksgiving was a celebration of the triumph of private property and individual initiative?

William Bradford was the governor of the original Pilgrim colony, founded at Plymouth in 1621. The colony was first organized on a communal basis, as their financiers required. Land was owned in common. The Pilgrims farmed communally, too, following the "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" precept.

The results were disastrous. Communism didn't work any better 400 years ago than it does today. By 1623, the colony had suffered serious losses. Starvation was imminent.

Bradford realized that the communal system encouraged and rewarded waste and laziness and inefficiency, and destroyed individual initiative. Desperate, he abolished it. He distributed private plots of land among the surviving Pilgrims, encouraging them to plant early and farm as individuals, not collectively.

The results: a bountiful early harvest that saved the colonies. After the harvest, the Pilgrims celebrated with a day of Thanksgiving -- on August 9th.

Unfortunately, William Bradford's diaries -- in which he recorded the failure of the collectivist system and the triumph of private enterprise -- were lost for many years. When Thanksgiving was later made a national holiday, the present November date was chosen. And the lesson the Pilgrims so painfully learned was, alas, not made a part of the holiday.

Happily, Bradford's diaries were later rediscovered. They're available today in paperback. They tell the real story of Thanksgiving -- how private property and individual initiiative saved the Pilgrims.

This Thanksgiving season, one of the many things I'm thankful for is our free market system (imperfectly realized as it is). And I'm also grateful that there are increasing numbers of Americans who are learning the importance of free markets, and who are working to replace government coercion with marketplace cooperation here in America and around the world.

4TH OF JULY HIKING

Over the Fourth of July weekend we did alot of hiking. First we did the very steep and grueling Stanley Canyon on the Air Force Academy. Then on the Fourth we did a portion of the Falcon Trail on the Academy. Below are pictures from our 6-7 mile hike in the Garden of the Gods.

Here are Annika, Nathan and Rebekah at the beginning of the trail.



Here is a good picture of Rebekah through the hole in the "Siamese Twins" rock formation, with Pikes Peak in the background.


Here is Nathan and Rebekah in the "Siamese Twins" rock.



Here is Annika and Rebekah.

COMING HOME

I have nothing cosmic to post today. Only wanted to post a most awesome photo I took of Pikes Peak from one of our wonderful city parks, Palmer Park.

I have been away for almost 3 weeks doing an aircraft mishap investigation...No I can't tell you any gory details. But coming home has been very good. I got to drive across the beautiful flat and scenic central and western Kansas in a convertible. I did get a little sunburnned. Had a most fantastic lunch in the Abilene/Salina area...a part of the state I love!! I have done the Eisenhower half marathon in Abilene twice, and there is a stupendous coffee shop called "Mokka's" in Salina. I drove around Salina with the top down not really caring that it was raining. And the people of Kansas are always so friendly. I even stopped at the Smokey Hill Winery off of I-70 and brought home a couple of samples of Kansas vintage wine, much better than you might expect.

Well I do love to travel, but it is good to be home.



Nice car eh?

A PHOTO ALBUM

For all who are interested...I have linked my photo albums at the Photobucket site. The link is on the right side the first in list

"PLACES TO GO THINGS TO READ".

2nd ENOCHIAN PARADIGM

I would like to ask a question, pose a position. The common use of Jude 14-15, as I have heard it for many years; is an application to the fulfillment of that prophecy in the first century. As I read Jude I see that starting in verse 5 Jude sets out to show God's willingness to judge as a warning to the first century readers who would witness the judgment in 70 A.D. He shows this willingness to judge by recounting past events of God's judgment.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

(PAST EVENT)

6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

(PAST EVENT)

7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

(PAST EVENT)

8. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

(PAST EVENT)

10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

(PAST EVENT)

12. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13. Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

In light of this list of past accounts of God's judgment; how is it our hermeneutic switches to a future event? What is it in the context that changed to make verses 14-15 future events when the entire context leading up to it is a listing of PAST EVENTS?

In considering this, read Deuteronomy 33:2.

"And he (Moses) said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them."

Is this quote from Deuteronomy not a fulfillment of what ENOCH prophesied? We must recognize that Jude did not make the prophesy, he merely quoted the ancient prophecy. I believe that this prophecy was well known by the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even Moses), when Moses quotes (paraphrased) Enoch's prophesy in Deuteronomy I believe he is declaring to the nation that this prophesy is about to come to pass in the conquering of the promised land at the hand of Joshua and the "Ten Thousands of (Old Covenant) Saints".

Read verses 14 and 15 of Jude again with this in mind. I believe we are looking at another in the list of recounted PAST EVENTS of God's willingness to judge the ungodly.

14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Let me know what you think.

For many folks, a conclusion is simply
the place where they got tired of thinking.

THE LAND OF ISRAEL PARADIGM

The problems in the land of Israel are theological.


You can talk about politics all you want, but until you realize that the issue is in this region of the world is religion, you are ignoring the fundamental issues. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians believe the Land is theirs by Divine right. American politics is heavily influenced by the dispensational movement that supports Israel's claims. Several of our own elected officials often state their convictions that the land belongs to Israel by Divine right.

The fact is that the Land no longer belongs to either the Arabs or the Israeli's by Divine right. God is no longer concerned with geography. There is no salvation in real estate, salvation is in Christ.

Most people do not seem to realize that Israel's right to the land was conditioned upon their obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Deuteronomy 28-30 we find the Law of blessings and cursings. Simply stated, that law said that if Israel obeyed the Mosaic Covenant they would remain in the land in peace. However, if they violated the Covenant, Jehovah would remove them. He even said that in the last days, they would become utterly corrupt and that He would destroy them (Deuteronomy 31:29; 32:20-24).

