Come and Eat !

I fixed lunch for my daughter and her boyfriend when they visited the other day. I'm not a great cook by any means: but I have a few things I do well. I take great pleasure in preparing food my family likes. And I know that going to the work of preparing food well will be rewarded in the best possible way: by my guests eating and enjoying it.

I get that from my mother. The food she made for us was a manifestation of love, and what she most wanted was for us to eat it, and enjoy it.

The thought occurred that the work I put into studying scripture for Sunday School is the same kind of thing. I ask for the Spirit's light, and study hard, so that my comments will be the Spirit's Own words, giving life to those who receive them. Jesus drew that parallel when He countered satan's tempting Him with food by quoting scripture, that the real bread is "...every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

But Sunday School is different than my kitchen. I can't help noticing that not many will receive what I'm glad to prepare and offer them. LOL.

We're currently studying I John. The apostle, from his first words, emphasizes the experiential manifestation of Christ. He presents himself as one who saw, heard and touched the incarnate "Word of Life...manifested to us." He tells us again and again that our God is as manifest in this world as light: and that "...the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious..." as well, by the spirit they manifest.

But the response in Sunday School when I noted that was to the effect, "That's not my experience. I've been deceived by people many times."

I wasn't even sure how to respond, except to say, yes, I've been deceived by people too. Maybe I should have responded that being deceived is a manifestation of not heeding the Spirit...which it is, and which we're all guilty of at times. But what hit me at that moment was that the class' response seemed to argue that scripture is wrong: the children of God and the children of the devil are not obvious.

Musing on it since, I've been reinforced in the long-held belief that we can only be accountable for the quality of what we put out...whether it's food, or scriptural insights. Whether it's received or not received is the choice of those to whom we offer it.

It's very gratifying if what we offer is received with joy: as John writes, it makes our joy complete. But food is only fully enjoyed by those who are hungry. When people turn up their noses at food they're offered, and say it's not to their tastes...they're not really hungry.

God, PLEASE give me Your grace to be always HUNGRY for Your Word !

Love of Truth and Partisanship

"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness." II Thessalonians 2:7-12


“Love of the Truth” requires we accept that “Truth” exists as objective reality. For us, by His Own Self-definition in John 14:6, that Reality is the Person of Jesus Christ. As objective reality, Truth is sovereign and impartial, the same for all, against Whom all alike are measured. It's one regard in which I understand Jesus to be effectually "Lord of all."

Brother Tim, in one of his "Onesimus Files" blog-posts, speaks of cessationists' “goalpost-moving” in their use of historical evidence which doesn't fit their theory. It's a common evasive tactic of controversialists when one of their untruths is shown to be incongruent with reality/truth.

But if Truth is objective, impartial and (ESPECIALLY) sovereign, it is IMmovable. When regarded as anything less than that, "truth" is whatever we may individually deem it to be, and can be manipulated to OUR purposes. Every man can then do what is right/truth in his own eyes (Deuteronomy 12:8; Judges 17:6 and 21:25). The problem is that God characterizes that as the way of fools (Proverbs 12:15 and 21:2).

It’s also what we'd call “relativism:” which Christians have rightly been taught to reject as part of the false "spirit of the world." And so it is: even when used by Christians. The formula I've heard from fellow "Christians" (discussing scripture !!) is the evasive “Well, you have your truth, and I have mine."

It’s one reason, I think, that “factions” (Greek “heresia”) is listed in Galatians 5:20 as a “work of the flesh.” A faction is by definition a group gathered around it’s OWN proprietary “truth:" the assertion and defense of which gives rise to the “…enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions” also listed in that verse as works of the flesh.

It seems a good description of politics in present-day America (and other nations as well, I’m sure). Through politics, factional partisanship has become a notable mindset of Christians who’ve chosen to deeply involved themselves in the world’s kingdom and its thoughts-contrary-to-God’s. Through politics, Christians' minds have been turned from "love of the truth:" at least as He truly IS, objective, impartial, and sovereign: Jesus.

Scripture's promise is that people in such a mind...even those who call themselves "Christians"...will not be saved. Nor is that the end of it. We have the further promise that "...God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false..." (my emphasis). God Himself will act to ensure they believe falsehood !

These are the scariest words in the Bible. If GOD sets Himself to make a person believe lies, that person WILL believe lies.

I pray fiercely that God set His intent on me for "love of Truth" !!

