Home » Thomas Ross (Page 10)
Category Archives: Thomas Ross
Why is the third Person in the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person. So what is the distinction?
Also, the Father is the “holy Father” (John 17:11), and the Son is the “Holy One” (Acts 3:14). The Holy Spirit is not in a higher degree morally pure or righteous than the Father or the Son–Father, Son, and Spirit are all infinitely righteous, possessing equal, immeasurable, infinite holiness.
So why “the Holy Spirit”?
What do you think?
It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3). So why “the Holy Spirit”?
Lord willing, I’ll tell you what I think next Friday in my post then. But you can share your thoughts now in the comment section.
Here’s a clue–why is the “Father” the “Father” and the “Son” the “Son”?
By the way, for a simple overview of the Biblical teaching on the Trinity, see Bible study #2 here; for something with more depth, see the college class here.
–TDR
Are Christian Ministers “Reverend”?
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox religious organizations call their priests “reverend,” or “reverend Fathers.” So do the large majority of Protestants, and a surprising number of Baptists, even fundamental, independent Baptists. Are Catholic priests “reverend”? How about Christian ministers–are they the “Reverend John Doe” and the like?
There is only one verse in the King James Bible where the word “reverend” appears:
Psa. 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
In this passage Jehovah’s name is “holy and reverend,” because He is the Almighty Redeemer, who in faithfulness to His holy covenant promises, redeems His people by His power, chooses and sets them apart to Himself, and makes them like Himself, until He brings them to eternally be with Him in His holy presence. Truly, Jehovah’s name is holy and reverend!
But “Rev. Mr. Jones” does not do any of that. Mr. Jones does not have an infinitely holy name or character; Mr. Jones does not redeem God’s people by an almighty arm and by the blood of Jesus Christ. Simply looking at the English word, one would conclude that a minister calling himself “Rev.” is a form of blasphemy, taking the honor due to Jehovah’s name alone.
What about the Hebrew translated “reverend” in Psalm 111:9? The form is the Niphal (generally passive) participle of the verb “to fear,” nôrāʾ, hence, “to be feared.” Jehovah’s name is “to be feared” and it is holy.
The Niphal participle appears in 34 verses in the Old Testament. Significant examples include:
Ex. 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
Deut. 7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.
Deut. 28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;
Mal. 1:14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.
Psa. 47:2 For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth.
Psa. 66:3 Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee.
Psa. 66:5 Come and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of men.
Psa. 68:35 O God, thou art terrible out of thy holy places: the God of Israel is he that giveth strength and power unto his people. Blessed be God.
Psa. 76:7 Thou, even thou, art to be feared: and who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry?
Psa. 76:12 He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.
Psa. 89:7 God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
Psa. 96:4 For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
Psa. 99:3 Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.
Job 37:22 Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty.
Dan. 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;
Neh. 1:5 And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:
Neh. 4:14 And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.
Neh. 9:32 Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day.
1Chr. 16:25 For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods.
The strong majority of uses refers to Jehovah as the One who is to be feared / reverenced. An examination of the complete list of texts (Gen. 28:17; Ex. 15:11; 34:10; Deut. 1:19; 7:21; 8:15; 10:17; 28:58; Judg. 13:6; Is. 18:2, 7; Ezek. 1:22; Joel 2:11; 3:4; Hab. 1:7; Zeph. 2:11; Mal. 1:14; 3:23; Psa. 47:3; 66:3, 5; 68:36; 76:8, 13; 89:8; 96:4; 99:3; 111:9; Job 37:22; Dan. 9:4; Neh. 1:5; 4:8; 9:32; 1 Chr. 16:25; note that the Hebrew versification is sometime slightly different than the English) reveals not a solitary text where a godly person, or a priest, or a minister, or anyone of the sort is called “reverend.”
Jehovah is reverend. If you are a Christian minister, you are not reverend.
What about a Catholic priest? There are a small number of texts where “to be feared” or “terrible” has the sense of desolate judgment. Thus, in Habakkuk 1:7 the evil, pagan Babylonians, who come to lay waste, kill, and destroy the Lord’s people, are called “terrible” (Hab 1:7). Likewise, a desolate, life-destroying desert is called a “terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water” (Deut 8:15). So Catholic priests, as representatives of their pagan and Satanic false religion, in the sense that they are pagan, evil, destroyers of God’s people, are “reverend” in the sense that they are actually terrible, are life-destroying like a desolate desert full of serpents and scorpions, and are soul-murderers the way that the pagan Babylonians were “terrible.” After all, the pagan Baylonians are their ancestors as they are part of that great harlot sitting on many waters, the future one-world religion centered in Rome, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth (Revelation 17).
So let Catholic priests call themselves “reverend” or “terrible” if they wish–it is true, albeit not in the way that they intend, but in the same sort of way as when the Pope calls himself “vicar of Christ” he employs a title equivalent in Greek to “anti-Christ” (Latin vicarius = Greek anti).
