Author of The Dark Man, available from Marcher Lord Press

I’ve been asked my opinion on a passage in the book of Hebrews: Chapter 5:11 through Chapter 6:14. Here’s a verse by verse sketch of some quick thoughts on this excellent passage.

“11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn.”

As always, the antecedent of the pronoun this is important. Here, it seems to indicate the teaching of Christ’s priesthood in the order of Melchizedek.

¹²In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!

Unfortunately, some things never change. The elementary truths of God’s word are constantly being obscured, ignored, and railed against, willfully, and through neglect. We tend to view our age as one of great apostasy, which it is, however, the gospel is never in vogue, and requires the faithful work of the Holy Spirit in every generation to uphold it from man’s sinfulness and the wiles of the devil. Here, the author of Hebrews–dare I say Paul–is addressing Hebrew believers and chastising them for their lack of attention to the word of God. How strikingly relevant this is to our own day when we have filled our churches with most everything (politics, sensationalism and experientialism over doctrine and obedience, the health and wealth gospel, and a hundred other things) over the word of God. NOTE: the phrase by this time seems to indicate that the audience is not composed of recent converts.

¹³Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. ¹⁴But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

There are two legs supporting the Christian walk: doctrine and obedience. Both are clearly delineated above, and both are required for Christian maturity. Any either/or proposition with respect to doctrine and obedience is a false dichotomy. The mature Christian has learned the word of God and applied it to her life.

¹Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, ²instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

A clear exhortation to master the elementary teaching of the faith and to progress in faith in Christian maturity. Wouldn’t you think it odd to see a fifteen-year old still in the first grade?

³And God permitting, we will do so.

Let us not forget that God is sovereign over all, an all which includes salvation.

⁴It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, ⁶if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

And so we arrive at the contentious portion of the passage. Most commentaries on this passage are entailed in the following three views:

1. Christians who have actually lost their salvation. 2. Professing Christians whose actions demonstrate they possess a said faith rather than a genuine faith. 3. A hypothetical employed by the author to warn immature Christians that they must move on to maturity or experience divine discipline and judgment.

View number one is refuted by the overwhelming testimony of Scripture. If anyone desires separate treatments of God’s promise, and corresponding ability, to deliver his people to salvation, the perseverance of the saints, and the efficacy of the atonement, let me know. That leaves views two and three. The following two verses appear compatible with both views:

⁷Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. ⁸But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Nevertheless, note the good trees produce good fruit and bad tree produce bad fruit imagery employed elsewhere in the NT. Now, how do we distinguish between the two remaining views? The next verse is the key to the passage:

⁹Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation.

Note the unmistakable hypothetical language: Even though we speak like this. In other words, hypothetically, Christians, who the author of Hebrews is addressing, who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, ⁶if they fall away could be lost. Hypothetically.

Why hypothetically? Read the verse again: It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, ⁶if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

It is impossible for this to occur. It’s a hypothetical construct offered by P…the author of Hebrews to encourage and edify the immature Hebrew Christians he’s writing to. It truly is impossible for those who have tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the Holy Spirit to fall away. God’s given us that promise indubitably in His word. Thus, this passage is a hypothetical, expressed clearly by the phrase even though we speak like this. Praise be to God, Almighty.

After all, it is God who does the saving, not us, thank God. It is our part to participate in our growth in maturity, but even then, all good things come from our Father above. Why else would the author be confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation? View two would make this confidence the hypothetical, a hope on the author’s part and not a confidence. Conversely, view three roots the author’s confidence in the God who saves definitely and assuredly. Hence, we conclude that this passage is in actuality a strong passage supporting the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It is indeed impossible that the saved will fall away, based on God’s promises, His continued work in their lives, and the efficacy of the atonement.

¹⁰God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.

Precisely, and He will not only not forget, He will actively work in the sanctification of his people, a deposit and seal ensuring their salvation. Isn’t that exactly what He’s up to in this passage? Of course, it is.

¹¹We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. ¹²We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

This same diligence to the very end…more evidence that these are saved Christians the author is addressing, not professing Christians only.