Here is a point of tremendous significance. The promises of Israel's return and restoration to the land are grounded in the Mosaic Covenant. For Israel to return to the Land, as God's chosen people, they had to obey the Law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 30:1-10, one of the favorite texts utilized by those who believe that 1948 was a fulfillment of Divine prophecy, Moses emphatically gave as the condition for return, obedience to the Mosaic Covenant (see vss. 2, 6, 8, 10). There are two points to ponder here.

First, would anyone seriously argue that Israel had repented and returned to an observance of the Mosaic Covenant, and that that obedience led to their "restoration" in 1948? I know of not one dispensational scholar that argues that Israel was in a state of obedience to the Mosaic Law in 1948! As a matter of fact, Tim LaHaye has argued just the opposite! In his book “Charting the End Times”; he maintains that the restoration of Israel in 1948 was the "super sign"; that we are in the end of the Christian Age, and that event "began an actual fulfillment of specific Bible prophecies about an international regathering of the Jews in unbelief." Let that sink in for a moment. In spite of the emphatic declaration of Deuteronomy 30, that the condition for restoration to the Land was obedience to the Mosaic Law, LaHaye denies this, and insists that in reality, the condition for Israel's "first" restoration to the land was to be disobedience! This concept of two regatherings, one in unbelief and the other in belief is a total fabrication of the dispensational world.

Second, God has forever removed the Mosaic Covenant. That Covenant was in the process of passing away when Hebrews was written (Hebrews 8:13), and passed with the fulfillment of Israel's entire religious system (Hebrews 9:10). Many dispensationalists agree that the Mosaic Law, has forever been fulfilled and discontinued through Christ. Well, if the Mosaic Covenant, that was the ground of the restoration promises has been removed, then the promises of restoration have been forever removed.

The land of Israel was given to that nation by Jehovah (Genesis 15:16f; (Joshua 21:43-45). However, her retention of that land was conditioned on her obedience to the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 28-32). Further; Jehovah has now forever removed that Covenant. This means that the land promises are no longer valid.

The main argument that the land will always belong to Israel, no matter what, is based on the fact that Jehovah gave them the land "forever" (Psalms 105). The problem is that the word forever, (Hebrew, Olam), does not automatically denote "without end." For instance, Jehovah not only promised to give the land to Israel "forever," He also promised to make them "a perpetual shame," and to make Jerusalem a "desolation forever" (See Jeremiah 23:40; 25:9). He said this concerning the fall of Jerusalem in B. C. 586. Was Israel restored after God made their land a "perpetual desolation"? Yes! The point is that the word "forever" does not mean unending. Thus, the fact that Jehovah promised the land to Abraham "forever" does not mean that Israel could not forfeit the land.

The covenant sign of Israel's right to the land was circumcision (Genesis 17:10f). Stated simply, no circumcision, no land! Consider then the doctrine of circumcision. No one knew the importance of circumcision more than Paul. Yet, Paul said that if a person practiced circumcision for religious reasons then Christ would profit them nothing (Galatians 5:1-4)! He said circumcision avails nothing. It must be understood that the religious reasons of circumcision had always been two fold. First; to identify Israel as the chosen people; i.e. as Abraham's seed, and, as the covenant sign of Israel's right to the Land.
The only way that Paul could say that circumcision avails nothing is for him to realize that God had completely fulfilled the promises to Abraham and therefore, the purpose of that covenant--to bring in the Messiah- had been fulfilled. There was therefore, no longer any purpose for that distinctive covenant sign, because that covenant was on the point of passing away (see Hebrews 8:13).

Some say that in the millennium, Israel's Old System, including circumcision will be restored. According to this theory, any man not circumcised will not be able to worship God in Jerusalem, and yet, those who do not worship there are condemned, according to the millennial interpretation of Zechariah 14.

However, if Jehovah restores circumcision, then Paul's gospel--the gospel that Jesus died to establish — must be set aside. Paul emphatically repudiated the religious significance of circumcision. He totally rejected physical circumcision as any longer the identifying mark of the seed of Abraham, insisting instead that the children of Abraham are now only those of faith (Galatians 3:6f). In fact, he went so far as to say that those who practice circumcision to maintain their tradition identity as Abraham's seed forfeit the blessings of Jesus. They fall from grace (Galatians 5:4)! Salvation is not in the land of Israel. It is in Jesus Christ.

The New Testament doctrine of circumcision is extremely relevant in light of the current conflict in Israel. The Jews maintain that the land is their's by Divine Right. However, to claim that Israel still has a Divine Right to the land based on the Abrahamic Covenant fails to consider that God fulfilled those promises, and then, due to Israel's continuing recalcitrance, terminated that Covenant. The New Testament doctrine of circumcision proves conclusively that Israel no longer has title deed to the land. In reality, to argue that she does is a repudiation of the circumcision free gospel of Jesus Christ.

For many folks, a conclusion is simply
the place where they got tired of thinking.

GOD's MAJESTY

I borrow once again from the talented photography and the beauty of God as found at http://www.mtprinceton.org/

Let these images of Mount Princeton cause you to rejoice in the majesty and wonder of God.

THE PARADIGM OF ENOCH

Enoch was the Great-Grandfather of Noah. Enoch begat Methuselah, the oldest man recorded in the geneologies of the bible. Methuselah begat Lamech the father of Noah.

What is interesting is what happened to Enoch.