So if you are a Baptist or a Protestant who claims to fear the true God, don’t call yourself reverend. In the good sense, it is true for the one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, alone–He alone is holy and reverend. In the bad sense, of something genuinely terrible and destructive, it is true of pagan murderers of God’s people, and so, in that sense, an appropriate title for a Roman Catholic priest or of other servants of religions that are drunk “with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6). You are unworthy of “reverend” in the good sense, and I rather think you don’t want to be called “reverend” or “terrible” in the bad sense.
So Jehovah is “reverend”–Hallelujah–and Catholic priests are “terrible/reverend”–to their everlasting shame. If you preach the true gospel and are a servant of Christ, you are emphatically not “reverend.” So stop calling yourself or others “Rev.” The title is either blasphemy, if intended as a compliment, or a statement that they are pagan enemies of God, in the bad sense.
Spurgeon well commented on Psalm 111:9:
“He sent redemption unto his people.” When they were in Egypt he sent not only a deliverer, but an actual deliverance; not only a redeemer, but complete redemption. He has done the like spiritually for all his people, having first by blood purchased them out of the hand of the enemy, and then by power rescued them from the bondage of their sins. Redemption we can sing of as an accomplished act: it has been wrought for us, sent to us, and enjoyed by us, and we are in very deed the Lord’s redeemed. “He hath commanded his covenant for ever.” His divine decree has made the covenant of his grace a settled and eternal institution: redemption by blood proves that the covenant cannot be altered, for it ratifies and establishes it beyond all recall. This, too, is reason for the loudest praise. Redemption is a fit theme for the heartiest music, and when it is seen to be connected with gracious engagements from which the Lord’s truth cannot swerve, it becomes a subject fitted to arouse the soul to an ecstacy of gratitude. Redemption and the covenant are enough to make the tongue of the dumb sing. “Holy and reverend is his name.” Well may he say this. The whole name or character of God is worthy of profoundest awe, for it is perfect and complete, whole or holy. It ought not to be spoken without solemn thought, and never heard without profound homage. His name is to be trembled at, it is something terrible; even those who know him best rejoice with trembling before him. How good men can endure to be called “reverend” we know not. Being unable to discover any reason why our fellow-men should reverence us, we half suspect that in other men there is not very much which can entitle them to be called reverend, very reverend, right reverend, and so on … we would urge that the foolish custom should be allowed to fall into disuse.
C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 111-119, vol. 5 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 4.
–TDR
Updated Seventh-Day Adventist evangelistic pamphlet
The evangelistic pamphlet for Seventh-Day Adventists, “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends,” has been updated to include Ellen White’s statement: “[T]hose who claim that their faith alone will save them are trusting to a rope of sand,” Adventism’s teaching that Christ’s blood is useless for those who have committed one wilful sin, and (relatively recently) the addition of their teaching that baptism forgives sin. If your church does not already have some good resources for members of this cult, I would like to commend this composition to you for your use. Your Baptist church can get its church name on it by downloading a Word doc of the pamphlet at the All Content page at FaithSaves and then personalizing it. Copies can be made through a Baptist printing ministry or by just making some on a copy machine.
–TDR
Shabir Ally / Thomas Ross Debate over Jesus and the New Testament with Reviews now on Rumble
The videos of my debate with Shabir Ally, and the reviews of the arguments made, are now on my new channel, KJBIBLE1611, on the video sharing platform Rumble. I created the channel on Rumble because I am concerned that YouTube might be censoring or reducing the viewership of the debate now, and if that is not taking place now that it might do so in the future. Please feel free to subscribe to my Rumble channel, which will help other people to see the video. It also helps if you subscribe to my YouTube channel. I intend, at this point, to keep posting content on both the KJB1611 YouTube channel and on the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel, Lord willing; Rumble because it does not censor Biblical or conservative content, the way YouTube tends to do, and also YouTube because so many more people watch YouTube at this point. I have also added links to the Rumble videos on the Shabir Ally debate post at FaithSaves. The evangelistic Bible studies are also going up on Rumble.
–TDR
The Church of Christ: Preach the Word of God, Preach Politics, or Preach Conspiracies?
Preach the Word or Politics?
In 2 Timothy 4:2, the Bible commands: “Preach the Word,” referring to the “all Scripture” of 3:16 with the Greek anaphoric article on the “the” of 2 Timothy 4:2. God commands His Word to be preached, and nothing else, in the church of Jesus Christ. Does this exclude preaching on political topics?
Sometimes preaching the Word means preaching what the Word says about politics. For example, the Bible condemns abortion and sodomy, teaches free market economics and a limited government instead of socialism or communism and an intrusive government, and favors republican government over monarchy or dictatorship. It is entirely appropriate to preach what Scripture teaches on these and related issues and to make appropriate contemporary application, whether through following what 2 Timothy 3:15-4:2 implies–expositional preaching through entire books of the Bible–or through topical messages on Biblical issues.