¹³When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, ¹⁴saying, “I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.” ¹⁵And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised.

Can God break a promise? Heaven forbid! Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. His very great and precious promises endure from generation to generation…

I’m a proud attendee of the first Westman Bible Conference, held in November of 2009. Westman, as I came to learn, does not indicate devotees of Adam West, rather it’s an abbreviation of West Manitoba, in Canada. It’s easily accessible from Winnipeg, and if you’re of a mind to conjoin a Winter getaway in one of the world’s happiest places with a day spent listening to unadulterated Christian teaching, the WMBC fits the bill. It comes highly recommended by the Areopagus. More on that later as the time approaches. For now, here’s a glimpse at last year’s inaugural WMBC:

Fast Tube by Casper

Those who define everything that exists as the natural haven’t told us anything of significance. I could just as easily define everything as hablabadaba. It would mean the same thing and deliver the same informational content. Customarily, the word natural is invoked to describe a realm of energy, space, time, and matter, and any other conceivable or unknown physical entity, whether it be a part of this universe, or a detached natural realm outside the spatio-temporal universe we inhabit. Anything outside the natural realm, as commonly thought, would be supernatural, preternatural, extranatural, or the like.

But perhaps those who do this are not offering a definition. Instead, maybe they are making a claim about the way things really are, as in nothing exists outside of the natural. Here, however, we receive a check. The closest one could ever approach the soundness of this claim would be to arrive at it inductively, as far as I’m aware. I’d be delighted if someone could demonstrate me wrong. Until that moment, an inductive argument would proceed along these lines:

N: I have never observed anything non-natural, nor have I encountered a compelling argument for anything non-natural.

N2: I have never observed anything non-natural, nor have I encountered a compelling argument for anything non-natural.

N3: I have never observed anything non-natural, nor have I encountered a compelling argument for anything non-natural.

N4-Nx…

Therefore, everything that exists is natural.

Where does this leave our non-omniscient naturalist? In a state of agnosticism, presumably, though many will call it atheism.  We will hope, nevertheless, that our non-omniscient naturalist is aware that at any moment the non-natural could manifest itself, or that upon death the non-natural could be readily apparent in all its non-naturalness. It also leaves her, obviously, in an epistemologically unwarranted state with regard to what I may know or may have experienced of the supernatural. This is for another time, however, with all the flinging about of warrant around the internet recently, I throw it out there for your consideration.

So what? Well, some dislike the natural/supernatural dichotomy, so let’s offer a construct that may satisfy all participants: The natural realm could be part of a larger realm we might call the world. The world would comprise the natural realm, whether it be ours or another, and all other realms not adequately described by the term natural. Examples of the latter might be a realm of abstract objects and perhaps a spirit realm inhabited by God and other spiritual beings. These would not be explained adequately by what we normally think of as natural, that is, energy, matter, space, time and the like. (writer’s note: the phrase energy, matter, space, and time is directly attributable to cl, as far as my employment of the phrase goes)

Now, most people, certainly skeptics, consider what we apprehend with our senses as the real. I have certainly endured some criticism for The Dark Man in which reviewers and readers have been put off by its supposed lack of realism, its dream sequences, and its blurred perception between the real and surreal, or the superreal, as the case may be. This post, in a very real sense, is a precursor to an author’s note I intend to attach to my new novel, which may actually outdo The Dark Man with regard to coloring outside the lines of the real as it is commonly thought.  

In one sense, I agree with most folks, as I do not consider the natural realm mind-dependent, at least not our minds, with regard to its essence. However, I believe ultimately, that what we consider real is going to turn out to be less real than we think, and more real than we want. Here’s what I mean, and for those of you who read TDM (thank you), I hope this sheds some light beneath and around the physical medium of ink and paper the novel is delivered upon, and the story delivered therein, for what I am about to say is really no different…

This is not a polemic on empiricism. After all, we were created in the image of God with senses intended as gates through which reliable data may be transmitted to our minds inside of a physical world. Nevertheless, it is my contention that a strict empiricism does not convey the world as it really is. Merely apprehending the physical world leaves us thinking the natural realm is more than it really is, or, better put, I think, the natural realm is less real than we think it is.