We find the 365 Earthly years of Enoch's existence recorded for us in Genesis 5:18-24. In verse 18 he is born, in verse 21 he becomes the father of Methuselah, in verse 22 he has a bunch more kids. It is in verse 23 where Enochs years are summarized as 365 years then in verse 24 we have the statement that; "Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." How mysterious, how cryptic. What does it mean?

We also have the prophesy of Enoch quoted in the short book of Jude.

In verse 14 & 15 of Jude we have the following...

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

I believe that this passage in Jude is an allusion to Deuteronomy 33:2 but that is a different subject.

The only other reference to the man 'Enoch' is found in Hebrews chapter 11, the chapter of the faith of the believers down through the ages.

Anytime we have elaboration in the New Testament scripture of obscure Old Testament events or characters, we should pay close attention.

In Hebrews 11:5 we have another brief statement about the man Enoch;

"By Faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Here we find out about his character, he was a "God Pleaser". He was a man of "Faith". And we find out some more info about what happened to him. He was "translated". The reason for his translation was so that "He should not see death;".

I am not sure about you, but this does not really satisfy this mystery for me. What do these things mean? Most of my Christian life I have heard preachers and other Christians declare that this means that Enoch never died.

Is that true?

Did enoch escape death by this transaltion? This is what I used to beleive. But as I read my bible, I continue in the passage of Hebrews 11 and the passage goes on to tell of the faith of Noah (v 7), the Faith of Abraham (v 8-10), the Faith of Sarah (v 11). Then in verse 13 it summarizes the faith of all these in chapter 11 up to that point.

"THESE ALL DIED in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the Earth."

Notice that the scripture declares...(it does not hint, or allude to, or intimate, it DECLARES)..."THESE ALL DIED...". Now the language of Enochs demise, disappearance, departure seems to be cryptic and open for interpretation. Should we not allow the clear declaration of "THESE ALL DIED..." be the difinitive settling text as to the end of Enoch. I believe the bible teaches that Enoch died as all men die. This is a new paradigm for the way I used to look at this character.

Not sure if any of you are ready for this kind of re-thinking, but please let me know where I have made a mistake in the interpretation of this passage. If Enoch did not die, point me to the clear text that says he did not die.

I welcome your comments and explanations.

For many folks, a conclusion is simply
the place where they got tired of thinking.

THE PARADIGM OF THE BEMA

Here is one of those "Paradigm" issues. I have been taught that Christians will gain or lose reward at the "Bema" for years. But when I endeavored to do an independent study I could not validate what I have heard from the pulpit, so I have changed my position and I think the bible gets more and more clear the more we allow the New Covenant to determine our frame of reference for our interpretation. I invite your comments both pro and con...

I welcome the Berean and loving discussion of this and any of the issues that come up on this site. Enjoy.

The Bema = The Judgment Seat of Christ

There are two main ways in which erroneous teachings are introduced into Christianity:

A. Non-biblical evidence is used to support the novel concept.
B. The Biblical truth on the subject is suppressed or fragmented.

Dispensationalists have done both with this modern notion of the Bema seat award-judgment. The Biblical information on "Bema" (the Greek word) is suppressed. And appeal is made to non-biblical "evidence" to make the concept seem biblically valid. There is no such thing as the Bema award-judgment, as presented so often today in pulpits, books and web sites of today. There is a Bema judgment, but it is quite different from what is presented to us.

1. DISPENSATIONALISTS DEFINE "BEMA" AS...

"Thus, associated with this word ["bema"] are the ideas of prominence, dignity, authority, honor, and reward rather than the idea of justice and judgment" - Dwight Pentecost

“It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the judgment is unrelated to the problem of sin, that it is more for the bestowing of rewards than the rejection of failure.” - Lewis Sperry Chafer

“Paul was picturing the believer as a competitor in a spiritual contest. As the victorious Grecian athlete appeared before the Bema to receive his perishable award, so the Christian will appear before Christ’s Bema to receive his imperishable award. The judge at the Bema bestowed rewards to the victors. He did not whip the losers.” - Hoyt

"[The "bema"] was a seat or raised platform where a judge sat as he made his decision regarding a case." ..."This word was also used in connection with the platform on which the umpire or referee sat during the Olympic Games or the Isthmian games at Corinth. This was the place where the winners of the various events received their rewards." ...."The apostle Paul seems to have this idea of reward in mind as he speaks of the 'judgment seat of Christ.'" - Paul Benware

The "bema seat judgment" is an "investigative probe into a believer's lifetime of works..." "[E]very Christian must meet God for an investigative judgment of his entire life. This moment will be a time of jubilant victory for some." ... and "a time of weeping for others." "' Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."" - Jack Van Impe

"Judgment Seat of Christ. The place or occasion for the divine evaluation of the faithfulness of Christians' lives resulting in the giving or withholding of rewards (2 Cor. 5:10)." - Paul Enns

Charles Ryrie says of this time of the Bema that "individual believers will be judged for their works done as Christians (1 Co 3:11- 15). Salvation with its assurance of heaven is not in question, only whether heaven will be entered with or without rewards." - Charles Ryrie

Notice these recurring themes in the above definitions:
A. It is for Christians only.
B. It is for rewards (or loss of rewards) only. There is no punishment.
C. It can be illustrated by sporting contests award ceremonies (as opposed to Bible cross-references).
D. The terror or shame involved here is merely that of disobedient or unproductive Christians. Now let us turn to the Bible to see if what the experts above say matches with scripture.

2. THE "BEMA" ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE (WITH COMMENTS)

Occurrences: Matt.27:19, John 19:13, Acts 7:5; Acts 12:21; Acts 18:12, 16, 17; Acts 25:6, 10, 17; Ro.14:10; 2Cor.5:10.