Do we see preaching on contemporary politics taking place in the New Testament? Matthew 14:1-4 reads:
1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, 2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. 3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife. 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
The first Baptist preacher made the clearly true, unquestionably verifiable statement that Herod should not have taken his brother’s wife. We have no other political statements at all from him, and it does not even appear that the Baptist declared the unlawful incest of Herod in a sermon–rather, John “said unto [Herod]” directly what the ruler had unlawfully done, also reproving Herod for all the evils he had done (Luke 3:19). So John made a clear Biblical application of a political matter in a personal way to the ruler in question.
What about the Lord Jesus? Christ called Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:32). This also was not in a sermon but in response to a question the Lord was asked. In every recorded sermon the Lord preached, and in all His teaching in the NT, there was nothing about the terrible political things going on in His day—which He could have used His omniscience to describe and warn about with perfect accuracy—but Christ did warn a great deal about false religion, the worst thing that was taking place in first century Palestine (and the worst thing happening in our day).
The sermons in Acts contain nothing about the dirty power plays in the Roman empire or other political events. The closest one gets is Paul proving that he was not a lawbreaker in court settings. Paul also used his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37; Acts 22), so Christians should use the voting rights they have in free nations.
So we have one statement from John the Baptist, made directly to Herod and not in a sermon, one word, “fox,” from Christ on politics, here again not in a sermon, and nothing in the apostolic preaching in Acts. Paul used the political right he had to protect his life and advance the gospel (Acts 22), and also used his citizenship to protect the Philippian jailer and his household from their heroic, selfless, and extremely dangerous act of taking Paul out of prison into the jailer’s home (Acts 16:37).
What about the New Testament epistles? In the epistles, there are no warnings about current politics at all.
So is it lawful to make application to current political events in sermons? Based on what Christ and the first Baptist practiced, it is certainly lawful. However, it is also certainly not the emphasis of the New Testament. The balance found in the NT epistles is to spend 99% of the time on giving people God’s unsearchable truth; when naming evil men and evil deeds to focus on religious corruption; and occasionally as a legitimate application of Scripture to point out the evil in the secular political world. Indeed, God’s infallible truth, powerfully preached, will do far more long-term good, even politically, than changing God’s pulpit into a place of political commentary.
A congregation where people did not know that the Democrat party overwhelmingly opposes religious liberty and promotes abortion and sodomy would be poorly informed. Application of the Sixth Commandment would properly inform people of the indisputable facts right in the Democrat party platform. However, a congregation that does not know what the books of Zechariah or Ephesians are about (for example), but hears all sorts of things about contemporary politics from the pulpit, is also not following the New Testament balance. They should hear far more in the Lord’s house about the Joseph of Genesis than about Joe Biden.
It is true that the Old Testament prophets spoke more about the misdeeds of their rulers and of other nations than one finds in the New Testament. This fact should encourage us to be gracious rather than judging harshly that contemporary politics are alluded to too often by other pastors or other preachers. However, we should also keep in mind that Israel was a theocratic nation-state–a political nation among other political nations. The king was not just a ruler, but one with a religious position over God’s people. The surrounding nations were not just people groups, but idolatrous enemies trying to destroy the kingdom of God on earth and stop the coming of the Messiah and the consummation of God’s redemptive program by wiping out Israel. It may therefore be a better comparison if we consider Jeremiah warning the king to submit to Babylon as comparable to the harsh and specific NT warnings against false religion rather than the equivalent of someone preaching about the misdeeds of secular political rulers.
Furthermore, speech about political rulers must follow Romans 13:
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:7)
John the Baptist said nothing disrespectful to Herod. Even Michael the Archangel did not rail harshly against Satan, who indubitably deserved it (Jude 9). Even if a secular political ruler is very evil–as most of them are–and very hostile to Christianity–as many of them are–we must show them fear and honor in the same way that we must give them tribute or pay taxes–God requires it.
So preaching legitimate applications of Scripture on politics is right, but making politics central to the church is not, nor should the church follow politically conservative heathen in their reviling of those with liberal political views. Respect is required for all men, and especially for all rulers, even if they personally do not deserve it in the least. Remember that you don’t deserve respect in and of yourself, either. You deserve hell fire, but God gave you grace despite your unworthiness. He calls you to show respect in the same way to unworthy political leaders who He has ordained (Romans 13) for His own ultimate glory and wise purposes.
Preach the Word or Conspiratorial Politics?
What about political conspiracy theories? I have already addressed this to an extent in my posts “Satanic Conspiracy, COVID-19, and the Church’s Response.” (My thoughts on the COVID vaccine specifically are here, with some broader comments on medicine here.)
Notice that what John the Baptist said about Herod was 100% true, credible, and unquestionably verifiable. Herod had taken his brother’s wife and was openly living with her. The same holds true for the Old Testament prophets. The Moabites had certainly burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime (Amos 2:1). (Since the New Testament epistles do not deal with any political controversies, they contain no examples here at all, but their silence does still teach us something about proportion, as already noted.)