Forgive me, I’ll need to back up a bit first. To say that God exists is, technically, an impossibility. We all use the phrase conventionally, but it’s truly misleading. Take a quick look at the etymology of the word exist: Latin exsistere to come into being, exist, from ex- + sistere to stand, stop; akin to Latin stare to stand (care of Merriam-Webster). To exist means, literally, to stand out of. God does not stand out of anything. He does not rely upon anything to sustain Him; He does not  rely upon anything for His being. To describe God accurately, we should say, simply, He is. He possesses the power of being. His essence is to be. That is the very reason He is called I am that I am. He does not exist, He is.

So then, whatever is truly real must have the power of being. It must not merely exist, but it must be, of its own power and accord. Everything else that exists, and I genuinely mean everything, would subsist under and be sustained by that that possesses the power of being. We too often look at the natural and assume it is the real, but why would we ascribe the power of being to energy, matter, time, or space? In fact, I believe it is much less real than we think it is. There are very good reasons to think that the universe, the natural, exists, and very good reasons to think that it does not have the power of being. These reasons are ubiquitous, and I’ll leave these as homework for your own thoughts, or for future posts for mine, because the point I wish to emphasize is something must be, and that something will be the real. Aim your skepticism at the natural and ask yourself honestly if the natural possesses the power of being. Vanity of vanities…

The real, then, in my view, will be something more real than we want. I say more than we want with our fallen nature in mind. Certainly many want the real to be a purposeful, meaningful, sustaining power, but at what cost? At the dread of constant surveillance? With the notion that the sustaining of all entities lacking the power of being–all entities that exist, mind you–requires an ordering of all events and the entities composing those events? With the notion that the real to be purposeful and meaningful would require the real by its nature to be the grounding of right and wrong, and to issue forth commands in accordance with that nature?

And here we approach the tension between our existence and that which must be. Is there any doubt on Christianity that fallen man desires the real to be less than it is and more than it is not?

I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world.

If there’s a more captivating line in all of fictional literature outside of Shakespeare, I’ve never heard it. I’ve mentioned it here before, and I’m certain I’ll mention it again. In the aftermath of the horrible Haitian earthquake, and the subsequent calumnious outcry directed at God, this line haunts me; and it should haunt you as well.

Camus’ Meursault is a demarcation. He’s a pivot-point into opposing worldviews. He’s a metaphor for the choice between meaning and meaninglessness that all consistent thinkers encounter. He is a window on the Problem of Evil.

The POE fascinates me. I’ve written on it extensively: a thesis which I believe contains some original work on the origin of evil, as alluded to in CD’s latest comment, The Dark Man (attack helicopters),-those of you who read it (thank you, much appreciated) should recognize the POE content-and my current work-in-progress, which is an all-out fictional study of evil in the world, not to mention my prattling here with regard to the POE.

I’m not obsessed, and I don’t have a basement dungeon where weird things take place. It’s just that evil presents observable evidence for the existence of God, and it is a subject and experience that awakens the heart and conscience of all but the most hardened and sociopathic among us. That’s a powerful and uncommon combination.

What a horrid scene Haiti is, and our hearts go out to all those caught in this tragedy.

With that said and believed, we of all stripes can agree it’s a tragedy, as in a great misfortune or calamitous event. We can all feel deeply for the victims. However, can we genuinely all believe that an evil has taken place? I think not, and Meursault is the demarcation:

Mamam died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.

This is what opening oneself to the gentle indifference of the world is. The world, which necessarily includes all events within it, is indifferent precisely because matter, energy, space, time, and any other physicality if there be such a thing, do not possess properties necessary for non-indifference. The gentle indifference of the world means that whether the universe flames out, dies a heat loss death, or even stretches out into an infinite future, there is nothing to care ultimately about what happens or to effect a difference on this particular piece of conglomerate matter we call earth. Among other names, we call this Naturalism, and all the observable articles of nature cannot alter this indifference.