"When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him." (Matt. 27:19)

If the Bema was only a place for rewards, as the Dispensationalists insist, we would expect Pilate to answer back to his wife, "Silly woman, don't you know that I am seated at the Bema? Giving out punishment is the farthest thing from my mind."
But what did Pilate actually do at this Bema?

He released Barabbas - and gave over the Prince of Life to be crucified!
See also the next verse."When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha." (John 19:13)

Hoyt insists that "the judge at the Bema bestowed rewards to the victors. He did not whip the losers.” Tell that to Pilate, Mr. Hoyt. He not only whipped the "Loser", he had Him crucified! Why, oh why, do people blindly follow the experts in defining scriptural terms when the Bible is quite clear in defining many of it's own terms?

The Bema is clearly a place of awesome judgment, and not a mere award ceremony.

"And he gave him no inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on : yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child." (Acts 7:5)

"Set his foot on" is the translation here for "bema", an idiomatic rendering. At any rate, there are no rewards here.

"And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne ["bema"], and made an oration unto them." (Acts 18:12)

"And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat" (Acts 18:12)

"And he drove them from the judgment seat." (Verse 16)

"Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things." (Verse 17)

"And when he had waited among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought." (Acts 25:6)

"Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as you very well know." (Verse 10)

"Therefore, when they came here, without any delay the next day I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth." (Verse 17)

Each one of these "Bema" passages from Acts involves a civil magistrate making a judicial decision, some involving matters of life or death. There are no rewards spoken of here. No Olympic games or any such thing.

Romans 14:10. "But why do you judge you brother? or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."

At first glance this might be used to hold up the modern notion of Christians only being present at the Bema - only you read on to verse 11, and read the cross-references of Isaiah 45:23 and Phil. 2:9- 11. Clearly this is the time when ALL of creation will be present, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father."

Every knee will bow at this Bema. Everyone will be there, Christians as well as every unsaved person. The fact that Romans 14:15 connects the Bema with Phil. 2:9- 11 makes this absolutely certain. Who do we believe then, the inspired Apostle Paul or these modern writers and their imagined scenario of athletic awards? Shouldn't the biblical evidence be given first consideration?

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad." (2nd Cor. 5:10.) Once again, this is a convocation of everyone who exists or has existed, saved and unsaved. Don't take my word for it. Read the verse in context and you will see, if you are willing to let the Word explain itself, that the passage speaks of Christians as well as unsaved.

3. THE BEMA IS THE GREAT WHITE THRONE.

Part of the method of faulty expositors of the Word of God is to assign non-cooperating puzzle pieces to another part of the puzzle. This is what is done with the Great White Throne Judgment. Does it make sense to you that something as awesome as this would only be mentioned once in scripture?

No. In fact it is mentioned several times in scripture. Many of these other occurrences were covered earlier in this article. We should allow the Bible to use different terms for the same concept. For instance, in Revelation there is no mention of "justification", "sanctification", etc.

Yet we do read of the ones whose "robes are washed in the blood of the lamb", of the "over comers" and of those who "follow the Lamb wherever He goes". It is the same with the Bema (Judgment Seat of Christ) and the Great White Throne. The latter is a poetical, symbolic description in a poetical, symbolic book.

4. EVERYONE GETS REWARDS AT THE BEMA, BUT....

Jesus promised (Rev. 22:12) "I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to everyone according to his work." Everyone will get rewards. But look at the wider context (verses 11- 15 The unsaved will get their reward - judgment and eternal doom!).

Consider these verses:"

And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time." (2nd Peter 2:13)

"Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core." (Jude 11)

"Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she has filled fill to her double." (Rev. 18:6)

5. RETHINKING THE BEMA

It is certainly hard to unlearn something we have been taught. The idea of being rewarded for our righteous acts (works, actually) goes contrary to the Gospel itself.

If it is not right that any flesh glories before God, how is it possible that we should be rewarded over against other Christians for accomplishments that we have no right to claim credit for? Or do we not believe that it is Christ who works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure? (Phil. 2) And why would He reward us for something that was really His doing?
How can we expect rewards for our obedience, seeing that even if we obey perfectly in everything we are still unprofitable servants? (Luke 17:10)

The modern notion of the Bema award-judgment is a concept that is foreign to Scripture. It is foreign to the Biblical use of the word. And it is foreign to the Biblical definition of the Gospel and to what we know of God.

For many folks, a conclusion is simply
the place where they got tired of thinking.

ANSWERS TO SABBATH QUESTIONS

ADDED TO ON 4-18-08

Friends and Fellow Bereans...

Questions And Answers on the Sabbath:

For many folks, a conclusion is simply
the place where they got tired of thinking.

--Was the Sabbath a creation ordinance?

ANSWER: Genesis 2:1-3 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 3, And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3, And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

Here in this passage we have the record of GOD resting on the seventh day. Not a word is said of Adam or Eve resting. Nothing is said of God commanding Adam and Eve to rest on this or any other day. This passage will help with the answers to several questions below.

--Did God give the Sabbath as a command in Genesis 1-3? If so, where is it stated?

ANSWER: No God gave no command in Genesis 1-3 regarding the Sabbath. If he did it is not stated or recorded anywhere in the text. An argument from silence will not suffice, we must be careful about reading what the word of God does not say.

--Is there any evidence of anyone from Adam to Noah keeping Sabbath?

ANSWER: No, there is no evidence of anyone in the book of Genesis from Adam to Noah ever keeping the seventh day Sabbath.

--Is there any indication that any of the patriarchs Abraham to Joseph in the book of Genesis ever kept Sabbath?