Contrast that with, say, the dangerous semi-religious cult, the QAnon conspiracy, which believes various political leaders in the USA are engaged in pedophilia and Trump was going to expose them and send them to Guantanamo Bay, and made many other false predictions coupled with unfalsifiable affirmations. Is there a deep state cabal of pedophiles, or whatever other conspiratorial affirmation? Before someone believes something of this sort on a personal level, he needs to make sure that he has carefully weighed the evidence, not just for such a conspiracy, but against it (Proverbs 18:17) lest he answer a matter before hearing the evidence properly, which is folly and shame (Proverbs 18:13). If, for example, QAnon is really a movement of Satanic slander, as many born-again Christians affirm, then affirming its truth would be displeasing to the Lord. Consider the principles in the post “Shame, Folly, and Conspiracy Theories.” Do my affirmations in favor of the conspiracy meet Biblical standards of evidence? Certainly conspiracies should not be promoted in the pulpit in Christ’s churches unless they really have extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary assertions. It was easy to verify that Herod had an unlawful spouse. He did not deny who his consort was. It is much harder to prove that a particular person engaged in abominable acts with minors when nobody allegedly involved says it happened, there is no forensic evidence, etc., and nobody seems to care about it except some extremely fringe social media people who have very dubious evidence to back up their expansive claims.
Let us imagine that someone at one’s workplace told a lie one time out of every twenty statements that he made. We would consider such a person to have a severe lying problem. While conspiracy theories actually have a truth value that is far closer to 0% than to 95%, let’s imagine that a preacher starts preaching political conspiracy theories and is actually correct 95% of the time. He would still be breaking the Ten Commandments 5% of the time—a grave lying problem. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” does not have any exception for discussions of politics. It does not have a 5% exception. Slander is a grave sin, even if one is slandering a political leader with a terribly anti-Biblical worldview. Slander is still a grave sin, even if one is slandering someone as verifiably crooked as Hillary Clinton. If she is crooked in one way you are not lying to say it, but if you accuse her of something she did not do it is slander. Yep, it is still a sin to slander even her.
Preacher, let’s be much harsher on ourselves than on others as we evaluate these things, and make sure our own sermons are 100% accurate, respectful, and non-slanderous. Nevertheless, whoever makes an inaccurate statement, even if he is convinced it is true by slick-sounding misinformation and is sincerely beguiled by enticing words (Colossians 2:4), is still breaking the Ninth Commandment. We are not to engage in such behavior ourselves, because the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). We are not to tolerate it in our houses, because “he that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight” (Psalm 101:7). We must not bring it into Christ’s church, because that is the place to preach the infallible truth of the Word (2 Timothy 4:2) as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), not the place to preach what is either verifiably false, or even only possibly true but uncertain, or even what is true but is not exposition and application of the Bible.
So preach the Word—not politics. Follow the pattern of the New Testament in how much politics is talked about in church. It is not 0%, but not that far away. It is very far from the emphasis. Following the New Testament pattern both honors Christ, the One who told the church what to preach, and also promotes liberty in the long-term in a far more effective way than an unbiblical lack of balance that turns the Lord’s church into a Super PAC.
So preach the Word—not conspiratorial politics, because preaching a conspiracy, unless it is absolute truth, risks committing the grave sin of slander in the place where only what has an infallible “thus saith the Lord” should be proclaimed, for that alone gives glory to Jesus Christ, the great Head of His church.
–TDR
Pre or Post Tribulation Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20? Part 2 of 2
In part one of this series, I mentioned that I was discussing last things–eschatology–with someone who strongly asserted that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20 refuted the pre-Tribulation Rapture position. He argued that 1 Thessalonians states that the dead in Christ shall rise first, and then the Rapture takes place, but the first resurrection, when the dead in Christ rise, takes place in Revelation 20 at the end of the Tribulation period; a post-Tribulation Rapture. Therefore, he concluded, the pre-Tribulation Rapture position was false. We looked at 1 Thessalonians last week. We will look at Revelation 20 now. Does Revelation 20 teach a post-Tribulation Rapture?
Rev. 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev. 20:6 μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ· ἐπὶ τούτων ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ’ ἔσονται ἱερεῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ βασιλεύσουσι μετ’ αὐτοῦ χίλια ἔτη.
Pre or Post Tribulation Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20? Part 1 of 2
Recently I was discussing last things–eschatology–with someone who strongly asserted that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20 refuted the pre-Tribulation Rapture position. He argued that 1 Thessalonians states that the dead in Christ shall rise first, and then the Rapture takes place, but the first resurrection, when the dead in Christ rise, takes place in Revelation 20 at the end of the Tribulation period; a post-Tribulation Rapture. Therefore, he concluded, the pre-Tribulation Rapture position was false.
Some reasons 1 Thessalonians teaches a pre-Trib Rapture are covered in part one below. In part 2, next week, Lord willing, we will look at Revelation 20.
1Th. 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th. 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Th. 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1Th. 4:16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου, καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ καταβήσεται ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον·
1Th. 4:17 ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες, οἱ περιλειπόμενοι, ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτω πάντοτε σὺν Κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.
1Th. 4:18 ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις.
1Th. 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
1Th. 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Th. 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
1Th. 5:11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.1Th. 5:8 ἡμεῖς δέ, ἡμέρας ὄντες, νήφωμεν, ἐνδυσάμενοι θώρακα πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης, καὶ περικεφαλαίαν, ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας.
1Th. 5:9 ὅτι οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς ὀργήν, ἀλλ’ εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
1Th. 5:10 τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα, εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν, ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν.
1Th. 5:11 διὸ παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους, καὶ οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα, καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε.
Luke 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.Luke 21:23 οὐαὶ δὲ ταῖς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσαις καὶ ταῖς θηλαζούσαις ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις· ἔσται γὰρ ἀνάγκη μεγάλη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ὀργὴ ἐν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ.Rev. 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
Rev. 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?Rev. 6:16 καὶ λέγουσι τοῖς ὄρεσι καὶ ταῖς πέτραις, Πέσετε ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς, καὶ κρύψατε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου·
Rev. 6:17 ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς δύναται σταθῆναι;
Rev. 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.Rev. 11:18 καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ὠργίσθησαν, καὶ ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου, καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῶν νεκρῶν κριθῆναι, καὶ δοῦναι τὸν μισθὸν τοῖς δούλοις σου τοῖς προφήταις καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸ ὄνομά σου, τοῖς μικροῖς καὶ τοῖς μεγάλοις, καὶ διαφθεῖραι τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν.Rev. 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.Rev. 16:19 καὶ ἐγένετο ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη εἰς τρία μέρη, καὶ αἱ πόλεις τῶν ἐθνῶν ἔπεσον· καὶ Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη ἐμνήσθη ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, δοῦναι αὐτῇ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ.
Make Your Child a Millionaire With This American Express Platinum Roth IRA Loophole?
Before reading this post, please remember that the Bible forbids any “trust in uncertain riches” instead of in the “living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17). If you are reading this because of money, but you are not born again, nothing in this post will benefit you eternally. Click here to find out how you can be saved from sin, death, and hell through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Also, please keep in mind that I am not a financial advisor, a tax advisor, or anything of the sort. What is below is just my opinion and I am not giving you advice about doing anything. If you want financial or tax advice, consult a professional, not me.
Also, if you have troubles paying off credit cards in full each month, maybe my opinion that you should stay far, far away from them is correct. I would encourage you to read my series on the dangers and rewards of credit cards here.
It also is not a good idea to go crazy with credit cards if you are about to try to get a home mortgage or something like that, although in my opinion the deal below is good enough to make it worthwhile even then.
There are two parts to this post. In my opinion:
1.) Contributing to a Roth IRA is a great financial vehicle
With the important caveats above in mind, in my opinion I believe there is a way to get more into your Roth IRA or a child’s Roth IRA without violating the $6,000 yearly contribution limit.
Why does this matter? Consider the Roth IRA calculator at the Biblical Financial Stewardship section at FaithSaves. Let’s say you add $1,000 into a Roth IRA at the age of 18 and never contribute to it again until (if God spares your life and the Rapture does not happen first) you reach the age of 65. If you got the average stock market rate of return of around 8%, the $1,000 would have become $37,000. Not bad to have your money grow to 37 times its original amount–all tax free at withdrawal. If you put $2,500 into a Roth IRA at age 18 and contributed $2,500 a year to it until you were 65, you would have over 1.2 million dollars with a average rate of return of 8%. If you put the same amount of money in the Christian-based, clean mutual fund the Eventide Gilead Fund, and earned the 18.63% lifetime rate of return it has earned since its inception (I am not saying that is realistic and you should not count on that), putting $1,000 in at age 18 and leaving it alone would net you $3,000,000, and $2,500 a year would get you over $48,000,000.
What if a five-year-old child was able to get $1,000 into a Roth IRA and never touch it until age 65? At 8% the $1,000 would become over $100,000! At 18.63% the $1,000 would become $28,000,000! At 8% the $2,500 / $2,500 scenario above would yield the five year old child over $3,000,000 at age 65, and the (likely too rosy) 18.63% rate of return on the Eventide Gilead Fund would leave the child with $450,000,000.
2.) A Loophole to Put More into a Roth IRA
It is, therefore, wise to max out a Roth IRA at the $6,000 limit if you can do it. However, there may be a way to get more than $6,000 a year into a Roth IRA without violating IRS rules. (Let me remind you again that I am not a tax professional nor a financial advisor.) You don’t want to violate IRS rules because the penalties are not very nice. So is there a loophole?
The American Express Platinum Card with Schwab allows you the option of redeeming the membership rewards points you earn from the card at 1.25 cents each. Points are deposited into your Schwab account (any ordinary citizen can open a Schwab checking or Roth IRA account). The Membership Rewards points you earn with Schwab are not cash–they are just points. The IRS has traditionally not recognized these as taxable income for that reason. Furthermore, when you redeem them into your Schwab account, you are not contributing income, but Schwab is depositing a bonus into your account. It is kind of like the way that sometimes brokerages give you a bonus if you roll money over from another institution to them; they sometimes add a bonus to your account, but it is not money that you contributed.
Right now the Schwab Amex Platinum card comes with an opening bonus of 100,000 Membership Rewards (MR) points. That can be deposited for $1,250 into a Schwab account–including a Roth IRA–and since you are not making a contribution, but Schwab is giving you a bonus that is not based on cash but on non-cash Amex Membership Rewards, it does not affect contribution limits (in my opinion, which I believe I have very good grounds to think is correct, but I am not a tax professional.)
A child can only put into a Roth IRA what his own income is–so if he makes $100 from mowing lawns, he can put that (or you can make him put it) into a Roth IRA. But since the Amex MR points are not cash, you could deposit them into his Roth IRA, and to the $100 he earned from mowing the lawn you could add $1,250 as a bonus. If you earned a lot of Amex MRs through other means, you could sock away a huge amount of money into his Roth IRA and secure your child’s financial future as much as it can be done with uncertain riches.
So let’s say you opened the Schwab Amex Platinum card and deposited the $1,250 opening bonus into his Roth IRA at age 5. You have just given your child $126,571 at an 8% rate of return at age 65. If the (high) rate of return on the Eventide Gilead Fund were to continue, at 18.63% just putting the bonus in from opening the Schwab Amex would give your child $35,300,000. Of course, the value of $1 is highly likely be less at that time because of inflation, but this is still a very, very good investment return–and you pay no tax at all when you take the money out at 65.
I don’t know the future and I have no way of knowing what will happen with investments as time moves on, but in my opinion it would be a wise financial decision to put as much as possible, as young as possible, into a Roth IRA.
The facts above were convincing enough for me to apply for the Schwab Amex Platinum, and to use practically the complete stash of Amex points that I had, not for amazing travel as I have been accustomed to using them, but for cash, specifically into a Roth IRA. I just got the opening bonus on my new Schwab card and, as I write this, have just moved the points from that opening bonus and practically all my other Amex Membership Rewards points into a Schwab Roth IRA. It was easy to do–maybe a five minute process to redeem, and about another five minutes to buy some God-honoring Eventide mutual funds.
The Amex Platinum card has a lot of extremely luxurious benefits. You get:
1.) $200 hotel credit
2.) $200 airline incidental credit
3.) $200 Uber / Uber Eats credit
4.) $240 Digital Entertainment credit (Audible, Peacock, etc.)
5.) $100 Saks 5th Avenue credit
6.) $100 Global Entry credit
7.) $179 CLEAR credit
8.) $300 Equinox credit
If you used all those credits, the card would save you over $1,500. Furthermore, they are calendar-year credits, so if you decided to open the card but then decided you didn’t want to keep it, you could use the credits this year and next year to get $2,000-$3,000 in savings before cancelling it, on top of the $1,250 opening bonus of 100,000 Amex MRs. You also get things like access to very nice airport lounges, Hilton gold status (free meal when you stay at a Hilton and room upgrades), and many other benefits.
For these ultra-premium benefits, Amex charges a nasty annual fee of $695. (If you keep a lot of money with Schwab they will refund you $100 or $200 off the annual fee, but that is only if you hold $250,000+ or $1,000,000+ with them.) Furthermore, the credits are not worth their face value but are worth what you would pay for them. For example, if you use Uber Eats once a month anyway, you might value the Uber Eats credits as near $200 in cash, but if you don’t care about the Equinox fitness credit (I don’t), you would value the Equinox credit as $0. Would I pay $100 for a Saks 5th Avenue $100 gift card? Nope. Most of their stuff is too expensive, although they do offer discounted items online. Would I pay $40? Maybe. If I paid $20 a month on Audible already for a subscription or audio books, then the $240 credit on digital entertainment is worth a straight $240. If I don’t, and have no use for the other options for the digital entertainment credit either, but I would pay half of that face value to buy audio books, then the credit is worth $120 to you. The $200 credits for their hotel collection is nice, but you can’t pick any hotel you want, so it is not quite worth a straight $200, although to me it is worth at least $100, I think, maybe more since when you book with Amex the hotel gives you nice things like expensive amenities, free breakfast, etc. In any case, that’s the sort of thing you have to do to value these credits.
In the first year, at least, getting 100,000 Membership Rewards (MR) points worth $1,250 makes the annual fee worth swallowing. Is the card a keeper after that? Perhaps, and perhaps not; it depends on how you value the credits and benefits.
The Amex Platinum has some bonus categories that earn 5 points per dollar spent. In non-bonus categories, it only earns 1 point per dollar. I therefore combine it with the Amex Gold card, which earns 4 MRs per dollar at grocery stores and dining, and the Amex Blue for Business card, which earns 2MRs per dollar on all spending categories where another card does not already give me something better. These can be redeemed into a Schwab IRA at 1.25 cents each–bypassing taxation and contribution limits (so take whatever rate you pay in income, social security, etc. tax on income and multiply the cash value of the points by that amount). The Blue for Business is a business card, but if you teach lessons, or sell things on Ebay, or do work as a handyman, etc. you have a business and can get a business card.
Membership Rewards can also be transferred to travel partners for very good travel redemptions–for example, you can transfer them to airline partners and fly, for example, in first class on ANA to Japan or to Europe and back for 60,000 MRs each way–which could be the cost of flying economy in cash, but instead you are flying in an amazing first class cabin that could cost you $20,000 if you paid cash. But this post is about Roth IRAs.
Schwab is reducing the cash redemption value of their points from 1.25 cents each to 1.1 cent each on September 1. I highly doubt that they are going to eliminate the cash redemption option entirely; I believe they will keep it, just at the lower value. But with that upcoming devaluation, now is the time to go crazy getting American Express Membership Rewards points and putting them into a Roth IRA at maximum value. If you have multiple Amex cards you can pool all your points and put them all into the Roth IRA. You could combine opening bonuses, for example, by getting a Schwab Amex Platinum (100,000 points, $1,250 tax-free into Roth IRA redemption value), an ordinary Amex Platinum (another 100,000 points, $1,250 tax-free into Roth IRA cash redemption value), an Amex Gold (60,000 MRs, $750 tax-free into Roth IRA redemption value) and an Amex Blue for Business (10,000 MR opening bonus, or $125, with no annual fee and 2 MRs per dollar, a good keeper card for the long term), and get $3,375 that you never have to pay tax on put into a Roth IRA to grow tax free. If you did those four cards, and put them into an IRA of an 18-year old and got 8% until 65, just the credit card bonuses, if you never contributed again, would be over $125,000 at 65. If you put them into a Roth IRA of a 5 year old, at 65 it would be $341,000. If you get more than one Platinum card you can then double up on all the credits (or for the first year you can both use the credits now and then again in the new year so that you can triple-up or quadruple-up on them if you and a spouse both get the cards; that could be $800 for use at hotels, as well as $800 at Uber Eats or Uber, $800 for airline incidentals, etc.; you could get enough credits for a nice trip as well as a financially beneficial Roth IRA contribution.)
The opening Membership Reward point bonus for each card requires certain spending in the first months after opening the card, but if you are not able to meet that requirement through ordinary spending (don’t just buy things you don’t need in order to meet the opening bonus, obviously) you can just do things like pay your taxes ahead of time with a credit card (and get refunded for an overpayment after you file), or pay utility or other bills ahead of time, or meet minimum spending requirements while helping the poor by getting Kiva loans, which probably gets you your money back in just a few months to around a year, etc. I have invested in a lot of Kiva loans and am thankful to be able to help needy people while meeting spending requirements, and I have had a default rate of under 1% over a long time frame. (Of course, that doesn’t mean that this very low default rate will continue into the future, nor that you will also have a default rate that low, but it is very possible.)
By the way, you can take out the principal that you put into a Roth IRA before age 65 without penalty. You just can’t take out the interest / gain before 65 (with certain exceptions) without a tax penalty.
In my opinion (again, not as a financial professional or a tax professional), this is a fantastic opportunity. You can apply for the cards below if you are interested. They are affiliate links except for the Schwab Platinum, which is not.
Click here to sign up for the Schwab Platinum Card and get points worth $1,250 along with lots of other benefits.
Click here to add another regular Amex Platinum to get another $1,250 worth of Amex MRs and another $200 in Uber / Uber Eats credits, airline credits, etc.
Click here to add an Amex Gold card to get another $750 worth of Amex MRs and 4 MRs/5% cash back on groceries, restauraunts, etc.
Click here to add an Amex Blue for Business card to get another $125 worth of Amex MRs and 2 MRs on all spending up to $50,000 a year.
Note: the offers above are the ones that I have; I have not checked to see if there are better ones for any of these cards, but if there are, by all means take them instead.
If you think I am crazy for getting all these credit cards, that is fine. In my opinion, if you pay cash for everything and just put a lot in a Roth IRA the more conventional way, while riches are uncertain, you will be very likely to be glad that you did. If you think all these cards are a very good opportunity, I agree, although, again, this is just my personal opinion, I am not a financial or tax advisor, and I am against using credit cards if a person pays high interest rates on them instead of paying them off.
Finally, please also consider the post here on tithing or giving more than 10% under grace on what you earn on investments.
–TDR
The Gnostic History of Images of Jesus Christ
Images of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, should not be made for the reasons explained in the appropriate articles in the studies on ecclesiology here. But did you know that the Gnostics were the first ones to makes images of the Savior? Note the following:
The Gnostics, in their enmity to God the Father, had proscribed his image, but being favourable to the Son, they painted and sculptured the figure of the Saviour, of all dimensions, and under various forms. It … appears … that we are indebted to Gnostics for the earliest portraits of Jesus. “It was for the use of Gnostics, and by the hand of those sectaries, who attempted at various times, and by a thousand different schemes, to effect a monstrous combination of the doctrines of Christianity with Pagan superstitions, that little images of Christ were first fabricated; the original model of these figures they traced back to Pontius Pilate himself, by a hypothetical train of reasoning, which could scarcely deceive even the most ignorant of their initiated disciples. These little statues were made of gold, or silver, or some other substance, and after the pattern of those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other sages of antiquity, which those sectarians were accustomed to exhibit, crowned with flowers in their Conciliabula, and all of which were honoured with the same degree of worship. Such, indeed, is the positive assertion of St. Iræneus,* confirmed, or at least reiterated by St. Epiphanius.† This superstition, which on the same principle permitted painted images of Christ, was peculiarly in vogue amongst the Gnostics of the sects of Carpocrates; and history has preserved the name of a woman, Marcellina, adopted by that sect, for the propagation of which she removed from the farthest East, to Rome; and who in the little Gnostic church, as it may be called, which was under her direction, exposed to the adoration of her followers images of Christ and of St. Paul, of Homer and Pythagoras. This fact, which is supported by the serious evidence of St. Augustine,‡ is, besides, perfectly in accordance with the celebrated anecdote of the Emperor, Alexander Severus, who placed amongst his Lares, between the images of the most revered philosophers and kings, the portraits of Christ, and of Abraham, opposite those of Orpheus and Apollonius of Tyana, and who paid to all a vague kind of divine worship.§ It cannot, therefore, be doubted, that this strange association originated in the bosom of certain schools of the Neo-Platonists, as well as in several Gnostic sects, and we may thence infer, that the existence of images fabricated by Gnostic hands, induced Christians, as soon as the Church relaxed in its primitive aversion to monuments of idolatry, to adopt them for their own use.*”[1]
* St. Irenæus, Advers. Hæres. lib. i., cap. xxv., a. 6, édition de Massuet.
† St. Epiphanius, Hæres. cap. xxvii., a. 6. See on this subject the dissertation of Jablonsky, “de Origine imaginum Christi Domini in Ecclesia Christiana,” s. 10, in his Opuscul. Philol. vol. iii., 394–396.
‡ St. Augustin, de Hæresib. cap. vii.: “Sectæ ipsius (Carpocratis) fuisse traditur socia quædam Marcellina, quæ colebat imagines Jesu et Pauli, et Homeri et Pythagoræ, adorando incensumque ponendo.” (See the dissertation of Fueldner, upon the Carpocratians, in the Dritte Denkschrift der Hist. Theol. Gesellschaft zu Leipzig., p. 267, et seq.)
- Æl. Lamprid. in Alexandr. Sever. cap. xxix. “In larario suo, in quo et divos principes, sed optimos (et) electos et animas sanctiores, in queis et Appollonium, et quantum scriptor suorum temporum dicit. Christum, Abraham et Orpheum, et hujusmodi ceteros, habebat ac majorum effigies, rem divinam faciebat.” Such is the lesson proposed by Heyne for the employment of this text. (See the dissertation of Alexandr. Sever. Imp. religion. miscell. probant., &c., in his Opuscul. Academ. vol. vi., p. 169–281; see also on this subject the dissertation of Jablonsky, De Alexandra Severo, Imperatore Romano, Christianorum sacris per Gnostico initiato, in his Opuscul. Philol. vol. iv., p. 38–79.
* Such, we are told by M. Raoul Rochette, is the inference drawn by the pious and learned Bottari, from the testimony quoted above, Pitture e Sculture Sacre, vol i., p. 196; and that his opinion, formed in the bosom of orthodox Catholicism, has been adopted by all Roman antiquaries.
[1] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Christian Iconography; Or, the History of Christian Art in the Middle Ages, trans. E. J. Millington and Margaret Stokes, vol. 1 (London: George Bell and Sons, 1886), 243–245.
So if you use images of Jesus Christ to (mis)represent Him in curricula for children’s ministries, or around the 25th of December you make a little image of Jesus and put it in a stable, you are not only violating the Second Commandment by engaging in a form of (likely unintentional) idolatry, but you are following the ancient Gnostics.
Maybe it is time to immediately stop making, using, condoning, promoting, or contributing in any way to the use of images of the Son of God.
–TDR
Recent Comments