Do you really believe, in accordance with its own power, that the contingent, particular organization of matter and energy called man can change this or endow tragedy with lasting meaning, despite his fleeting care? Camus was correct: without God we should open ourselves.

Under this view, there’s no such thing as evil. There are events. There are perturbations of matter and energy. There are earthquakes. They are but occurrences, not meaningfully different under Naturalism than the gravity exerted between Jupiter and Saturn.  And this brings us to the great paradox: evil is a proof for God’s existence, rather than an argument for his non-existence.

Have we discussed the axiological argument for God’s existence yet? Here’s one formulation of the argument, presented in deductive form:

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

It just so happens that the existence of evil requires the existence of objective moral values and duties. Hence:

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Evil exists.

Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

There’s much that could be said in defense of these premises. Let’s just consider evil, though. Is it really evil? The choice appears clear to me, and it resides at Meursault’s demarcation: will you accept evil as truly evil, or open yourself to the gentle indifference of the world?

Ironically, with God we have the necessary element both to make sense of evil, and to see evil for the evil it truly is, both of which cannot obtain under Naturalism. More on this later…

PS-Yes, those who do not believe in God may be good, moral persons (which does not contradict the doctrine of total depravity you Arminians and Calvinists out there), and I name many as my friends. That’s not the point of this post, and if you are a Christian who makes that claim you may find yourself in the next Silly Christian Arguments post. So stop doing that…it’s silly. The salient point is whether there can be Goodness without God.

I had in mind to discuss the silliness of Christian relativism, but Scita > Scienda is off and running with it. So, let’s move on to another silly Christian argument. When pressed with an apparent contradiction, a paradox, or any other uncomfortable conclusion or contention, Christians will often respond by claiming that God can do the impossible.

Quit doing that. It’s silly.

Fast Tube by Casper

I have several abilities God lacks. I’m rather proficient at them, actually. I’m an expert liar. When it comes to stealing, God can’t even begin to compete with me. I can sin all the live long day, and rest assured that I’ve done something God cannot do.

But let’s not leave it at that. I can make a second best decision, or even the poorest decision imaginable. God? He can only make the best decision. I can believe false propositions and fail to believe true ones. God? Nope. I can even commit suicide. God? He cannot destroy himself, nor can He create another God like himself. And, as the puzzle goes, I can build something so heavy I myself cannot lift it.

What are we to conclude, then? That there are things God cannot do?

No, not exactly. The verse Christians generally misinterpret (this is definitely one for our ongoing list, btw) is Matt 19:26: Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 

Note carefully the construct here: with God all things are possible. Things include those entities, propositions, or events that are rational; that is, they conform to what is analytically and formally possible pursuant to the rules of inference and basic laws of logic. For instance, the basic law of thought and rationality, the law of non-contradiction, states that a thing cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. Any thing that breaks this law is not a thing; it is no-thing. Irrationality does not produce things.

Likewise, the contrary of a  proposition that is analytically true–true by definition and self-evident–cannot be rational; therefore, it cannot be a thing. It is irrational for a triangle to be anything but three-sided.

Or, conclusions derived contrary to the basic rules of inference, say, modus ponens, are not things. Moreover, claiming an effect without a cause does not produce the rationality required for a thing. And so on.

Now that we’ve briefly considered thingness, let’s affirm that God can do any thing. What He cannot do is no-thing. God can raise the dead; that’s a thing. God cannot lie (A lying Christian God is like a four-sided triangle or a married bachelor), because irrational statements are no-things. Thus, Jesus was correct in asserting that all things are possible with God. Note also, the force of the text. God is very capable of performing things that for us are impossible. Though they are impossible for us, they are not impossible analytically, by the laws of logic, or invalid under the rules of inference.

The upshot of all of this is for Christians to resist the claim that God can perform the impossible, unless it’s clearly stated that what is in view is what is impossible for us, like raising a man from the dead, not the formally impossible. Don’t say God can make 2 x 4=9 or that he can create himself. Even God can’t make the nonsensical into the sensical, or the irrational into the rational.