ANSWER: No, there is no indication that any of the patriarcsh in the book of Genesis ever kept the Sabbath.

--Is the Sabbath even mentioned in the book of Genesis?

ANSWER: No, the sabbath is not once mentioned in the book of Genesis.

--Where is the first mention of the giving of the Sabbath commandment? Is there a record of this?

ANSWER: The first mention of the Sabbath as a command is in Exodus 20 at Mount Sinai.

Nehemiah 9:13-14
Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:

And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

--What did the Sabbath Commandment actually command?

ANSWER: In the only two accounts of the Sabbath command given in the law, we are told that the Sabbath commmanded to "do no work"> This is the only requirement of the Sabbath. It can be phrased in the positive "to Rest", or in the negative, "Do no work". But bottom line, the only requirement is to refrain from work on the Sabbath; the seventh day; Saturday.

Exodus 20:8-10
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Deuteronomy 5:14
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

--Was there ever a command to worship on the Sabbath? If so; where is that found in the scripture?

ANSWER: No there is not a single reference in the law to indicate that the Sabbath was a day of worship. The only references indicate that it is a day of rest and no work. You were not to leave your home on the Sabbath. You would be stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. No Jew was ever commanded to go to public worship on the Sabbath.

However, there were feast days which were set apart as worship, these days were to be treated as Sabbath days even if they did not fall on a Saturday, this is a different type of Sabbath, it is not the 7th day Sabbath commanded in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy.

--Was the Sabbath 4th commandment a moral or ceremonial commandment?

ANSWER: With any given covenant there are given covenental "Signs" and "Seals". The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was the circumcision of every male child. To violate this covenental sign was to incur the wrath of God and bring on the death penalty. There is nothing moral about the signs of the covenants, they are signs that represent covenants but they are not moral, they are ceremonial. The sign of the New Covenant is the Lord's supper. Paul in Corinthians declares that some who ate of this covenental sign ceremony, unworthily were put to sleep...death. The sign of a covenant carries the death penalty. So too the seventh day Sabbath; this is a sign of the entire covenant that God made on Mount Sinai with Israel and it bore the death penalty for violation of that sign. It is much lile a wedding ring; if a man were to walk into his house and throw his wedding ring across the room at his wife and then walk out of the house, that man has violated the wedding covenant by treating the sign of that covenant with such disdain. This is why the man who merely picked up sticks on the Sabbath was put to death. Was it immoral to pick up sticks? Not at all. It was though, a criminal act that showed disdain for God's covenant, and it brought the death penalty. Since the Sabbath was a "Sign" of the MOsaic (Old) covenant it was set aside for all those under that covenant. When the old covenant was replace by the New Covenant, the sign was no longer a valid sign of an active covenant. Below you will find passages declaring the Sabbath to be a sign.

Exodus 31:13
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

Exodus 31:16-17
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

It is interesting to note that the 4th command was placed directly in the middle of the covenant that God made with Israel. The ten commandments, written on stone are the covenant, and the Sabbath is directly in the middle of it.

Exodus 34:27-28
And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

--Was the Sabbath ever given to anyone outside of Israel? If so, where is this recorded in scripture?

ANSWER: No, the Sabbath was not given to anyone outside of the Mosaic covenant made with the nation of Israel. There is no verse anywhere in scripture that even hints of the command being given to anyone outside of the covenant. Even Nehemiah when he scolded the Jews for buying and selling on the Sabbath, he never said one word to the gentile traders who were also buying and selling outside of the walls of Jerusalem.

--Is there a difference between the seventh day Sabbath and the yearly Sabbath, and the Sabbath of Jubilee every 50th year?

ANSWER: I see the only difference is the duration of the cermony. It was for the neglect of the yearly Sabbaths that Israel went into captivity in Babylon. All three have the same theme, "Rest-No Work". The year of Jubilee is particualarly poignant in its typification of Christ and the setting at Liberty that he accomplished. We have been set free. We can now rest in Chrst. As pictures of Christ each of the Sabbaths pushed the Old Covenant saints toward the New Covenant of "Rest (In Christ), No Work". There is no work to be done in the New Covenant, Jesus himself said he came to work the works fo the Father, and he declared His work to be FINISHED on the cross. We in the New Covenant can add nothing to that finished work...we are to REST!

--If there is a difference, why are they both enforced with the death penalty?

ANSWER: I believe that they carried the death penalty because the were pictures of Gods rest in the New covenant salvation and to work or to violate any of the Sabbaths was to violate the type that was being shown forth.

--Is there a difference between the seventh day Sabbath and the ceremonial Sabbath days associated with the feasts of Leviticus 23?

ANSWER: No difference except that the feasts were linked to them and to do any servile work on those feast days would incur the death penalty because again, they were instituted to proclaim Christ in elemental form to the Nation of Israel. God seems to be very jealous of guarding the types of the New Covenant in the Old.

--Did Jesus actually break the 4th commandment of “rest, no work”?