Spiritual Warfare 101

I. Battlefield Orientation

A. Identify the Enemy

1. Jesus said He IS The Truth: John 14:6

2. Jesus said satan is the father of lies: John 8:45


B. Confirm Identification

1. The Spirit is The Truth: I John 5:6

2. No lie is of The Truth: I John 2:21

3. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error: I John 4:6



II. Battlefield Operations

A. Know your weapon

The sword of the Spirit is the word of God: Ephesians 6:17


A. Follow your commander

The Spirit of Truth will guide you into all the truth: John 16:13

What's Wrong With This Picture ?

God delegates His Authority to human government with a moral mandate: that it be "...a minister of God to you for good..." (Romans 13:4).

American Christians today are fierce partisans of a political faction whose agenda includes


contempt for the poor;

more armed people with attitude on our streets;

restricting the right to vote;

low wages for the working-poor;

less affordable health-care for all.



As a simple moral judgement, how is that faction's agenda good towards people ?


What's wrong with this picture of American Christianity ?

My Opinion

The Greek of the New Testament seems to distinguish two kinds of opinion.

The first word translated as "opinion" is dialogismos in Romans 14:1. It's the word from which we get "dialogue;" as Strong's says, it denotes man's internal " '...back-and-forth reasoning' – reasoning that is self-based and therefore confused..." The word is more often interpreted in the New Testament as "reasonings;" but also "thoughts," "motives," "speculations," "doubts," "dissensions." It's frequently used of the teachers of the law who posed hostile questions to Jesus about His teachings.

(And indeed, His listeners were amazed that Jesus' teaching had none of this kind of opinion..."for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Mark 1:22; also Matthew 7:29 and Luke 4:32. The near-contemporaneous Mishnah, first part of the Talmud, exemplifies the teachings of the scribes: "Rabbi Akiva taught...on the other hand, Reb Meir said..." Jesus taught no such human "reasonings:" and when the One Who IS "the Truth" affirmed Truth, His authority was manifest to His listeners.)

The second word translated as "opinion" is gnómé, in I Corinthians 7: 25 and 40, and II Corinthians 8:10. It is the usual Greek word for "to know:" as Strong's says, "...a personal opinion or judgment formed in (by) an active relationship, the result of direct ('first-hand') knowledge." The most frequent interpretation of the word is "judgement:" but it's also translated as "decision," "counsel," "view," "purpose."

As used in Romans, we are told to accept weak believers, but not for the purpose of judging their "opinions/reasonings." In the I and II Corinthians passages, Paul gives his "opinion/judgement" on marriage, and on making a collection for the saints.

The New Testament view of "opinion" is very much as we use the word today: that it's a (wo)man's personal view, from internal reasonings and personal experience. In view of Isaiah 55:8-9, opinion has to be deeply mistrusted, as man's thoughts rather than God's. But by Paul's usage (though "judgement" seems a better translation of the word he uses), we have to allow that "opinion," when one's personal thoughts have been transformed by personal experience of God, may be worth taking into account.

It's noteworthy, however, that in all his uses of "opinion" when writing to the Corinthian Church, Paul draws an explicit line. He makes a clear demarcation of "my judgement" (my emphasis), and goes so far as to remind readers that his "judgement" is "no command of the Lord."

With that scriptural understanding of "opinion:" what God tells us about "opinion:" I give my opinion, from personal experience. Sunday School is usually a place people go to spout their differing fleshly "reasonings." "Bible studies" likewise. To that extent, neither edifies the spirit of believers, or builds up the Church.

Keeping It Light

"This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." -- I John 1:5


Meditating today on the first chapter of First John, this verse hit me: that God's first creation was light...revealing and giving Himself to creation, before creation even existed.

The verse also called to mind a recent comment on "Following Judah's Lion" by brother Rick Frueh: "Instead of seeing a remarkable light, the fallen culture sees its own shadow in the church."

Thinking Straight About Everything

It's truly said that everybody has a theology. Even atheists have "ideas about God" that they operate on. Indeed, they, like Satan, are created beings in rebellion against God...which makes Him as much the Center of their lives as He IS for the most-dedicated believer.

It's also true that we all have our beliefs about human beings.

Those two belief-systems, I think, are where we get all our thinking right: or, it seems more often, wrong.

My beloved brother Tim, in his "Onesimus Files" blog, has been writing about many aspects of the "cessationist" controversy, newly stirred up by John MacArthur's anti-charismata "Strange Fire" book and conference. In reading and musing on his posts, it seems clear to me that MacArthur and his followers base their beliefs in basic false ideas of God, and of man:

that God may withdraw His "charismata and calling," as Romans 11:29 specifically says He does not;

that when men do not receive God's grace (and "charismata" denotes "manifestations of grace," charis), it is God's fault.