There’s a related concern I’ll touch on briefly. It’s often claimed by Christians that what is rational from our perspective is not rational in other dimensions, or the supernatural realm where God resides and operates. Great care needs to be taken when approaching this subject. It’s true that other dimensions, or perhaps even the supernatural, might have properties of which we are not aware. Is there a sense in which sovereignty and free will, or other similar paradoxes could be harmonized by dimensions we’re unaware of? Perhaps, but what is absolutely necessary to maintain is that contradictions cannot be harmonized, and that what is formally irrational here must be formally irrational there.

Paradoxes differ from contradictions. Contradictions are formally irrational as discussed above. Paradoxes are not. Contradictions can never be true in any possible world, and even God cannot make sense of them or understand them, because they are no-things. The trinity, for example, is a paradox, not a contradiction. And if God is not rational, how could we ever hope to understand him?

Yes, this is a post aimed at Christians, but you skeptics need to quit claiming that an electron can be at two different places at the same time and in the same relationship, or that matter and energy can arise from nothing on its own power. Just sayin’…:)

Sometimes you just can’t force yourself to answer a silly internet argument, or wherever it’s encountered, for the 111th time.  It becomes so repulsively repetitive and trite that you’ll ignore a blog post or comment altogether. That’s probably the best course of action, actually; however, I believe another option is to create a repository of answers to link to in lieu of composing the 111th response to the same silly ol’ arguments. It’s an elegant solution I’ve seen used effectively elsewhere, and I’d like to begin stocking the repository here, to be added to as time goes on. Feel free to suggest possible new entries based on your own travels.

Right. But, first, let’s be fully aware and frank that atheists and skeptics are not the only offenders! In fact, if we’re honest, Christian theists are masters of the silly argument or blog comment. To that end, I’ll also be contributing to a theist’s repository of silly arguments as well. It’s only fair, so if you’re a skeptical type or an atheist, don’t think you’re being singled out, or that this post suggests that all atheists are silly arguers. Are there any atheist or skeptics constant Areopagus readers lurking out there, btw? Feel free to contribute.

Here’s my first: the highly irritating and non-sensical lightning argument that normally devolves into a bronze Age goat herder charge. It typically proceeds as follows:

Mankind used to believe that God(s) threw lightning bolts from the sky. Now science has explained adequately how lightning works. Therefore, it is foolish to believe God influences the physical realm.

Fast Tube by Casper

Silly, indeed. Quit using this argument to prove anything more than the true proposition that we now know the natural causes that produce lightning. Until, of course, we learn even better how those natural causes work.

There are sophisticated arguments similar to this silly one that argue inductively that our increasing knowledge of the physical world has historically pushed the utility of God or the supernatural as a scientific explanation to the edges of the universe. That is not in view here; however, even such arguments do not demonstrate that God is not related to the physical realm, nor can they. A moment’s thought should confirm this.

Your moment is passed. Now, after the initial silliness has passed, generally the goat herders are not far behind. Here it is claimed that the skeptic is armed with science, while the hapless and deluded theist relies upon the oral traditions of Bronze Age desert nomad goat herders–there are a multitude of variations on the theme–to arrive at truth.

Again, quit the silliness. We’re confident that Bronze Age, and Stone Age for that matter, peoples understood that 1+1=2, or that a triangle has three sides. Which of these statements is no longer true? Develop it countless ways; the truth remains: what was true then necessarily, is true now necessarily. The time and place and Age in which the truth was apprehended is frankly irrelevant.

Not to mention that the New Testament was not written in the Bronze Age, but as I’ve said, that’s wholly irrelevant. Bronze Age arguments are ridiculous, and amount to nothing more than mere bluster and irrational ridicule. What’s true must be determined on other grounds. Roughly, Bronze Age arguments are genetic fallacies.

Can’t you just hear skeptics in the year 4000 ridiculing people for their Space Age or Computer Age beliefs?

Though learning rapidly, I’m currently no expert on the publishing business, Christian or otherwise.  Thus, I really don’t have anything worthwhile to add to this discussion over at scita >scienda. However, as a writer, I do have some tangential comments to offer, comments that in no way demean the discussion occurring over at S>S.