ANSWER: If the commandment was to rest and not work, then yes he broke the commandment. Many people say that he only broke the stipulations found in the expanded and legalistic pharisaic code. If this was the case, then why did Jesus not take the Pharisee's to task on their adding to God's command. No he did not do this. Also if he was not actually breaking this commandment, then why did he not defend himself and his disciples from this false charge. No if you read the answer Jesus gives, he does not defend, nor does he tell the pharisees that their interpretation was wrong. What he does is amazing. He claims that HE is Lord of the Sabbath. And just as David allowed his men to eat of the shewbread reserved ONLY for the high priests, so too Jesus a GREATER than David has come and his disciples can do anything he allows. He also references the High Priests of the old covenant and makes the application that these priests VIOLATED (profaned) the Sabbath by lifting the bulls onto the altar. This was truly work, and they did it on the Sabbath. Again, a greater than the High Priest has come. I believe that what Jesus is telling the Pharisees is this. You know that David and the High Priest of old violated ceremonial law and they were not held accountable because David was the King, the Priests were in a position of authority and those positions of authority made it necessary that they not be held to account for this for the greater good. Jesus is the Messiah, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lord's and he is LORD of the Sabbath. He cannot be held to answer for this. If he were guilty he would have defended himself...THe bottom line is that a Greater than David, aGreater than the old Covenant High Priest, a Greater than the Sabbath has come. Jesus is greater than the Sabbath, he fulfilled the Sabbath, he reigns as the New Covenant High Priest and King and cannot be called to account for the old shadow that was the Old Covenant Sabbath.

--Did his disciples break that command by harvesting grain on the Sabbath?

ANSWER: See the answer above. As disciples of the Lord of the New Covenant, they would not be held to account for this Old Covenant sign.

--If Jesus and his disciples did not break the 4th commandment, then why did Jesus never defend himself or his disciples from that accusation?

ANSWER: See previous two answers.

--What is the significance of Jesus referring to the High Priest and to King David in his defense of the accusation of Sabbath breaking?

ANSWER: See previous.

--Why did Jesus; instead of defending himself and his disciples, seem to justify the breaking of the Sabbath by himself and his disciples?

ANSWER: See Previous.

--Was the Sabbath ever given to anyone outside of Israel?

ANSWER: NO, There is no text of scripture that shows God giving to any gentile nation or group the Sabbath command. There is no instance in any text of Scripture where God condemns any gentile nation or group for violation of the Sabbath. There is no mention of Sabbath breaking in ANY of the New Testament lists of sins.

--Where in the New Testament can we find apostolic authority for changing the day of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?

ANSWER: No where. There is no evidence in the New Testament of any apostolic word that gave the authority to change the old Covenant Seventh Day Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

--Why is the only reference to Sabbath in the New Testament only speak of Sabbaths plural; as in seventh day Sabbaths, seventh year Sabbaths and jubilee Sabbaths?

ANSWER: Because all old covenant Sabbaths were the same.

--Why is it that this solitary reference to the Sabbath in all the epistles is not supportive of perpetuating the Sabbath in the New Covenant, but is discouraging its perpetuation and seems to be telling us not to condemn people in respect to those practices?

ANSWER: Because in the writing of the New Testament scriptures the old covenant was in the process of passing away, and the New Covenant was coming to light. As the New was ever more evident, so too the Old Covenant with its sacrifice, its priesthood, its temple its nationhood, its law,and its Sabbath were all in the process of passing way once forall forever. The shadows of the old were passing as the reality of the new was being made manifest.

--Why is it that we hear much in the epistles by way of argument and dispute over the circumcision from the judiazers, but not one word of protest over a supposed change in the Holy Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?

ANSWER: Because the Apostles never tried to change the Old Covenant Sabbath as they proclaimed that it was passing away, not being changed.

Please feel free to post your own answers and/or comments.

Any comments, corrections, critiques, condemnations and criticism are welcome.

Happy studying!

MT PRINCETON

One of my favorite sites is http://www.mtprinceton.org/ It is a site that chronicles the God given beauty of Mt Princeton here in Colorado near Buena Vista. I do not know the gentleman who operates this site, but he has some wonderful photos of Mount Princeton. Another connection is that I am from New Jersey and the mountain is named after the former college of New Jersey, now called Princeton University.

Enjoy the photos.

For many folks, a conclusion is simply
the place where they got tired of thinking.

THE BODY 2 CORINTHIANS 5:10

In a discussion on 2 Corinthians 5:10 with a friend, I suggest to him a paradigm shift that I thought would give him additional insight. The passage speaks about “be(ing) recompensed for his deeds in the BODY…” May I suggest that here, Paul is using figurative language in his use of the term “BODY”. We read in Jude of the angel Gabriel disputing with the Devil over the “BODY” of Moses. I believe what is being referred to; is the BODY of Mosaic Law, the Old Covenant (OC). This OC was in its last throes of death and was at the time of the writing of the New Testament, “passing away”. This OC BODY of law was a trap to those trying to live in the New Covenant (NC). I believe Paul was trying to teach that if we continue to labor in the BODY of law that is the OC, we will fall into judgment since the “BODY” of Christ is the only place to be to avoid judgment. There are many places in the New Testament where the context of Paul’s teaching on the BODY fits this paradigm.

We have been translated from the BODY of Moses into the BODY of Christ. Other references you may like to check out are Romans 7. Here Paul is struggling with those things he does in the BODY (OC) and those done outside the BODY (NC). He concludes by saying “Who shall deliver me from this BODY of death (the BODY of OC law which was death to all who did not keep it perfectly). If you look at the context of 2 Corinthians 5, you will see going back to chapter 3 that Paul is arguing for the replacement of the OC with the NC. When he begins chapter 5 he speaks of the tent folding. I believe that this tent is a reference to the temple worship of the OC that was finally and completely terminated in 70 A.D when the Roman General Titus destroyed it and all vestiges of the Hebrew religion. Paul’s whole approach throughout the epistles is to help people struggling with the life in the OC to forsake that old way and come fully into the NC. He argues this almost the entire letter of Galatians, and concludes by saying (allegorically) “cast out the bondwomen and her son”, (the OC law). As well, I believe that the contrast in Gal chapter 5 between Spirit and Flesh is a contrast between living in the BODY of OC law and living in the BODY of Christ in the NC by way of the Spirit. In Acts we see that even Paul was not immune to this struggle of coming out from under the BODY of Moses and coming completely into the BODY of Christ: we read of him making a Nazarite vow, shaving his head and offering his hair at the temple in Jerusalem. Paul is never praised for this and he never makes reference to it again (as if he were shamed by his lack of faith in offering an OC sacrifice).

