Everyone Believes in Limited Atonement

Okay, up front, I'll tell you that the title is hyperbole, an overstatement for effect. Not everyone believes that the Atonement of Christ is limited. There are unbelievers that don't believe in Atonement at all. And there are Universalists. Universalists believe that everyone is saved, that there is no Hell, that no one faces eternal judgment, that the Atonement covered all sin for all people. I don't know any of these folks, but I know they exist. And they have their own problems in Scripture to navigate (like Matt 7:13-14 or John 3:17-18). Now, for the rest of us, everyone believes in limited Atonement.

The doctrine of Limited Atonement is a contentious one and I'm not actually going there. I am not going to argue for it. I want to show how you believe that the Atonement that Christ provided at the cross is limited. Most Christians -- at least those intending to be biblical -- argue that they believe in an unlimited Atonement. The thinking goes like this: "Christ died on the cross for all the sins of all mankind." And it's not without reason. John wrote, "He [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) Peter wrote, "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18) (Note: That's the ESV. Others say, "Christ also died for sins once for all.") Peter even wrote about false prophets who were "denying the Master who bought them." In general, we believe that "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (1 Tim 4:10). See? Unlimited.

Here's the problem. On one hand we have the absolute statements that Christ died for our sins, that He suffered once for sins, that He is the one (and only) Savior. On the other hand, we have this absolute certainty that "the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matt 7:14) In Revelation John describes the "second death" where anyone whose name is not found written in the book of life is thrown into "the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14-15). The inescapable reality is that there will be people in "the lake of fire" -- eternal torment, Hell. So, where does that leave us? Here's the problem. If Christ actually paid for all sin, "once for all", and that includes both believers and unbelievers as the "unlimited atonement" folk will assure us, then, as Christ put it, "many" will be in Hell with sins paid in full. Christ died on the cross for all sin and all sin is paid for, but there will still be people in torment for eternity with their debt paid.

Now, of course, no one believes that. No one actively thinks that is true. And I'm grateful for that. It would be an assault on the Justice of God to hold that He damns those who have been justified. No one consciously takes that position. And yet, it is still the only possible position to take if Christ actually paid for all sin for all people for all time.

Consider a couple of human examples. Jerry hasn't received a bill for his credit card for some time. He's concerned. So he calls the card company. "Oh," they tell him, "we received a check two months ago for your entire account. It is paid in full. You don't owe us anything." "No," Jerry says, "I do not accept that. I didn't pay it; I won't accept it." So the credit card company resumes his debt, including two months of penalties for missed payments for the time when they had his accounts paid in full. This, of course, is nonsense and, in fact, illegal. You can't owe money you don't owe. They cannot collect money they are not due. If it is paid, it is paid. To continue to collect after having been paid is fraud. Or, how about a Warden Jones is due to preside over the execution of a prisoner at midnight? However, before it occurs, the governor sends a full pardon. The warden tells the prisoner, but the prisoner isn't happy. "I deserve to die. Go ahead with the execution." The warden has some options at this point, I suppose. He could leave the door open and let him wander. Not very practical. I think he'd have to forcibly remove him from the prison and turn him loose. But what he could not do under any circumstances is to carry out the execution. Putting to death someone whose debt to society is paid is not justice; it is murder. These examples point out the problem of people in Hell with sins paid for. These things must not be!

So, there are those who argue that the Atonement on the Cross paid in full the sins for the Elect for all time. The Atonement did not pay in full the sins for those who would not be saved. That is an Atonement that is limited in its extent, but unlimited in its effectiveness, justifying perfectly for all time those who Christ intended to justify. This, of course, is a hotly debated, much disliked, less-than-popular, even "minority" view. The rest believe in an Atonement that paid in full all the sins of all mankind for all time ... but didn't actually do it. The actual payment is pending, on hold until the recipient picks up the payment, so to speak. In essence, this view holds that no sin was actually paid for at the cross; all sin was potentially paid for. This Atonement, then, is limited in effectiveness, but not extent. It is offered to all but effective only to those who accept it. It is not actual, just potential, until it is accepted. So it is limited in the sense that no sin was paid for without the permission of the sinner. In this Atonement Christ died for all sin but only succeeds in paying for the sin of the saved. And no matter how you cut it, that's limited.

Now, as I said up front, I am not offering arguments for or against here. I'm not laying out the Scriptures and saying, "See? This is why I believe X." I'm simply pointing out that the problem is not in the concept of an Atonement that is limited. The problem is in the question of how it is limited. You can try to figure that out for yourself. Oh, and may I suggest that you don't do it by dismissing some Scriptures in favor of others or by making Scripture say things it doesn't say? Just a recommendation.

The Fount of Every Blessing

Recently in church we sang that wonderful hymn, Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing. Now, I know that hymns are no longer in vogue in many circles, so maybe this will refresh your memory.

Come, thou Fount of every blessing,
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;
Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount I'm fixed upon it
Mount of Thy redeeming love.

No? That's okay. It's a wonderful song. The second verse starts, "Here I find my greatest treasure; Hither by Thy help I've come." Really good stuff.

But when we got to the third verse, I noticed a difference. The verse is supposed to read like this:

Oh, to grace how great a debtor
Daily I'm constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee:
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here's my heart, O take and seal it;
Seal it for Thy courts above.

Instead, we sang, "Let Thy grace, Lord, like a fetter bind my wandering heart to Thee." So?

I find in this song the very key to binding my wandering heart to Christ. He refers to it in the second verse. "Here I find my greatest treasure." And he says it again in the original text in the third verse. You see, it is His goodness that binds us to Him. Oh, by all means, we're grateful for His grace. I don't mean to dismiss that. But when we find in Him the ultimate goodness, we are not as prone to stray. You know, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matt 6:21)

There's a real secret here. We miss it ... often. We obey out of duty and we love out of gratitude and those are fine, but are we tied to Christ as the ultimate good? It is in the nature of the human being to seek happiness, to pursue pleasure. When that pleasure is the ultimate pleasure -- the presence of God -- we can do no wrong. So I pray, too, "Let Thy goodness, like a fetter, bind my wandering heart to Thee."

Gender Questions

North Carolina got snarled in a conflict about "transgender" and bathrooms. Companies and performers and even the Justice Department fired back. Now President Obama "plans on Friday to order public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom with which they are most comfortable." Not based on morality (built on the "harm principle" because "uncomfortable" is not "harm"). Not built on logic because no one yet has a firm definition of "transgender". Not built on sanity because a claim to be someone you are not is not in any other case classified as sane. Based on ... what?

Trevin Wax asks some very good questions about current transgender theories.

1. Do transgender theories undercut or contradict the idea that sexual orientation is unchangeable?

It's strange, is it not, that while the "LGB" world is declaring adamantly that "We're born this way", that it's not a choice but a birth condition, that it's just like race, the "T" part of it is all over the place. It's called "gender fluid". It changes. I don't know if it's still true, but Facebook at one time offered 50 different gender options where we all used to recognize two. Because it's a variable and it is not set ... in direct contradiction to the "born that way" argument.

2. If gender identity is fixed and unchangeable, why do many children who experience gender dysphoria lose these feelings after puberty?

Science has noted that kids often appear to lean away from their birth gender, but straighten right out after puberty? If they're "born that way", why would that be?

3. When a person feels a disjunction between one’s sex at birth and one’s gender identity, why is the only course of action to bring the body into closer conformity with the person’s psychological state, rather than vice versa?

It's interesting in our science-based, materialistic world where DNA says "male" or "female" that the current preferred course of action is to reshape what science can measure into what the vagaries of someone's mind might prefer instead of working at correcting the mind to what nature has already publicly declared to be true.

5. Why are the strongest critics of “gender binaries” the most likely to support gender stereotypes on display in transgender celebrities?

Have you noticed this? They are outraged at our "gender binary" viewpoint. "Who says this is what a girl is like and that is what a boy is like? You're just being arbitrary." And, yet, when Bruce Jenner opted to become a girl, he aimed for the most stereotypical feminine appearance and mannerisms he could find. Why is that? Oh, relax. It's not just Jenner. It's every transgender out there. Not one says, "I'm a girl trapped in a boy's body, so I'll just be a girl." No, they need to conform to the whole "gender binary" approach. Confusing¹. While feminists have attempted to throw off the shackles of stereotypical womanhood by acting, dressing, and performing like a man, transgenders try to act like the binary gender they feel like.

6. Why must one’s declared gender identity be accepted without question, while other forms of self-identification can be dismissed?

This one was amusing to me, too. As a 6' tall white male, I could not get away with "I'm a 4' tall black woman." Why?

7. Without a settled definition in our legal system for transgender, how can we avoid all sorts of problems, including bathroom access?