All false ideas come from some error-of-concept in our thinking about God, or about man. But it's hard to think of a false idea so deeply grounded in both kinds of error as "cessationism" is.

Sin and Sinner

The rule-of-thumb we always hear seems a good one: "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." I'd take that as the governing attitude of Christian practice: possibly even an absolute for Christians' relationship to other people.

I've been musing on a related question: not our relationship to a sinner, but a sinner's relationship to his sin. Wondering especially if sin and sinner can always be regarded as discrete entities.

This wisdom of God's power in free will being as sovereign as He IS, I'd hesitate to say that any human being...even a Nero or Hitler...is ever completely unable to turn away from, and separate himself from, his sin. I'm convinced deathbed conversions do happen.

At the same time, we know that anyone who devotes his life completely to a sin has so ingrained it in his being, in all his patterns of thought and behavior, that it is almost impossible for him to think of, much less act, any other kind of life. The fact that a rare few do is only by the mercy of God...Who rules over near-, as well as absolute, impossibilities.

But there does seem to be a line that can be crossed. Scripture is very clear, for example, that God hates pride...a sin. At the same time, scripture denotes some people as "the proud:" as if their behavior (and it's always a matter of what people do) so manifests pride that the sin virtually becomes the identity of the sinner.

It's a frightening fact of the freedom of free will. As C. S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce, "All that are in Hell, choose it." I see that frightening freedom as well in what II Thessalonians 2:10b says of those who follow the end-time's man of lawlessness, calling them "...those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved." Love of truth can be received: it can also be rejected.

That verse sends me back again to the matter of identity. When I read in scripture the words "the truth," I have to understand it as meaning "Jesus:" since He so identified Himself. Here, then, those who perish, perish because they choose not to receive the love of Jesus' Person. By His "I AM...The Truth," He claims that "The Truth" is His identity.

The enemy in this passage also has an identity, "the man of lawlessness;" as if so completely of that character that it is the sum of who he is. That identity makes sense in this context: lawlessness is rebelliousness, and satan has constituted himself the great cosmic rebel against God's authority and rule. Who else could the end-time's deceiver be ?

We all sin, and have sins to our (dis-)credit. But I think most of us can ask God forgive our sins with the wise words a friend of mine prays: "Father, please forgive me my sin. You know my heart, and you know that's not me." (my emphasis) We pray as if we fear so identifying with our sin that it becomes our very being.

Where Are the Disciples ?

Re-reading J. I. Packer's Knowing God, and enjoying again its great practicality. He's not writing theology, Packer is quick to point out. Nor does he intend to feed our curiosity about God, which we too often try to substitute for knowing Him.

Rather, Packer writes commonsense of what it means to know God, and how a man can know Him.

"Practicality" and "commonsense" are the tip off. Knowing God is an action; and not a reflex-action. Knowing God is the choice of a free will...which God has given us in preparation.

Choice has been looming larger and larger in my thinking of late. It seems more and more that everything is, particularly in our spiritual being. It rings true for me, as C.S. Lewis said, that everyone in hell, chooses it. Even moreso, that all who know God, choose to.

Choice is a function of directed intentionality. It's a good definition of "discipline."

In language as in life, "disciple" comes from "discipline." A disciple sets his intentions on Jesus. There's no other way to know God.

Christians' "Rights"

The beloved brother Rick Frueh recently posted the following on his "Following Judah's Lion" blog:

“Let the government refuse to allow a nativity scene in front of some government building and Christians complain loudly and clothe themselves in martyrs’ robes. Beside the fact that Christmas is an idol, and beside the fact that not allowing a nativity scene is not persecution… how can people complain, when Jesus Himself said we should rejoice in the face of persecution?

We watch our Savior suffer for us but we are unwilling to receive the slightest disrespect ourselves.”


Thinking through the question many years ago, it seemed that what we call "rights" are quintessentially "entitlements:" treatment we deem we are entitled to. An added benefit of framing "rights" in those terms is that it shocks the Political-Christianity thinking of our nation and time, which despises "entitlements:" in their terminology, government help given to people (they consider) unworthy of mercy, such as the unemployed, poor, disabled, or non-citizens.

Rick's post highlights another aspect of "rights." Inherent in the concept is respect we deem we are entitled to.

In both facts, "rights" are clearly rooted in our self-concept, with accent on "Self." Not a mindset Christians can indulge and still follow Jesus.

And He is the best argument I know against Christians' "rights:" what entitlement did the Suffering Servant claim for Himself ? What respect did He demand that He be accorded ?