Article 13 of the Belgic Confession states the following:

Article 13: The Doctrine of God’s Providence

We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.

Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.

We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.

This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father.

In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.

For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.

I general terms, then, God is in charge of everything that comes to pass. For the Christian writer, as for the Christian, this truth should never be too far out in front or too far behind. In fact, it should be woven through every written word, and seen clearly between the lines of every written text. And not only that, when it comes to what we as writers do with a completed text, God’s providence should be our story.

What if you wrote an entire novel and no one ever read it? What about two? Ten?

Actually, that’s impossible for the Christian author. My publisher, Marcher Lord Press, stresses this very truth: there’s first and foremost the audience of one. It’s my publisher’s very first tip in writing, and you can read it here. I have a sign over my desk that reads an audience of one. I’ve bought in to this idea, that if God were your only audience, and He certainly is watching, it’s a better audience than you could ever hope to speak to through your writing.

It’s the same for the preacher with a small congregation. Not only are you preaching to just a few folks on Sunday, but to the great heavenly host and the church universal. The audience of one, truly believed, is an astounding truth. Not only does it have meaning for preachers and writers, but for the life of every Christian who has ever lived. How we worry at times about writing, and other such pursuits when millions have lived in obscurity, or worse. For those who lives have seemed meaningless, forgotten, hopeless, or lived righteously in vain, I remind you of the audience of one. 

He’s always there. He sees. He cares. He doesn’t read the book of your life with one eye on the TV. He doesn’t consider the conflict of your life story fictional. He doesn’t consider your inner drives, aspirations, pains, and emotions–after all you are the main character of your life–as somehow less than reality. He’s intimately involved in your story from beginning to end. Would you really consider a million human readers a better audience given what we know of God as Christians?

He is also not fleeting, not contingent, not becoming, not to be renovated by fire at the last Day. The paper you write on will fade. Your book will be forgotten on bookshelves, if it makes it that far. Computers will rust away; digital files will corrupt and be lost. But the audience of one is eternal: there is no shadow of turning in Him. A written story and a life story offered to the audience of one thereby become eternal stories, flickers of that everlasting glory that is God almighty.

As the confession states, as does God’s word, God is in control of all things that come to pass. Guess what…that includes whether you will ever be published, where you will be published, and how many pages of your book ever are read. He has his own reasons for everything that comes to pass. Ours is just to find our obedient place in His grand scheme. If yours is writing, write to the glory of the audience of one. You can have no higher calling and no greater readership, published or not.

As Randy Brandt would say, “here’s a rant.”

In light of my non-post on Reformation Day last Saturday, I offer the following: the church is in need of reformation, not revival.

Revival benefits a doctrinally sound church whose adherents are obedient, by adding numbers that may be trained into disciples. In doctrinally sound churches whose members have become slothful or have shipwrecked their faith, revival may be successful in exhorting and edifying existing Christians within the church to action, as in Rev 3:20. However, is revival beneficial for a doctrinally unsound church or a church with aberrant practices? What, after all, would be the purpose of reviving doctrinally unsound churches? Can there be a good purpose to revive doctrinally unsound churches?

It seems to me this would only encourage and excite bad belief and bad practice.

I saw a sign outside a church today on the way to pick up the lad from school. No, the sign was not on the way to pick up the lad; I was. Nevertheless, the church’s marquis featured the following in big letters: We are the only hands God has.

Call me theologically pedantic, but the message was all wrong.

Granted, it may have simply been intended as a call to action in this dark world. It may have simply been intended to urge Christians to help those in need. No argument there, but why not just say Christians, help those in need. Why not quote instead Matthew 25:40?

Or, perhaps, the message was intended to convey the truth that God is non-corporeal in nature. If so, it’s difficult to see how we as God’s hands would be included in the message. It would simply say: God is a spirit without a body, or something similar.

What I suspect, though, was something more significant. My best estimate is that the sign represents a common thought within modern Christianity whereby God does not act apart from the will of His saints. Reborn man has dominion over the earth, and through the force of faith, determines what God does and does not do. Why on earth, or in heaven, would we or God want to revive this message, or the church that proclaims it? What is required is reformation.

Sometimes the thought is disseminated this way: God rules the world through the prayers of his saints. Other times this is said: God would never override the free will of his creatures. Still other times the thought comes through as The Prince of the power of the air rules this world or God will not do this that or the other unless you speak it into existence.

Some of these are worse than others–some are downright occultic–but they all fall woefully short of sound biblical teaching. What they all have in common is a misconstrual of God’s sovereignty, and thus His nature. Why would we seek to revive them?

Again, what the church needs, the American church at least, is reformation. Speaking of hands, how about Deuteronomy 32:39-42:

See now that I myself am He! There is no god beside me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.

I lift my hand to heaven and declare: As surely as I live forever, when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me.

I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders.

If we’re God’s only hands, who’s gonna volunteer for this assignment? Who’s gonna grasp the sword of judgment, or draw back the bow and make the arrows drunk with blood? God forbid, someone out there would probably raise their hand, but I think most of us get the point. And certainly, who of the hands among us will raise their hand and say: I lift my hand to heaven and declare: As surely as I live forever…

God forgive us. I know that God does not have hands. I also know He does not need them; He spoke the heavens and the earth into existence without them. I also know that we are called to represent Him on this earth. But it’s as representatives, not His causal agents. We are the new priesthood; we represent him and our high priest Jesus, albeit imperfectly, and representatives always serve a master, and their master’s will.

Yes, I know God does not have hands: God is spirit according to John 4:24, and elsewhere. But what else does John 4 say?

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps they had the best intentions, but God wants spirit and truth. Where there is a lack of truth there will not be revival, but reformation, even if through judgment. Once reformation’s done, revival may not be far behind.

The following is one of Shema’s entries for the top ten list of most misinterpreted Bible verses/passages. I think it’s a good one. Note: the list is a work in progress: no decisions have been made, nor any votes cast.

Interpretational error category: context

Here’s how things go awry. First, take a loook at this well loved, and oft-quoted verse extracted from its context: Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. Rev 3:20

Pretty straightforward, right? This is an evangelist’s staple whereby Christ is knocking at the world’s door and inviting everyone and anyone to eat with him, correct?  What else could anyone mean?

Before proceeding, I’d like to offer a clarification, if you don’t mind. I believe that without qualification the statement If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me is unreservedly true. Whosoever believes in Christ, whosoever hears his voice and opens the door, will eat with Christ and be saved.

However, that’s a truth gathered from other portions of Scripture, not this one. Take a second look at the verse, this time surrounded by its immediate context:

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” Rev 3:14-22

Our contextual cues here seem fairly apparent. This passage is addressed to the angel of the church of Laodicea. The Greek word translated angel is ἀγγέλῳ, which means messenger, and has been interpreted various ways, none of which are important to the question at hand. What is important, though, is the connection to chapter one of Revelation:

I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

“Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. Rev 1:12-20

It’s clear that the apostle John is addressing our passage to the messenger of the church of Laodicea, who is clearly in the hand of Christ according to the text, not flung out to the nether regions of the earth, or positionally outside of the kingdom. The remaining contextual cues from chapter one leave no doubt that the book of Revelation in its entirety is written to the seven churches, those that existed historically at that time:

On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”  Rev 1:10-11

John,
      To the seven churches in the province of Asia:  Rev 1:4

This much should be reasonably non-controversial. Nevertheless, notice what follows Rev 1:4:

Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. Rev1:4b-6

Now, when you write a letter, don’t you customarily begin with Dear Mrs. Smith or To whom it may concern? More than likely, I’d guess. The intent is to let the reader know first and foremost for whom the letter is intended. Thankfully, the biblical writers practiced the same protocol when writing. Check out the greetings and salutations of the New Testament epistles; they’re a key to proper biblical interpretation. Revelation is no different in this regard in that Revelation is written to the seven churches and to those in them that Christ loves, who have been freed from sins by his blood, and made to be a kingdom and priests to serve God his Father.

With that in mind, let’s look back at chapter three. Christ says to the church at Laodicea through its messenger “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.” Who is it that Christ loves, rebukes, and disciplines? Those who have been freed from sins by his blood, and made to be a kingdom and priests to serve God his Father, no doubt.  It’s the Christians in Laodicea who he describes in the following manner:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

Notice the contrast: I am about to spit you out of my mouth yet Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. Certainly, those who are in Christ’s mouth, metaphorically, are those he holds; those he has saved and loves. What a beautiful verse of the preserving promise and power of Christ through his Holy Spirit we have here. What great comfort we have in knowing that Christ stands at the door of our hearts knocking, because he loves us, and intends to rebuke and discipline us, we Christians, when we are lukewarm. What assurance there is in a faithful savior.

He is among the golden lampstands, after all, and he does hold the keys of death and Hades. And we also know that his Father is greater than all, and none can snatch out from his hand. He stands at the door of your heart, Christian, and knocks, always remembering that he now has the resurrected ability to pass through locked doors when necessary. There are other passages to offer to the world than this one; this promise is for you. It’s time to open up and overcome.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches…

There are interesting and exciting new things going on over at Marcher Lord Press. Here’s the latest press release:

Marcher Lord Press Announces Marcher Lord Select

(Colorado Springs, CO)–Marcher Lord Press, the premier publisher of Christian speculative fiction, today announces the debut of a revolution in fiction acquisitions.

“Marcher Lord Select is American Idol meets book acquisitions,” says publisher Jeff Gerke. “We’re presenting upwards of 40 completed manuscripts and letting ‘the people’ decide which one should be published.”

The contest will proceed in phases, Gerke explains, in each subsequent round of which the voters will receive larger glimpses of the competing manuscripts.

The first phase will consist of no more than the book’s title, genre, length, a 20-word premise, and a 100-word back cover copy teaser blurb. Voters will cut the entries from 40 to 20 based on these items alone.

“We want to show authors that getting published involves more than simply writing a great novel,” Gerke says. “There are marketing skills to be developed–and you’ve got to hook the reader with a good premise.”

Following rounds will provide voters with a 1-page synopsis, the first 500 words of the book, the first 30 pages of the book, and, in the final round, the first 60 pages of the book.

The manuscript receiving the most votes in the final round will be published by Marcher Lord Press in its Spring 2010 release list.

No portion of any contestant’s mss. will be posted online, as MLP works to preserve the non-publication status of all contestants and entries.

Participating entrants have been contacted personally by Marcher Lord Press and are included in Marcher Lord Select by invitation only.

“We’re also running a secondary contest,” Gerke says. “The ‘premise contest’ is for those authors who have completed a Christian speculative fiction manuscript that fits within MLP guidelines and who have submitted their proposals to me through the Marcher Lord Press acquisitions portal before October 29, 2009.”

The premise contest will allow voters to select the books that sound the best based on a 20-word premise, a 100-word back cover copy teaser blurb, and (possibly) the first 500 words of the book.

The premise contest entrants receiving the top three vote totals will receive priority acquisitions reading by MLP publisher Jeff Gerke.

“It’s a way for virtually everyone to play, even those folks who didn’t receive an invitation to compete in the primary Marcher Lord Select contest.”

Marcher Lord Select officially begins on November 1, 2009, and runs until completion in January or February 2010. All voting and discussions and Marcher Lord Select activities will take place at The Anomaly forums in the Marcher Lord Select subforum. Free registration is required.

“In order for this to work as we’re envisioning,” Gerke says, “we need lots and lots of voters. So even if you’re not a fan of Christian science fiction or fantasy, I’m sure you love letting your voice be heard about what constitutes good Christian fiction. So come on out and join the fun!”

Marcher Lord Press is a Colorado Springs-based independent publisher producing Christian speculative fiction exclusively. MLP was launched in fall of 2008 and is privately owned. Contact: Jeff Gerke; www.marcherlordpress.com.