Perhaps you do not see things as I have outlined them, but let my comments be to you…an encouragement to study even deeper for yourself. Do a study on the BODY of Moses and the BODY of Christ. Look at how the BODY is used figuratively in the New Testament.

Luke 17:37 “and they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, where ever the BODY is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.” The context of Luke 17 is the judgment of Israel and the OC.

I believe the context of most passages will give the hints as to how to see the word BODY. I do not believe it is to be taken figuratively every time it is used. but I do believe that the context will guide us.

I believe that the BODY of OC law is what is in danger of judgment and is the BODY of Mosaic Law that has been judged. It is not a universal judgment that is being spoken of. It is a limited judgment; limited to that which is refusing to come out of the BODY of the OC, and that which refuses to be united with the BODY of Christ.

Just a few thoughts to chew on…let me know what you think, and or what you discover in your own study.

Here are a few New Testament passages where I feel the term “BODY” is being used figuratively. If you don’t agree, that’s fine. But take a look at the context of these and see if it may not fit. There are many more, but I feel I have given enough to make the point.

Any comments, corrections, critiques, condemnations and criticism are welcome.

Happy studying, and keep in touch.

Grace in abundance to you.

For many folks, a conclusion is simply the place where they got tired of thinking.

John 2:21

But he spake of the temple of his body.

Romans 6:6

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Romans 7:4

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Romans 7:24

O’ wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Romans 8:10

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Romans 8:13

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Romans 12:4 & 5, 4

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one member’s one of another.

1 Cor 5:3

For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed

1 Cor 10:16

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Cor 10:17

For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1 Cor 12:13

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Cor 15:44

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

2 Cor 5:6

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord

2 Cor 5:8

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

2 Cor 12:2

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

2 Cor 12:3

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth).

Ephesians 2:16

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Ephesians 3:6

That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel

Ephesians 4:4

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling

Col 1:24

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church

Jude 9

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

THE RAVENS’ CRY—C. H. Spurgeon

I post this quote from C.H. Spurgeon for those who may need prayer. Those for whom I am already praying. We cannot do wrong in prayer for those we love, and for those things in life that are so dear to us.

The Ravens’ Cry—C. H. Spurgeon

He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry. Psalm 147:9

Never a sinner prays truly without Christ praying at the same time. You cannot see nor hear him, but never does Jesus stir the depths of your soul by his Spirit without his soul being stirred too. O sinner! Your prayer when it comes before God is a very different thing from what it is when it issues forth from you. Sometimes poor people come to us with petitions which they wish to send to some company or great personage. They bring the petition and ask us to have it presented for them. It is very badly spelt, very strangely written, and we can but just make out what they mean; but still there is enough to let us know what they want. First of all we make out a fair copy for them, and then, having stated their case, we put our own name at the bottom, and if we have any interest, of course they get what they desire through the power of the name signed at the foot of the petition. This is just what the Lord Jesus Christ does with our poor prayers. He makes a fair copy of them, stamps them with the seal of his own atoning blood, puts his own name at the foot, and thus they go up to God's throne. It is your prayer, but it is his prayer too, and it is the fact of its being his prayer that makes it prevail. Now, this is a sledgehammer argument: if the ravens prevail when they cry all alone, if their poor chattering brings them what they want of themselves, how much more shall the plaintive petitions of the poor trembling sinner prevail who can say, ‘For Jesus’ sake,’ and who can clench all his own arguments with the blessed plea, ‘The Lord Jesus Christ deserves it; 0 Lord, give it to me for his sake.’ For meditation: To say ‘For Jesus’ sake’ or ‘In Jesus’ name’ at the end of prayer is not supposed to be regarded as the done thing or as a magic formula. It is a humble confession that we do not deserve an audience with God, but a confident profession of faith in the only one who does (John 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24).

C.H. Spurgeon, Sermon No. 672, January 14th, 1866

A CAVEAT

A quote from one of my favorite hymn writers.

A CAVEAT AGAINST UNSOUND DOCTRINES


He goes on to style the blessed Jesus our hope.
Ask almost any man, "Whether he hopes to be saved eternally?"
He will answer in the affirmative. But enquire again,
"On what foundation he rests his hope?" Here too many are sadly divided.
The Pelagian hopes to get to heaven by a moral life and a good
use of his natural powers. The Arminian by a jumble of grace and
free-will, human works, and the merits of Christ.
The Deist by an interested observance of the social virtues.
Thus merit-mongers, of every denomination, agree in making
any thing the basis of their hope, rather than that foundation
which God's own hand hath laid in Zion. But what saith Scripture?
It avers, again and again, that Jesus alone is our hope: to the
exclusion of all others, and to the utter annihilation of human
deservings. Beware, therefore, of resting your dependence partly
on Christ, and partly on some other basis. As surely as you bottom
your reliance partly on the rock, and partly on the sand;
so certainly, unless God give you an immediate repentance to
your acknowledgment of the truth, will your supposed house of
defence fall and bury you in its ruins, no less than if you had
raised it on the sand alone. Christ is the hope of glory.

Augustus Montague Toplady - Apri1 29, 1770

THE FINISHED PRODUCT

The Finished Product!