This one speaks to the whole North Carolina/Target question. Define for me "transgender". No, I'll need a legal definition. Because, no one will complain if a female or a male that looks like a female goes into the women's bathroom because no one will notice. And vice versa. So it appears that "transgender" is not "what I look like", but "how I feel" and defining that with any authority is currently impossible. In the whole bathroom question, for instance, I know of no one who is concerned that a guy who has changed his appearance to look like a woman, with or without the entire surgical process, because he actually believes himself to be a woman is a threat to girls in the girls' bathroom. It's the pervert who will use the opportunity -- "Oh, my, I feel like a woman. I should be allowed into the ladies' room." -- to indulge his perversions that most people are worried about. Without a legal definition, that cannot be avoided and "how I feel about it" is the only option, the trump card over all other concerns.

So we pursue madness as compassion without definition, ignoring all the rest of the issues, and the government will force the issue with economic threats. Given the current school climate of constant sexual violations as it is matching sexual violations in the public square, how can anyone think this will improve things?
________

¹ I know of an actual case where a girl, raised by two homosexual men, was sexually attracted to men, but believed herself to be a homosexual male. So she had the processes and surgery done to become a male in order to be a homosexual male. That is true confusion.

Moral Anarchy

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an English philosopher. He was one of the most influential thinkers on liberalism. In his treatise, On Liberty, he argued, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Thus, the "harm principle". He carried this principle out to rules of morality in Utilitarianism. He is the source of the currently popular notion that the only viable basis for morality is to prevent harm to others. Indeed, he believed that the good of the individual was not sufficient warrant. Laws should only be passed in order to prevent harm to others. Thus, the harm principle says that adults should be permitted to do whatever they desire as long as they do not harm others without consent.

Does this work? Is it correct? Is it reasonable? It is certainly dominant. We justify euthanasia and pornography and prostitution and drug use because they involve consent and, therefore, no harm without consent. For a new thought, it certainly dominates the realm of moral principles today. Because, you see, we have a hard time defining "harm" anymore. It appears to be "adult" and "consent". No one considers it immoral today, for instance, for adults to consent to divorce without regard to the harm it does the children. "Adult" and "consent" is all that is required today to murder the unborn, so that if there is no consent on the part of the adult, it is murder, but if the adult consents, it's perfectly acceptable.

There are lots of possible scenarios that would call this whole thing into question, but let me just give one that would demonstrate the problem. An adult who identifies as a homosexual goes to a clinic to undergo treatment for his condition. He wants to be "cured". He is informed that the treatments may be difficult, even painful, but he agrees because he wants to change. Which of our "harm principle" advocates would call this "moral"?

The other argument that harms the "harm principle" is the newest outcropping of morality from the left. It is now immoral to make people feel bad. Is this harm? No, not really. But it's immoral. Is it harm to consent to euthanasia? It's hardly reasonable to argue that there is no harm involved, but it's moral. Suicide would fall under the same question, but that's immoral. New York passed a law against sugary drinks because they're harmful but banned bartenders from refusing to serve alcohol to pregnant women because of consent. North Carolina wants to protect women and children from sexual predators (not transgenders) but that's harmful, so the tide of public opinion and government will roll them over because protecting women and children from sexual predators is immoral but hurting the feelings of "transgenders" is harm? This is not making sense.

We have a very hard time defining "harm to others". We have some difficulty defining "consent". Today it isn't really very easy to define "adult". But in the name of "personal freedom" we've decided that "harm to others" modified by "adult" and "consent" constitute the definition of ethics. Or there is objective morality as defined by the Ultimate Lawgiver. But, of course, you can't expect a world blinded by its god to see that as a good thing, so expect an ongoing shift in "moral" as an ongoing shift of "adult" and "consent" make anarcy the moral code of the day.

Heart and Head

Someone once said, "If you're not a liberal by 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by 35, you have no brains." Maybe. But it points out two ways of seeing -- heart and head. Back in 2008, California brought the whole "same-sex marriage" thing to a head. In June, 2008, the courts threw out the edict of California voters and demanded the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This was to be rescinded in November of 2008 with Prop 8 that put the definition into the California state constitution (which was again recently overthrown by the court). When the June ruling came out, a relative of mine posted on her Facebook how happy she was. Privately, I asked her why. She told me, "I just know how unhappy I'd be if someone told me I couldn't marry the one I loved." Say what you will about her reason, it is quite clear that it was an argument from the heart, not the head.

This is the problem quite often, as it turns out. One side will tell you how their feelings are hurt and how it made them feel diminished and slighted. A teacher at a local all-girl Catholic high school is in trouble for giving a flyer to a theology class that points out the connection between Margaret Sanger's racism and the disproportionate number of black babies killed by abortion, and calls it "black genocide". The arguments are documented and coherent. But they made people feel bad, so 7,000 people have signed a petition to get the teacher fired. Oh, please note: only a small fraction of them are Arizonan, the state of the conflict. The teacher was the moderator of the "Right to Life" club, but it struck some as "racist and sexist" to suggest that unborn black lives matter. The argument is that abortion is empowering to women and logic is irrelevant. The problem? Reasoning and facts are one approach, and "how it makes me feel" is the other, and never the twain shall meet.

It has ever been thus. One side typically argues from logic, facts, and reasoning. The other side typically argues from feelings -- positive or negative. Try to make the feeling side reason. Try to make the mental side to feel. Never the twain shall meet.

I have not, at any point in this, tried to argue that one approach is right and the other is wrong. Well, of course, it's likely obvious what I think, given I've tried to offer a logical argument rather than one that makes you feel better. But that's not my point. The point is that both sides need to recognize the gap. Arguing from emotion with someone arguing from logic won't be any more effective than one arguing from logic against someone arguing from emotion. Recognize the disconnect. If you can't bridge it, don't expect any change.

Taking God's Position -- A Baseline

I recently wrote a piece entitled Taking God's Position in which I attempted to answer the question about whether or not God sees babies as innocent. The title was intended to be provocative, but I'm pretty sure the content obscured the point. So let's revisit the point.

We are Christians. We are to be disciples of Christ -- learners of Christ, students of Christ. We are to be constantly "transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2). We are to be drawing reality from the source of reality -- God Himself -- which He offers in His Word. It is God-breathed, so by the help of the Holy Spirit, we should be able to see truth there that a world blinded by the god of this world will certainly miss. With that truth we ought to be correcting our own fallen views by replacing them with God's position on things.

The process itself is fairly straightforward. Pray. Read your Bible. What does it say? What does it mean? What should I do? There are certainly important considerations. What is the content? What is the context? How does it fit with the rest of Scripture? What does the bulk of Christianity have to say about it? (That last one gets missed a lot, but Scripture says that we are to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) If it's new, it's questionable.) It doesn't take a super genius or a seminary degree. It takes a Christ-disciple who wants to know Him.

It can be complicated at times, to be sure, but I'd suggest that the largest part isn't that hard. It is simply our failure to do it that causes the problem. It is our failure to aim to find out what God's position is on the subject and then take it. Take, for instance, the whole debate about homosexual behavior. What does it say? What is the context? What has the Church always held? We're being swayed by emotion and compassion and normalization and the arguments of the world, but Scripture is not unclear. All references to homosexual behavior call it sin. No hint in Scripture ever gives any other option. And the Church has always taken that position. So we wrangle about it and pick up new things and question, "Only 6 references?", as if these things are reasonable (let alone truthful).

Take my recent entry on God's view of the innocence of babies. Sure, the popular view is that babies are without sin, but what does Scripture say? It certainly wasn't a popular view that I took, but I listed Scriptures and gave biblical reasons and laid it out. No one refuted it except to say it was wrong. There was no textual or contextual criticism and no historical criticism. Just, "No." "No, you're ignoring what you see." "No, that's not what those Scriptures mean" (without a hint of what they do mean). Not one biblical response to the contrary. So what are you going to do? You can take the position that you find in Scripture or take the position that feels better. Only one of those is "God's position" (unless taking the position you find in Scripture makes you feel better).

The truth is that we can get it wrong. The truth is that each of us does. But that's not the question. The question is whether or not we're intending to make God's position our own, or plan to make His whatever ours is. Will we let His Word define truth, or do we allow whatever we might prefer to think to define God and His truth? Is it our aim to take His position whatever that might be or is it our intent to allow our preferences, our feelings, our diseased hearts and minds to sway His view to ours? Especially in those cases where the Bible is consistent, the Word is clear, and even Church history has spoken in agreement, do we choose God's position or do we choose our own? I think that the answer to that will go a long way to determining whose disciple you really are. "If God says it, I believe it" or "I don't like that, so I won't believe it." One is submission; one is defiance.

Look Where You're Going

When I took driver's training way back when (the part where you get trained in the car), my instructor pointed out something important. "See that row of cars parked along the side of the road? Don't watch those. Watch where you are going." "Why is that?" I asked. "Because," he answered, "you will always go in the direction you are looking." Wisdom for all of life.

We humans have a tendency to look at ourselves in our attempt to understand God. We start with what we know about us and then project it onto God. It was God's accusation, in fact. To the wicked He said, "You thought that I was just like you." (Psa 50:21) Instead, He says, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9) But we start with us and move to God. We're not looking where we're going. We're looking at us. And, as it turns out we think we're headed toward God, but we end up ... with us.

If you look, nearly every major doctrine of Scripture is a problem. Start with Scripture -- who wrote it? Well, men did, of course. Oh, wait, it is God-breathed. So God did. But, no, it was written by men. All of it is in their words. But God superintended their words. A paradox. Not something we would think up, but certainly something God did (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). Then step into the Trinity. Ooo, that's a good one. Is God one? Yes, absolutely! But the Bible teaches three. Yes, absolutely! So there is one God and one person, right? No. One God, three persons. Here's an easy one. Jesus ... was He fully God or fully Man? Yes! That's the only right answer -- yes. Despite the human reasoning that assures us that He cannot be both 100% God and 100% Man. Oh, here's an easy one. Whose blood saves us? Well, of course it's Christ's blood (Eph 2:13). Except that Paul says it's God's blood (Rom 3:25). Both and. Or how about Satan? He is the god of this world, right? Yes. So God is constantly being suppressed by Satan, right? Well, no. As it turns out, Satan can only do what God permits him to do (Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-6; Luke 22:31). So Satan is god of this world, but under God's jurisdiction. Thus, when the author of Chronicles says that Satan tempted David to number Israel (1 Chron 21:1) and the author of Samuel says that the Lord did it (2 Sam 24:1), they're both correct. You see, every major doctrine seems to end up here somehow. So, if we're going to base our doctrines on human reasoning, we're going to have to ... eliminate all these doctrines.

The problem is that, while we do indeed have mind, will, and emotion, we have a problem. Our minds, wills, and emotions are fallen. Their damaged, bruised, broken. Here, consider the will for a moment. We think that we have Free Will, by which we mean autonomy, absolute liberty to choose whatever we wish without coercion or influence, internal or external. If it isn't that, it isn't free will. (I didn't change the capitalization by accident.) So, we know we have Free Will, so any doctrine of God must acquiesce to that perceived fact. Oddly enough, the Bible tells us that Satan has to get permission from God to act and the Bible even teaches that God prevents sin (Gen 20:6), and yet we've now inflated our Free Will to be higher than Satan's and, in the end, even than God's. We're looking in the wrong direction.

The claim from many is that we determine truth by our reasoning. There is something to be said for that, but not everything. If we use our own reasoning as the primary factor to determine truth, we will be looking in the wrong direction and, inevitably, head in the wrong direction. But if we accept God's Word as truth, both about His revealed nature and the truth of doctrine, then subjecting our reason to the Word of God would lead us away from Man as center and toward God. Now, to be sure, this isn't easy or even comfortable. We're asked to accept that God is merciful and just, good and condemning people to Hell, loving and hating. He is Sovereign and gives us the freedom to make choices. That is, we don't start with human reason, human will, or human emotion. We start with God and His revelation of Himself and the truth in His Word. Where my reasoning and will and feelings collide with God's Word, I'm wrong and need to change. Because if you start out looking at the row of cars that is human reasoning, will, and feelings, you'll end up in a nasty accident with possibly eternal consequences.

An Election That Matters

We have a very unpleasant election coming up in November, and the best option we appear to get is ... disaster. Luckily, believers are trusting God, not human politics, to do what's right. In a sense, then, that election doesn't really matter. God is in charge.

There is, however, an election that matters immensely. It is the biblical doctrine of Election. Now, I know, this one brings up all sorts of reactions, responses, feelings, thoughts and even battles. But it is undeniable that the doctrine is biblical.

- God chose Abraham (Gen 18:19)
- God chose the people of Israel (Deut 7:6; Deut 14:2)
- God chose Levi (and family) as priests (Deut 18:5; Deut 21:5)
- God chose Saul as king (1 Sam 10:23-24)
- "Many are called but few are chosen." (Matt 22:14)
- Christ was chosen (Luke 9:35)
- Jesus chose His disciples (John 13:18 John 15:16,19; )
- "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." (Matt 11:27)
- God chose Saul (Paul) (Acts 9:15)
- The chosen obtained grace (Rom 11:7)
- God chooses who will be His (Col 3:12; Eph 1:4)
- A remnant according to God's gracious choice (Rom 11:5)
- The chosen Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:4)
- Christians are called and chosen (2 Peter 1:10)
- "As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48)
- Paul was appointed to know God's will (Acts 22:14)
- Jesus called His own "the elect" (Matt 24:22,24,31; Luke 18:7)
- "Who will bring a charge against God's elect?" (Rom 8:33)
- Paul was "an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God" (Titus 1:1)
- Those who return with Christ are called and chosen (Rev 17:14)
- Paul endured for the sake of those who are chosen (2 Tim 2:10)

It's amazing how many of the New Testament epistles are written specifically to the elect.

Rom 1:6 - the called
1 Cor 1:2 - saints by calling
2 Thess 2:13 - God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification
1 Peter 1:1 - those who are chosen
2 John 1:1 - the chosen lady and her children
2 John 1:13 - your chosen sister

It is unavoidable that God's choice of His own is a running theme throughout the pages of Scripture, Old to New Testaments, without a break. It's not in some dark theological corner. It is constant. The Bible says that God chooses whom He will save in accordance with His purposes (Rom 9:11) and His will (Matt 11:27; Rom 9:16).

Problems of Election

If God chooses people based on His purposes rather than their free will, it's not fair. He chooses to send billions to Hell.

This is a tough objection, very touching, and hard to avoid. Of them all, however, the last is the most troubling -- hard to avoid. You see, it is, in fact, unavoidable. Let's say that there is no election at all (in direct contradiction to all the Scriptures to the contrary). Let's say, as the Open Theist does, that God doesn't know in advance who will choose Him. Thus, God launches this whole creation into the unknown, hoping that some will come to Him and pretty sure that most won't. He cannot choose some according to foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:1-2) (meaning that He knew in advance what their choice would be). He just doesn't know. So why, after the angels rebelled and Adam and Eve rebelled, didn't He just carry out His original and just threat and end it all? Cut the losses. Instead, He chooses to send billions to Hell. "Oh, no," most of you would respond, "He knows. He is Omniscient and knows everything. He knows in advance who will choose Him and chooses them to be His own." The most popular position, to be sure, but it still fails to avoid the problem. God knows who will choose Him and saves them, but also knows who will not choose Him and still makes them, causes them to be born, and still damns them. He still chooses to send billions to Hell.

Election is according to God's foreknowledge, not simply His choosing.

Yes, election is according to God's foreknowledge. We see that multiple times (Eph 1:4; 1 Peter 1:1-2; Rom 8:29). But just what is that foreknowledge? Is it simply looking down the corridors of time (so to speak) and seeing, "Oh, this one will choose Me, so I'll choose Him"? That's very popular, but is it biblical? We read, for instance, when Peter was preaching in Acts 2, where he told them "This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." (Acts 2:23) If "foreknowledge" is simply "prediction", then God looked ahead in time, saw that Jesus would be arrested and die, and chose to make Him our Savior based on that. That is certainly not reasonable. On the other hand, even the world understands the phrase, "knew her in a biblical sense." The Bible is full of "knowing" that is not mere "mental information". Adam "knew" his wife (Gen 4:1). Jesus "never knew" those who were false believers (Matt 7:23). We are saved, in fact, by being known by God (Gal 4:9). Thus, "knowing" and "foreknowing" in the Bible is not simply data in advance. It is a prior relationship. It typically includes "predetermined" (e.g. Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28; Rom 8:29). It is a relationship in advance, not based on permission of Man. One of the popular "proof texts" for those who believe that God sovereignly chooses whom He will save apart from their choices or actions is in Romans 9. Here Paul speaks of Jacob and Esau. "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad -- in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls -- she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.'" (Rom 9:11-12) This clearly indicates that is is not based on the brothers, but God's purpose. "But," they'll tell me, "God knew in advance (foreknowledge) what Jacob and Esau would choose." So apparently what Paul shoves out the front door they smuggle in the back way. It is not based on what they did, but on God's purpose ... except that God's purpose is based on what they did. This makes no sense.

"This is just more of that old Calvinism stuff."

Let me point out that you brought up Calvin, not me. I've written only what is in Scripture. The only place that Calvin has been mentioned here is to point out that it has nothing to do with Calvin. Election is not a peripheral doctrine taught in philosophical or theological corners. It is a major theme of all of Scripture. It is predicated on God who chooses and only brings glory to God. It elevates God and His Sovereignty over Man and his free will. And it comes straight from the Bible.

The doctrine that God sovereignly chooses people for salvation based on His purposes (Rom 9:11) and apart from their choice (Rom 9:16) is generally uncomfortable, to the point of producing angry responses from genuine believers. The question, then, is whether you will go with what the Bible says or will you go with how it makes you feel?

Glorify God

We all know how to glorify God, right? We worship Him (Rom 12:1). We do good works (Matt 5:16). We operate in the image of Christ (Rom 8:29). We become transformed in our thinking (Rom 12:2). These kinds of things. I think, however, that I can list one that you hadn't considered.

[Jesus] said to [Peter] the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to Him, "Lord, You know everything; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go." (This He said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) (John 21:17-19)

I don't know about you, but the phrase "to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God" did not occur to me on my own listing of "What are ways we glorify God?" "How I die" isn't one that springs to mind. It was in Jesus's mind.

We don't tend to think that way. I remember one skeptic quizzing me about the deaths of a pastor and his son in an auto accident in our state. How was that a good thing? He was quite sure that it was not -- could not be. Jesus understood that in all we do we are to glorify God (1 Cor 10:31), even in dying. Paul wrote, "You were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." (1 Cor 6:20) Peter wrote, "If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name." (1 Peter 4:16).

So, how will you glorify God today? In worship? In doing works to His glory? In making disciples? In reflecting Christ? Or maybe in suffering? Or dying? Because, remember, we are to glorify God in everything.

Very Good

With all the passionate (no, not compassionate) wrangling these days over the whole issue of gender or, rather, transgender, I thought it might be interesting to get God's idea on it. Oh, you didn't know He had one? Well, I think He does.

At the end of the first chapter of Genesis we read this. "And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good." (Gen 1:31) Well, that's some statement. You see, throughout the chapter you will read "God saw that it was good" (Gen 1:4,10,12,18,21,25). There is only one place where it says "It was very good." That's here. So what made the difference between "good" and "very good"? Well, it was clearly the completion of the project. And what completed the project?

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Gen 1:26-27)

The creation of Man was His crowning achievement, the completion of the project, the pièce de résistance. He had created the world, the plants, the livestock, everything. And He finished it with Adam and Eve who would have dominion over it all -- in His own image.

Notice that, as part of His "very good" declaration, God declared very good "male and female". There you have it. God, as a binary gender Creator, declared His creation of "male and female" to be very good. Not gender confused. Not gender fluid. Male and female.

I think that's a clear indication of God's opinion on the question of transgender. Male? Very good. Female? Very good. Male-to-female or female-to-male? Not very good. Others will think otherwise. That, of course, is their privilege. Whether or not it's an opinion informed by the Word of God you can decide.

Like-Minded

Paul wrote to the church in Philippi, "If there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind." (Phil 2:1-2) Seems pretty straightforward, right? "I want you all to have the very same thoughts." Is that what he meant?

If you were to look at the Greek, you might conclude it is. He refers to "one mind", which could literally be translated "one sentiment or opinion". In a vacuum, I suppose that would be fine, except we don't have a vacuum; we have context. You see, Paul doesn't simply say, "Think alike." He includes "the same love" and "in full accord", and he says what mind to share. I mean, it's not like Paul is saying, "Here's what I want you to do. Get together and have a vote and decide which mind you'll all have." No, he tells them which mind.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. (Phil 2:5)

Yes, like that mind. The mind of Christ.

This mind is not the standard thinking of the world. It is, in fact, diametrically opposed. While the world stands on "looking out for #1", the mind of Christ is without "selfish ambition or conceit" (Phil 2:3). Instead, it counts others more significant than itself (Phil 2:3). While it is not possible to not look out for your own interests, this mind looks out for the interests of others as well (Phil 2:4). This "mind of Christ" is emptied of self (Phil 2:7) rather than full of self.

In what sense did Paul want them (and, by implication, us) to be like-minded? We ought to be considering others as more important than self as characterized by love. We ought to be less interested in self and more like Christ. Think alike? Not what he had in mind. Think in the same direction? More like that. Have the mind of Christ.

Standing in the Gap

Sometimes people are tempted to think that I have a one (or, at best, maybe two) tracked mind. You know. "He's always talking about the sin of homosexual behavior and the whole 'gay marriage' issue. Doesn't he know it's over?" Now, of course, this is an oversimplification. But the truth is that I do talk about a limited number of issues and I do tend to hit in the same places on more than one occasion. I talk about marriage (real marriage) and I talk about the Sovereignty of God and I talk about sexual sin and sometimes I dip my toe into politics. I certainly hit heavily on doctrine, particularly matters of the reliability and authority of Scripture and such. And given the vast numbers of things about which I could write, it might seem to appear ... limited.

Why do I do this?

In thinking to myself about why, I envisioned a guy walking a horse down a dirt path. He's trying to walk down the middle of the path because getting off the path would be dangerous ground for both the horse and him. But the horse isn't too good at walking straight down the middle and tends toward the edges. So I see this horse veering off to the left and I see this guy pulling hard to the right. Why? Is he so keen to get that horse off to the right? No. It's because he wants to get him to the middle and that is to the right.

Okay, not the best imagery I could find. But that's the idea. There are lots of things that I don't discuss much. Why? Because there are lots of things that are not a problem. Most Christians, genuine or otherwise, aren't confused about "saved by faith" or "Christ died for you" or things like that. We're all happy about God's grace and mercy. Here, let me illustrate. I've talked on multiple occasions about the sin nature. I've tried to paint a biblical picture of Man as sinner. I've tried to drive home the point that humans have earned God's wrath for their Cosmic Treason, that Hell isn't an overreach, but justice. "What," someone might ask, "do you have such a negative image of human beings?" No. I know that we're made in the image of God. I know that Christ died to save us, that He places His own value on us. I know there are nice people, even nice people who aren't Christians. So why the emphasis on the sin problem? Because the horse is veering off to the left, focusing on the nice people and good things about people and missing the balance point of the problem of sin. So I have to pull hard on that problem of sin.

Maybe not clear enough yet. So I came up with a biblical illustration. In Ezekiel God complains to the prophet.

"I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one." (Ezek 22:30)

God wanted someone to build a wall and "stand in the gap". What does that mean? In Nehemiah the people had returned from exile to Jerusalem. They were trying to rebuild. First on the agenda was to build the wall around the city, to make it safe. It was hard work. And they were slow to get it done. Threatened by enemies, here was what Nehemiah arranged. "I stationed men in the lowest parts of the space behind the wall, the exposed places, and I stationed the people in families with their swords, spears and bows." (Neh 4:13) So, Nehemiah, what's up with that? Don't you care about the rest of the wall? Aren't you concerned about the other spaces? No, you see, the other spaces were filled in, protected, solid. Nehemiah needed people -- armed people, even armed families -- to stand in the gaps, to protect the city where the holes were.

That's why I do this. Do I think that homosexual behavior is the worst sin? No, of course not. Do I think that 'gay marriage' is the end of the world? Not at all. Do I think that the only issue facing the church today is the improper view of the Word? No, I don't. But I do think these are gaps, current holes in the fence. They're "acceptable sins" to many Christians. They're issues that many are no longer considering.

So I stand in the gaps. Armed with "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph 6:17), I'm trying to ward off attacks where Christians appear to be no longer aware of the danger. Or, if you prefer, I'm trying to yank that horse hard in the other direction, not to go off the other side, but to return to the middle path. And I'll continue to do it because God complained when He couldn't find someone to "stand in the gap before Me for the land." Here am I, Lord. Send me.

Marriage and the Gospel

Clearly our culture has lost its way when it comes to marriage. We started our most serious departure from the truth in the '50's when we decided that "marriage" and "offspring" were distinct. We continued that departure with "no fault divorce". With these twin assaults on marriage came a parallel attack, euphemistically called "free love" -- have sex with whomever you want. The cancer has eaten away at the body of marriage for decades and now we have the contradictory concept of "gay marriage" as not merely acceptable, but as law of the land. Today, between "gay marriage" (which is not marriage), "free love", the loose construct of "family" which includes everything from "my live-in boyfriend" to "our cats", the constant threat of divorce, and the ubiquitous single parent, marriage is no longer what God intended.

So what? What does it matter if fewer and fewer of us get it? What does it matter if the popular opinion is counter to Scripture (which, by the way, makes it counter to the truth ... by definition)? What difference does it make as long as we (the few) retain it? The question belies our failure to grasp the importance of marriage.

The Bible gives its primary definition of marriage right up front.

A man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)

Not too difficult, but important. Important enough for Jesus to echo it (Matt 19:4-6). (Jesus says that you can be married -- male and female become one flesh -- or a eunuch (Matt 19:11-12) -- celibate. There are no other biblical options.) Male and female (husband and wife, bride and groom) become one for life (Matt 19:6). This rules out premarital sex, adultery, divorce, and, of course, any other "marriage" that is not marriage. It's important. It's important for the race, as the primary and best means of producing and raising subsequent generations, of propagating the species and the faith. It's important for the family, structured as God intended. It's important for society with this family structure as the key component of any community.

It's important, however, for one often-ignored reason. This structure of marriage is intended by God to be an image of the Gospel.

Marriage as a picture of Christ's death on our behalf.

The Bible commands husbands (as a portrayal of Christ) to give their lives for their wives.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her (Eph 5:25)

When Paul commands us to "Submit to one another" (Eph 5:21), he follows it with an explanation from marriage. Wives submit to their husband's authority (Eph 5:22-24); husbands submit their lives to caring for their wives (Eph 5:25-27). Christ did the latter by dying for us, rising again, sending the Holy Spirit, and dwelling within us. It is a picture on one hand of how husbands ought to relate to their wives and, on the other hand, a picture from marriage about Christ's relationship with us.

Marriage as a picture of our submission to Christ.

Just as husbands are to give their lives for their wives, wives are to

be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. (Eph 5:22-24)

The Gospel starts here. Christ died on our behalf -- gave Himself for us. We must submit to Him as head "in everything" and Savior. That's the start of the Gospel. He gave Himself for us; we submit to Him.

Marriage as a picture of lifelong commitment to Christ.

Marriage includes commitment and separation -- commitment to each other and a separation from others. It is monogamy -- one marriage. It is union (Eph 5:31-32; Col 1:27). It excludes those outside (Heb 13:4; 1 John 5:21). And it is for life (Rom 7:2; Jude 1:24). All of these are critical components of the Gospel. Christ commits to us and we are His for eternity -- eternal bliss. It's a far better version than the fairy tale "they lived happily ever after". This one is beyond happy.

Marriage as a picture of Christ and the Church.

The Bible repeatedly uses this picture of marriage as a mysterious parallel of Christ's relationship with the Church.

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church. (Eph 5:31-32)

The plan "before the ages began" (Titus 1:2) was that Christ would die to save a Bride for Himself. These would surely come to Him (John 6:37) and He would lose not one (John 10:27-30). Paul told the Corinthians "I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin." (2 Cor 11:2) In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John describes the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-9). Marriage expresses the union of Christ and the Church.

Marriage is God's idea, built on the union of a man and a woman. Essential to God's idea of marriage is the husband's sacrifice of self for his wife as an image of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf, the submission of the wife to the husband as an image of our submission to Christ, and the exclusive union of husband and wife -- two become one -- as the image of Christ's union with His Bride, the Church. Marriage -- your marriage -- is intended by God not to be some self-pleasuring institution, but a picture of the Gospel. As such, your marriage, husbands and wives, faithfully represents the Gospel for others to the extent that you faithfully reflect God's instructions for marriage. It's not too late to do that properly, even if (or rather "though") errors have been committed. The closer your marriage and your operation within your role in marriage aligns with God's commands, the better your marriage represents the Gospel and your lives declare the glory of God. Now, remember the question. What difference does it make if the world's version of marriage no longer matches God's? To the extent that more of us buy into that false version, fewer will be able to see the Gospel lived out in marriage as God intended. And that, you see, is Satan's plan -- obscure the Gospel. We have marching orders. We ought to ignore the lies of the world and get to work on doing what's right.

Free At Last

The whole world, it feels like, knows the phrase from the lips of Jesus, "The truth shall set you free." Hey, I even heard it quoted in a Jim Carrey movie, Liar, Liar. We all know the phrase. But ... do we? You see, the phrase is just that -- a phrase. It is a part of a sentence which is part of a thought. What was that thought?

"If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32)

Context is important. Jesus didn't say this to His disciples. He was in a dialog with the Pharisees who were testing Him (John 8:13). The text says that in this exchange with His challengers, "many believed in Him." (John 8:30) To these new believers, then, He said this remarkable thing.

Having established the context, it is equally important to note the content. Jesus did not say "The truth shall set you free" all by itself. He didn't even say, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" in a vacuum. Notice that Jesus put restrictions on this claim of knowing truth and being set free. There are two. 1) "If you abide in My word." 2) "You are truly My disciples." Sure, these are parallel -- synonymous. But they are two things. In other words, we do not have a generalized promise that everyone will know the truth and everyone will be set free. That is not the case. There are narrow limits on this knowing-and-being-free promise. It is, in fact, a similar restriction we see elsewhere.

"When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come." (John 16:13)

We'd like to think that this is a statement from Christ that the Holy Spirit will lead all people into all truth, "So who are you to question my truth?" It just isn't in there. This is a promise specifically to His disciples and not to the world in general.

So we need to look again at the limitations. Jesus says, "If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples." Notice that He defines "My disciples" for us here. It isn't those who "believe" because, as we see in the context, Jesus was explaining a further truth to those who believed. He was telling them, "Believing is fine, but there is something more." What more? "If you abide in My word." A disciple is defined biblically as one who abides in the Word.

"Oh, no it isn't," someone is sure to say. "It's defined as one who abides in Jesus's word." Fine. Do that nice little dodge. Be a "red-letter Christian". Except the Bible is clear that all Scripture is breathed by God, and that Jesus is the Word. Thus, all Scripture is Jesus's word. And we're back to my statement. A disciple is defined biblically as one who abides in the Word.

This gains significance when you consider the Great Commission. It starts with "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt 28:19). Not converts. Not even "church-goers". Disciples. Jesus defined disciple for us -- those who abide in His Word. The word used here is μαθητεύω -- mathēteuō. It refers to becoming a pupil. Not merely a believer. Not even a follower. A pupil, a student, a learner.

You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Oh, of course, "you" in that sentence refers to "you who abide in the Word, whose lives revolve around His Word, who are learners of Christ and His Word." These people do have the promise of enlightenment from the Holy Spirit (which, by the way, would have to be completely consistent with all such disciples over all time). We are not called to attend church, sing worship songs, listen to a decent sermon, and go home. We are called to live in His Word as learners. And we are commanded to enjoin others to do the same. To be disciples, as defined by the Master. Then you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Don't count on some shortcut through the world's thinking processes and values. Expect a lifelong process. Jesus said it.

Taking God's Position

And the debate rages on ... somewhere other than here. The question being debated over at Craig's blog is whether or not babies are sinners. Now, I'd love to explain what "he said" and how "he answered" and so on, but, hey, at last look there were over 100 comments and, frankly, I just don't have the patience. So here's what I intend to do. I intend to give an answer ... from Scripture. Oh, I know, I know, who cares about Scripture? I mean, "you got eyes, don't you?" It doesn't take a genius to recognize the "innocence of infants" and understand that the entire world sees babies as sinless little angels. But if I'm going to be true to God by being true to His Word, I'll have to form my opinion about this topic (as with so many others) from God's Word. Will that settle things? Well, obviously, no. But for those of you who, to use a colloquialism, "have ears to hear, let him hear." Are babies sinless?

It was interesting to me that a secular show, the National Geographic series, Brain Games, did an episode on lying. This secular, science-based (rather than theological) show made this startling claim. They claimed that scientists had documented babies as young as 6 months old lying. No, not lying down. Telling lies. They suggest humans are "born to lie". Hey, that wasn't me. That was them. I say that because, on one hand, that would certainly fly in the face of the whole "babies are innocent" position and, on the other, doesn't go as far as Scripture does on the question. Here's what the Bible says.

The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth. (Psa 58:3)

Sorry, NatGeo, apparently the Bible suggests that babies lie "from birth", not merely 6 months old.

And it only gets worse. David claimed, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." (Psa 51:5) That's not a claim that his mother was sinning when he was conceived. It is a claim that he was in sin when he was conceived. The Bible says that just before the Flood, "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5) Note the superlatives. "Every intent." "Only evil." "Only evil continually." "Yes, but things got better after the Flood ... right?" After the Flood God Himself claims, "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21) "Oh, now, wait! That says 'youth'!" Nice try. The word refers to "infancy to adolescence" and is translated in Scripture as anything from "babe" on up to "lad" or "damsel". As in "not an adult." In agreement with the Psalms.

"Okay, now, hang on a minute. Are you saying that a little, one-day-old infant is actually performing sins?" Well, now, that would depend on how you define "sin", wouldn't it? Now, we could go to the dictionary, but, again, I'm working from a Bible basis here rather than pop culture, popular ideas, or popular philosophy. The Bible defines sin as "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). Now that should get your attention. In this version, sin is not the bad things we do, but simply operating outside the law of God. Sin isn't necessarily intent to break the law, but a failure to conform to it. And while those who disagree with me on this will say, "It's hard to believe that a baby could break the law", I'd offer the reverse: It's hard to believe that a baby could conform to the law. Here, let's make it even easier. What is the single most important law? Easy, right? Love the Lord your God with all that you are (Matt 22:37-38). Is it your contention, then, that babies fresh from the womb are loving God with all they are?

"So," I can hear the next complaint, "you're saying that babies who die go to Hell." No, no I'm not. Here's what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Bible teaches that human beings are sinners from birth, that we are born spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-3), that the intent of the Natural Man from birth is only evil continually. I define that "evil" as a failure to conform to the law of God. I make no claim about the eternal condition of babies who die. I count on the justice and mercy of God on that point. I believe, pulling again at a scriptural point, that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy (Rom 9:15), and that "it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." (Rom 9:16) I'm content to rest in His good pleasure on that point.

Do infants sin? The Bible says they do. But, of course, the Bible doesn't always take the popular position. I can only assume that it takes the truthful position because, after all, it is God's Word.

Blessed

You know, God has been very good to me. Very good, indeed.

I have running water at my house. In multiple places. I even have toilets. Did you know that 1 in 10 people in the world lack access to safe water, let alone running water? Did you know that 2 out of 3 people in the world do not have access to toilets? I have both.

I have a good wife. Good kids. Can you imagine? Not one of my kids is unemployed or in jail. Oh, sure, they're not perfect, and, to be transparent, I don't chalk their "good kid" status to my efforts. I assign that to a good God who gave me a better wife than I could have imagined and good kids.

I'm not young, but I'm in amazingly good health. My doctor says so. And she doesn't know why, either. That's an astounding gift from God.

You know something really amazing? I can get myself up in the morning, shower myself, dress myself, read my Bible, eat my breakfast, brush my teeth, and drive to work. All by myself. No cane or assisted medical help or anything. Because God has been truly good to me.

I have a good job and a good home, a good church and a good family, good parents, good siblings and even their spouses. I live comfortably and am able to breathe on my own. I have a warm bed to sleep in, good food to eat, a wife who loves me, and fresh air to breathe. I can read and write and even use this computer thingy reasonably well.

One of my biggest blessings has been, all my life, my mother. She is a woman who loves the Lord above all and who loves His truth, even when it's not "convenient". (For instance, she reads, " I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12) and accepts it because He says it, even if it's not particularly "politically correct" or "in sync with the culture.") One thing my mother loves, and, in doing so, passes on to others, is an abiding and constantly growing sense of gratitude for all the blessings God gives. What a wonderful gift my mother is.

As for me, sure, I've had this sin problem, but my God has provided the solution to it. By repenting and placing my faith in Christ, I get the incredible opportunity to exchange my sin for His righteousness, my death for His life, my pitiful world for His magnificence. Now, that is blessed.

There is a lot of good in my life. Even good that I don't recognize. And the Bible tells me that every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights (James 1:17). So I conclude that God has been very good to me.

Here's a theoretical question. If you woke up tomorrow without the things for which you didn't thank God today, what would you be without? Just a theoretical question, but something to think about.

Things we don't say much anymore

"Everybody come to the table. It's time for dinner."

It used to be the standard. Families ate together. It wasn't a chore or a hardship. It was a given. There was even a time when they expected you to "dress for dinner", which was not your comfortable play clothes. So families would share at least one meal and talk about their day and keep in touch. (And "dinner" referred to the biggest meal of the day ... which on Sunday was often lunch.)

"Put on your Sunday-go-to-meetin' clothes."

I suppose there might still be some who would use this phrase, but it can only be a carryover from a day gone by because it is extremely rare that anyone would think that there should be anything special about the way you dress to go into the presence of God on Sunday. Shorts and t-shirts are fine. The pastor is surely not dressing any differently than most. If you wanted to express something like this, you'd have to substitute something like "Put on the clothes you might wear to a meeting with someone important" or something like that. Although I'm not sure anyone knows what that means anymore. Respect in how we dress is not a common courtesy offered to many these days ... including God on Sunday.

"I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

In truth, you might hear it among some conservatives, but I'm not sure they mean it anymore. I'm fairly sure the liberals don't. There are a host of opinions, views, phrases, and such that we are not allowed to express and, instead of defending your right to say them, you can more likely expect people to compete for censuring, suing, or jailing you for such things. Tops on the list these days is anything perceived as "anti-woman", "anti-LGBT", or racist (loosely defined, since "racist" requires a prejudice based on race, but the modern definition is prejudice from people in power). The Constitution defends your freedom of speech, but you can't expect many these days to defend the Constitution, especially when your speech crosses the line on these "pet peeves".

"Go ahead. It's a free country."

It used to be that what you did was no skin off my nose. "You don't believe you can participate in a wedding for homosexuals? No problem. It's a free country. We'll get someone else." No longer. "Free" is defined as "What we want you to do" and "What we want you to do" is an almost purely emotional position taken without genuine reason or rationale. "Free is what we say it is" now prevails. And it does not apply to you.

"Fair's fair."

It seemed painfully obvious. "If it's good for me, it's good for you." So if I got to choose the restaurant last time, you ought to get to choose the restaurant this time. Fair's fair. The phrase is painfully obvious because "fair" seems patently obvious. No longer. It's fair if the gay baker doesn't have to violate his values and make a cake with a Leviticus reference on it, but it is not fair to defer making a cake for a gay wedding if it violates your religious values. Muslims must not be insulted or mocked; Christians should. Substitute what you will. The loudest public voices today have the right to harm those who do not wish to participate and that's fair. Those who do not want to participate must participate and failure to do so is not fair. Michelle Obama, during a commencement commencement address at Jackson State University in Mississippi, assured the grads that Mississippi was wrong in protecting people's free exercise of religion. "We’ve got to stand side by side," she said, "with all our neighbors –- straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender; Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu immigrant, Native American ..." unless, of course, our neighbors are Christians who don't wish to agree with us because fair's fair, right? Well, you would have thought.

How about you? Can you think of other things we don't say much anymore?

Backslidden Christians

The backslider in heart will have his fill of his own ways, But a good man will be satisfied with his. (Prov 14:14)

I don't think the younger generation of Christians have likely heard the term, "backslidden Christian". And I don't think it's because the term "backsliding" has been replaced by a new term. No, I think it's because we've entered a new era of Christendom (my term for the broader world of "Christianity" which would include genuine as well as misguided or false believers), a "gentler and kinder" era where we don't point out that other people may be ... in the wrong.

The term is biblical, as the verse I reference uses it, but so is the concept. It is the idea behind the phrase from the hymn, Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing, where he says, "Prone to wander, Lord I feel it; Prone to leave the One I love." It's when prayer is no longer essential, when it is no longer a matter of joy to spend time with the Lord in His Word, when truth becomes personal rather than God's truth, when worship loses its delights, when fellowship with believers is no longer important, when other things like entertainment or money or power or pleasure take first place over a walk with the Savior, when we pardon our sin as a "boo boo" rather than an affront to the Master, when our lifestyle mimics the world's rather than the Lord's, when you feel your sin is small but your grace and mercy and godliness are great. Biblically, it is succumbing to the deceitfulness of sin (Heb 3:12-13), a failure to hold to the faith and good conscience (1 Tim 1:18-19), when we become friends of the world (James 4:4) and we quench the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19), resist Him (Acts 7:51), and grieve Him (Eph 4:30).

Some "backsliders" are not "backslidden Christians", but rocky or thorny soil in whom the Word never took root (Matt 13:18-23). These are merely returning to their original, unsaved position. "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19) Others are sliding Christians, prone to wander (as are we all). These need to be restored. Paul wrote, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ." (Gal 6:1-2)

But here's the problem. If we give in to the "kinder and gentler" version of Christendom in which we don't take note of backsliding Christians, how can we "bear one another's burdens"? If we aren't supposed to notice, but just "treat them with grace", how are we to "restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness"? You see, this "kinder and gentler" version is like the mother antelope that abandons her baby in flight from a predator and calls it "kinder and gentler". "I don't want to call that little thing weak." It is not "kinder and gentler" to abandon others to the "roaring lion" (1 Peter 5:8).

Yes, indeed, first and foremost each of us needs to "examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. For each one will bear his own load." (Gal 6:4-5) Look first to your own condition. It was Jesus who said, "First take the log out of your own eye," but He gave a reason for that: "and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt 7:5) Turning a blind eye to a backslidden Christian because "we don't want to be condemning" is condemning him or her to problems that we're supposed to be assisting rather than ignoring. We're told that "Tolerance is better." Sometimes. But the church at Thyatira (Rev 2:18-39) was tolerant. They tolerated false teaching that led to immorality and idolatry. And the results were ... unpleasant. Not all tolerance is good, especially in matters of the faith.

We do need to love one another. It starts with first examining ourselves to be sure we aren't a problem. It includes bearing one another's burdens, especially when that burden is ongoing sin. Failing to address false teaching and immorality has serious consequences for the one indulging in it as well as those who ignore it. Perhaps we need to put "backslidden" back into our vocabulary.

Why a Win for Trump is a Win for Us

So, the whole thing comes unraveled now. You naysayers who assured me that voting was a moral obligation and, by definition, that included voting for the "conservative candidate", you balked at the "lesser of two evils" concept, but tacitly agreed. The battle cry was "A vote for anyone else or no one else is a vote for Hillary!" I pointed out back here that I believed that "the lesser of two evils" was no longer clear; that I thought, in fact, that Trump was potentially the greater evil. "Not to worry," some assured me, "it won't come to that." Well, here we are with all candidates but one bailing out, and he's the "greater of two evils".

But, wait. Is it possible that this could be a good thing? I think it might.

1. Fire purifies.

Peter speaks of faith "more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire" (1 Peter 1:7). Fire, you see, purifies. Put things under the flames and the dross -- the impurities -- rise to the top. It is entirely possible that a Trump administration can serve as a purifying fire. Christians, lulled by this "Do the best we can with the least that we can get" kind of mentality, might get burned out. They could sink into the morass of "Nothing works so I'll just keep doing what I'm doing", or they might wake up and realize "This isn't working" and be ready to leave the "party" and move on. Trump as president just might make Christians realize that politics is not the answer.

2. Eventually the rot gets revealed.

For the longest time Republicans in general and conservatives in particular have been pointing "out there". "It's those darned liberals." "It's the Democrats." "Those people are the problem." With Donald Trump in the White House it just might happen that some of these Republicans and conservatives just might notice, "Oh, hang on a minute ... it looks like we're in trouble, too." Like the shadow that follows the dying man to the grave, conservatives have lagged liberals, but only slightly. They have never drawn the progressives back; they've simply ended up moving their way. At some point it's possible that we'll notice.

3. Destroy the party

As I warned in that other post, I see Donald Trump as a blow to Republicans and conservatives. Is it possible that, given the worse than useless choices we will be given this November, we might just realize that this system isn't working?

4. The Judgment of God

Trump followers won't agree, of course, but I think it is manifest that a Trump presidency would be the judgment of God on America. The truth is we've pushed this luxury liner so fast toward the reefs that we most likely can't avoid the collision with the rocks, but I don't see Trump as someone who will slow it down. And I'm confident that America has earned judgment from God. No, judgment is not pleasant, but it is good.

5. The clarification of a nation

With Trump in charge, voted into office by Americans, the world (and Americans) could finally see the meaning of the old phrase, "the ugly American". As our elected representatives represent us -- as a mirror to ourselves -- a Trump presidency would display how self-centered and selfish, proud and egotistical, narcissistic, hypocritical, and hypercritical Americans can really be. Maybe ... just maybe ... that good hard look in the face of ourselves might be a good jolt.

Of course, those are possible reasons why a win for Trump would be a win for us. Perhaps they're too optimistic. Fortunately I don't need to rely on my optimism. (Anyone who knows me would be giggling at the thought of putting "me" together with "optimism".) I rely on God who causes all things to work together for good for those who love Him. And since I don't trust the president to make our lives worth living and do trust God to do that, I guess a Trump win -- or a Hillary win -- will always "work together for good", at least on my behalf.

Normalization of the Media

Okay, so if you're paying attention, you might notice that the title is ambiguous. Is it referring to the media being normalized, or is it referring to normalization that the media brings? See? English is a tough language.

There is a saying: "More is caught more than taught." You see it in children who learn from watching their parents far more than they learn from what their parents tell them. You see it in school kids who observe those around them and incorporate that into their "normal" regardless of what their parents and church and all have taught them. You see it in church, where "Christianity" is more "what we see" than "what we hear". You see it in character development, religious views, child-rearing, work culture, just about everywhere. "Normal" is determined not by what is said, but by what is observed.

What's interesting is how the media plays a similar role. It's interesting because of the unique nature of the media. Television and movies and the like are not necessarily intended to be either educational or even truthful. They are intended to be art. Starting with the "entertainment" side, a movie is typically built on a concept that will be expressed in its dialog and story line. So we get The Ten Commandments complete with dialog that the Bible does not include because the goal is not to provide a documentary of the story of Moses and Israel leaving Egypt, but to entertain. And you'll see "based on an actual event" as a teaser not because they're claiming what they're showing is the truth, but because it's sort of the truth and should be entertaining to watch. Then you get to the "truthful" side, like documentaries or, the most common, the news broadcasts. These do intend to express the truth, but they do so with a slant. They have to. There was 24 hours of events in the world, most of which you have no interest in hearing, and they need to tell you what you do want to hear of it in an hour. Or less. So they'll throw the truth at you ... in part. We'll hear of disasters and tragedies and shockers and, very rarely, the amazingly good thing someone did. Because that's "news". That 99% of America got home safely from work today is not. It's that accident on the interstate that is news. That 80% of America is suffering from no real malady is not news. That a tiny number are suffering from a disease is. And, of course, they'll include their bias. Whether it's "We don't really like conservatives" or "liberals" or "Christians" or whatever it is, they'll slant their presentation that way. This is why every news outlet in the country is talking about "anti-LGBT laws" instead of "pro-religious freedom laws" and the like. They'll present "People have to use the bathroom that corresponds to their birth certificate statement of gender" as "anti-transgender" and barely mention the "Transgender editor killed in Bangladesh" which is anti-transgender. They'll mention how the "UK warns LGBT tourists against visiting America" but can't differentiate between that and the "father kills his son because he's gay" story which is "anti-gay". It's all in the bias.

What's interesting, though, is not so much the slant, the bias, the art, or the entertainment. What's interesting is that we don't seem to notice any of it. We take it in. We breathe it. We exhale it. We begin to think that satellites are out there that can read license plate numbers because we saw it on Enemy of the State. Never mind that it doesn't make any sense. We saw it; it's real. Listening to arguments and positions is one thing. Our brains are engaged. But listening to music or watching television or movies, not so much. We're being entertained. We're not analyzing; we're absorbing. So we catch, rather than are taught, that most families are dysfunctional, men are useless, children are brilliant, gay is good, transgender is reasonable, heterosexual marriage (normal marriage) is the pits, sex is part of everything ... on and on and on it goes. We absorb these values rather than evaluate and incorporate them.

As Christians in a world that Scripture says we are not to love (1 John 2:15), we need to be careful. We need to pay attention to what we're absorbing. We need to analyze what we're barely aware we're being told. We need to compare the truth our world offers us against God's Word. Because being passive learners makes us victims of what the media makes out to be normal rather than ambassadors for Christ.

Mean-Spirited

Back in February my family (at last count there was something like 305 of us) had their biennial gathering. The place they've enjoyed meeting at for the past several times is a Jewish university in southern California. Neat place. Tucked back in its own canyon, good hiking, good scenery, nice place. But it is a Jewish university. So we pay their price and they provide the housing (It is, after all, an entire 3-day weekend.) and the facilities and the food and things like sound equipment and the like. A very enjoyable time at a very enjoyable place. The rules are typical with a couple of uniquely Jewish exceptions. They wouldn't serve a hot meal on Saturday. It was the Sabbath, you know, and the only food they could serve was cold food or food that was prepared on Friday. But the one that really struck me was this: do not bring any non-kosher foods on the campus.

Now, that seemed strange to me. I mean, fornication is still a violation of Jewish rules, but they don't require that members of the opposite sex who share a room to be married. Homosexual behavior is still a violation of Jewish rules, but they don't care if a same-sex couple share a room, either. They don't balk at alcohol and don't care if we have a Christian church service on Sunday. They just won't allow non-kosher foods on the campus.

And then I realized why. You see, they aren't concerned about your sin. Go ahead and sin all you want. You'll have to answer to God for that (although I'm sure they would have said "G_d"). They're concerned about their own sin. And if you brought non-kosher foods onto the property, it could affect their kosher observance. So they drew the line there.

As it turns out, that's what Christian bakers and florists and photographers and innkeepers and pastors and ... well, you get the idea ... that's all they're asking. By all means, you go ahead and sin. It is not their job to stop you. Hey, we all sin. Now, they do want to live godly lives, to live their lives in such a way that God is glorified, and they do want you to hear the Gospel that your sin can be dealt with. But making the world a moral place is not their job. They just ask that others don't require them to sin.

It's not the same thing as the "anti-LGBT" tag is trying to get across. The photographer didn't say, "You must not go through with it." She said, "Please don't make me participate." The florist didn't say, "Repent, sinner!" She said, "Please don't make me participate." And the call of the opposition is not equivalent. They do not say, "You do what you want; just don't ask us to." They say, "Oh, no, you will sin against your God in favor of our values or you will face the consequences." And there are consequences.

On those "100+ anti-LGBT laws" in the works around the country, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, "Specific laws like this that seek to target and marginalize one small segment of the population is nothing less than mean-spirited." Is it mean-spirited to ask to be excluded? Or is the truly mean spirit the one that demands subjugation -- subjugation of the Second Amendment and even subjugation of God's Laws. "Please don't make me sin" is not mean-spirited. "You will ignore your God" is.

What is Love?

I saw an ad for a website called Christian Mingle. It's a "Christian dating service". But it's, oh, so much more. Here, you see, you can find love. That "one soulmate, that one true love, one who can share your dreams and passions, one just right for you." That, apparently, is what Christian Mingle considers to be "love".

It is the question of the ages, it seems. "What is this thing called 'love'?" Books are written about it. Songs are sung about it. Plays and movies are made about it. We all know what it is ... except we're just not entirely sure and we're even less clear.

Psychology Today says that it is "a force of nature" over which we have no control. "You cannot dictate how, when, and where love expresses itself." Love, they tell me, cannot be legislated. It cannot be turned on or off. "The real deal can never be delivered if it doesn't spring freely from the heart."

About.com tells us that, in love, "chemistry and physical attraction are important, but true love also includes commitment, trust and respect." Love is caring, attraction, attachment, commitment, and intimacy.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that love is hard to define. Plato wrote of graduated love, starting at the base lusts and moving through to Platonic love where physical contact had no bearing. We often think of graduated love ourselves, as if you start with "like" and move to "love". The Greeks referred to eros, the love of passions, storge, the love of family, philia, love built on mutual fondness, and agape. Interestingly, the last is primarily God's love for man, a love that transcends desires, family, fondness, anything lovable in the one who is loved. In short, love is complicated and actually beyond comprehension.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers a variety of views. The "Love is Union" view says that love is "the formation of (or the desire to form) some significant kind of union, a 'we.'" Another notion is love as a robust concern. This view regards love as a concern for the well being of another. Interestingly, this version of love is volitional -- you choose it. "That a person cares about or that he loves something has less to do with how things make him feel, or with his opinions about them, than with the more or less stable motivational structures that shape his preferences and that guide and limit his conduct." Another version says love is placing value on someone or something. Now, this value may be "value to me" or "valuable in itself". That is, it may be that I love because it gives me something or it may be that I love because the person or thing is valuable and should be loved. And, of course, there is the foremost, popular version that love is an emotion. Understandably, none of these approaches are comprehensive enough to avoid arguments against them or to encompass all that love is.

Most sources agree that love is variable. The Greeks, for instance, had multiple words for it because it has multiple facets. Love for pizza is not the same as love for a pet which is not the same as love for family which is not the same as love for a spouse. We get that. Love can be romance. It is often reliant on chemistry. Whatever it is, love is the most powerful emotion we feel. We often think of love in terms of physical love, but we know of platonic love as well. Here's what we all do know. Love is something you "fall in". You can "fall in love" and, sadly, "fall out of love". Everyone knows that.

Enter Jesus Christ who tells us "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:37-40) No small command, that. But apparently Jesus disagreed with our "fall in love" concept because He commanded love. He disagreed with Psychology Today because He did legislate love. If it is commanded, it can be turned on (obedience) or off (disobedience). If it can be commanded, it is not "chemistry and physical attraction" or even "the most powerful emotion we feel". Now, the emotions that we link with love may be the result of Jesus's version of love, but they are not the definition.

This is why we get such confusion when Christians talk about love. We are told, for instance, to "love your enemy". Taking the "chemistry", "respect", "better than like", "warm feelings" definition, we're really kind of stuck. "How can I love my enemy?" Worse, is it at all possible to "love your enemy" while hoping he gets caught by the police? Is it possible to "love your enemy" when he's attacking your wife or child and your only means of saving your non-enemy is lethal force? In fact, the answer to these questions is "No!" ... if your definition of love is a warm feeling. We really run into this confusion when we say that "God is love" and "God loves everybody." God has warm feelings toward everybody? How does that correlate to, oh, I don't know ... sending people to Hell, for instance? If we are going to agree that God is love and God certainly does give people the Hell they've earned, we're going to have to agree that "love" is not that warm feeling thing we typically imagine.

Jesus told His disciples, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) Love is the hallmark of all true believers, the great commandment, the basis of all God's instructions. If we don't get ourselves free of this "Love is an emotion" concept, we'll never get this. Love produces emotions, but if we are commanded to love, it is a choice. And if it is not the "warm affection" that most of our world thinks it is, how can we understand the commands we have to love -- love God, love your neighbor, love one another, love your enemy? While we're busy trying to drum up warm feelings for God, our fellow man, and those who hate us, God is waiting. Waiting for us to obey.

Great Is Thy Faithfulness

Great is Thy faithfulness, O God, my Father.
There is no shadow of turning with Thee.
Thou changest not, Thy compassions they fail not.
As Thou hast been Thou forever wilt be.

Great is Thy faithfulness! Great is Thy faithfulness!
Morning by morning new mercies I see.
All I have needed Thy hand hath provided.
Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me.

The immutable nature of God is a lost attribute to us today. It was easily forgotten in biblical times. Samuel had to remind Saul that God was not like us - not a man who changed His mind. (1 Sam. 15:27-29) In our ever-changing world and our shifting personal viewpoints we see God sometimes as capricious, unpredictable, certainly uncertain. We hardly know what to expect next, and we view each event as an obstacle. But God's faithfulness is a leading topic of Scripture. This hymn dwells on God's unchanging nature.

It is God's immutability that makes Him faithful, trustworthy. What God has purposed He will do. (Jer. 4:28) There is no promise He won't fulfill. God is completely reliable. With God, His immutability is absolute. There isn't a mere sense of faithfulness, but unwavering consistency. It is His unchanging nature that makes Him eternal. His constant nature ties into His omniscience, for God cannot change what He knows, since He knows all. His plans never fail because He is unchanging. The name "Rock" applied to God points to this attribute. (e.g., Isaiah 26:4) God is faithful beyond our comprehension.

God cannot change. That means nothing I do will cause Him to love me less - or more. His compassions never fail (Lam. 3:22,23), nor are they increased. My choices do not surprise Him, nor do my circumstances catch Him off guard. God is changeless.

"Great is Thy faithfulness." So immense is His faithfulness that I could never comprehend it. Every day a new aspect of His changeless perfection can be revealed new to me. He provides all I need, whether I know what that is or not. His constant care for me is part of His constancy. "Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me."

Summer and winter and springtime and harvest,
Sun, moon, and stars in their courses above,
Join with all nature in manifold witness
To Thy great faithfulness, mercy, and love.

Don't let the meter of the poem cause you to lose the meaning of the words. Summer, winter, spring, fall, these join with all nature in witness to God's faithfulness. The consistency of the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars - which operate with such precision as to be standards for accurately keeping time - join with all nature in witness to God's faithfulness. These and more all point to an marvelously faithful God whose attention to detail and our needs despite our sin condition clearly demonstrates His mercy and love, themselves unchanging.

Several hymns point to nature as proof of God's attributes (e.g., "How Great Thou Art", "Fairest Lord Jesus", etc.). Scripture itself concurs. (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20) This particular selection of natural occurrences is used as specific evidence of God's faithfulness. As day goes into day, season into season, as constant as the stars, as consistent as all of nature, so faithful is God. We never question whether the sun will rise tomorrow. It always has. It will again. God is more faithful than the rising of the sun. It is this faithfulness of God that enabled David to fight Goliath. When Saul asked David why he should be able to handle the fight, David pointed back to God's prior faithfulness. (1 Sam. 17:33-37) If God did it before, surely He could do it again. If God has ever cared for my needs, He will always care for my needs because He is faithful. If He has ever enabled me to do His will, He will always do so because He is faithful. Experience proves it. Nature proves it. God is faithful.

(A note of caution here. Two terms often misunderstood that I used in the last paragraph are the terms "my needs" and "God's will." We have an exceedingly skewed view of our needs that God never obligates Himself to meet. And God's will does not conform to our twisted viewpoint. It is an opportunity to revise my thinking when God doesn't meet my "needs," because clearly my idea of needs must have been wrong. God cannot be wrong, nor can He fail to accomplish His will.)

Pardon for sin, and a peace that endureth,
Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide,
Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow,
Blessings all mine with ten thousand beside.

Look for a moment at the blessings outlined in this verse. "Pardon for sin . . ." It isn't until we realize our true sin condition that this becomes such a big deal, but when we see God and recognize our utter hopelessness, this suddenly becomes a monumental blessing. My sin is pardoned! ". . . a peace that endureth . . ." God promises peace to those who trust in Him. It is a natural result of being in His Spirit (called the "fruit of the Spirit"). His peace, like His faithfulness, doesn't waver. It endures. Regardless of the turmoil that necessarily surrounds our lives, His peace is there. (John 14:27; Phil. 4:6,7; Gal. 5:22,23) "Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide." Imagine that! God, Himself, is walking beside me. Beyond that, He is within me! That is marvelous! His presence brings real joy ("cheer"), another natural result of being in His Spirit. His constant company serves as a beacon, my source of sure direction. What better guide in life than the Author of life? (For a shining example of joy in turmoil, see 2 Cor. 8:1,2) "Strength for today . . ." God promises us His strength. If God is for us, who can be against us? What cannot be accomplished when operating in the strength of the Omnipotent? (Eph. 6:10) ". . . Bright hope for tomorrow . . ." In a convoluted world of hopelessness and chaos, God provides a hope. God's hope is not mere wishing. His hope is a sure thing. It is only a hope because it is not yet accomplished in our experience, but God is faithful, and it is certain. Someday we will be with Him. What a blessed hope! (Heb. 6:17-20)

God's faithfulness extends to me personally. In fact, the awesome faithfulness of God is the assurance I have of salvation and heaven. The list of blessings provided in my relationship with God is guaranteed in God's faithfulness. Since He is unalterable, He will do them. In Christ, Paul says, God's promises are "yes" (2 Cor. 1:18,19). Pardon for sin. God's unfathomable peace. God's presence in my everyday life. (God's presence in my everyday life! That should give me pause.) Strength, His strength. (It is God who works in you both to will and to do His good works. Phil. 2:13) (I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Phil. 4:13) A hope. (This is no small thing in today's world, but hope brings endurance, the ability to bear difficult circumstances, and knowing God brings that hope.) "Blessings all mine with ten thousand beside." Why would a Christian's life be characterized by anything but joy in view of God's faithfulness and the absolute certainty of His blessings?