The final product is in place and in use. I need to rearrange the shelves a bit, but overall I am pretty happy with it.


I think now it is time for me to get to work on the wall unit that I designed. I will keep you all posted.

HOW NOT TO BUILD A BOOKSHELF

The original bookshelves and me.







About two years ago I built two bookshelves. In moving to Colorado I had to arrange furniture a little differently. As such I have been meaning to build a companion book shelf for the previous two. Maybe it was the snow contributing to a little cabin fever, maybe I am just tired of bending down to the floor to turn on the radio. Either way, I did get motivated to build. The pictures below are a photo essay of what I did. I am no professional, I am less than a novice when it comes to wood working. But I am having fun, and I think I will enjoy the shelf a little more than if I had bought one.


Here is the raw material that needs to be formed and shaped.

Sanding , Sanding and more sanding

They call me the "Sandman", that's my name.

Exhausting work preparing the wood.

Measure twice, assemble once, or maybe measure three or four times. But the assembly process has begun.

A stand-alone shelf begins to emerge from the sawdust and the sweat.

Hannah plays Vanna. I would like to buy a "Dowell"...O.K. bad joke...let's move on the the trim.

If you do not predrill the holes in the trim you will split the wood.

Trim is on...and yes the mitre cuts were not that hard.

I had to match the trim and the stain from the original shelf...Cross your fingers, I think I did o.k. on the stain, the trim will have to be different, the stores in Texas had a wider variety in stock than here in Colorado.

The top trim of the original shelf. If you notice...the book showing on the shelf is the book I am currently reading...The Biography of Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow. I am really enjoying the story of this great patriot.

Shameless promotion and consumerism, product placement.

Let the staining begin.

The first coat is on...next coat I am wearing rubber gloves...my hands match the shelf.

2nd coat of stain. Did I mention that it is a "Pecan" stain. It is looking very nice, but after moving it upstairs next to the two original shelves, I decided a third coat would be needed. So after the third coat has cured, I will move it into place tomorrow and I will put a finished product photo on the blog. Thanks for bearing with me in this project. Come back tomorrow.

CONTEXTUALIZATION

The Seven Deadly Sins have been rewritten by the almighty Catholic Church.
We spoke in Sunday School last week about "Contextualization": Adapting the gospel to the world around us to appease the world to the point that the gospel is not even recognized.

As I read these new Seven Deadly sins, I noticed that they are eerily similar to the planks in the socialist platform. I do think they left out one obvious deadly sin..."Voting Republican".

It appears that they went from a sin oriented list to a social gospel...or should I say a "Socialist" gospel. Strange how the Roman Catholic Church left out child sexual abuse by the clergy. Seems that they would have added that one seeing that it cost them over 600 Million dollars in law suit settlements just in the United States alone. Strange indeed.


The seven social sins

1-- Environmental pollution

2-- Genetic manipulation

3-- Excessive wealth

4-- Inflicting poverty

5-- Drug trafficking and abuse

6-- Morally debatable experiments

7-- Violation of the fundamental rights of human nature


The seven deadly sins

1-- Pride

2-- Envy

3-- Gluttony

4-- Lust

5-- Anger

6-- Greed

7-- Sloth

LONDON CONFESSION OF FAITH ARTICLES VI & VII

Having lapsed into inactivity I renew my posting with a continuation of a discussion or at least a declaring of the London Confession of Faith of 1644. These two posts boil down to the clear teaching that Salvation is of God. See article VII where it states that the performance of the duties attached with this salvation is not by way of the inventions of men, opinions, devices, etc. This is the bane of modern Christianity, the fact that mens inventions, opinions, and devices have so invaded and defined the church. This is clearly addressed in this confession. Think about that...send me your comments about that.

Jeff

VI.

(1) This therefore is life eternal, to know the only true God, and whom He has sent Jesus Christ. John 17:3; Heb. 5:9; Jer. 23:5, 6

(2) And on the contrary, the Lord will render vengeance in flaming fire to them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Thes. 1:8; John 3:36

VII.

The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures. John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Col. 21:18, 23; Mat. 15:9

CONSERVATISM OR COMPROMISE

What does a conservative beleiver do when the political party he has supported for over 28 years turn around and nominate a liberal politician to represent them? Well, this conservative finds a new political home. The Republicans are prepared to nominate John McCain. (nothing is garunteed yet) but the establishment is getting behind McCain in a big way. This is the same John McCain that was considering running as John Kerry's Vice Presidential runninng mate. This is the same John McCain who stands for open borders, limiting political speech by way of "McCain Feingold campaign finance reform". This is the same John McCain who stnds with liberals such as Ted Kennedy on the largest forced monopoly in the history of our nation, The federal department of education (Indoctrination). If I had time to talk through the issues I could give you conservative principles that make me reject Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee as well. So where does this conservative find this new home? It is called the Constitution Party. Basically they (we) believe that all powers outlined in the constitution given to the federal government is all they get. THe enumerated powers are the law of the land, and they were designed by the founding fathers to LIMIT the fedaral government, not expand it. I add to this posting the "Preamble" to the platform of the Constitution Party. Please read it thoughtfully and then click on the link above to go the the Constitution Party web site and read more and see if this is not the new home of conservatism.


Preamble
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of the United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights;
That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights; and
That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.
[To top of page]



Sanctity of Life
The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation's Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government - legislative, executive, and judicial.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.

Further, we condemn the misuse of federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the FACE Acts as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas reserved to the states or people by the Tenth Amendment.

In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.

Finally, we also oppose all government "legalization" of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide.