Home » Posts tagged 'family'

Tag Archives: family

On the Lord’s Day, Turn Apps & Email Off On Your Cell Phone

On the Lord’s Day, consider turning off apps, email, and whatever else you can on your cell phone.  The first day of the week, Sunday, is not the Sabbath, but there are principles from Israel’s Sabbath that are appropriately applied to the first day of the week, the day of Christian worship, the Lord’s Day (Revelation 1:10; Acts 20:7).  How does the Lord’s Day relate to your cell phone? We discussed this issue previously in the post Social Media and Electronics: Addictive Drugs for Christians?. I want to say a bit more about it now.

The Westminster Larger Catechism gives a good summary of principles that are appropriate to set the Lord’s Day apart from the other days of the week (although it improperly equates the Sabbath with the Lord’s Day, as did the Puritans).  Please consider the following statements thoughtfully and prayerfully:

What is required in the fourth commandment?

The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven … [since] the resurrection of Christ … the first day of the week … (Deut. 5:12–14, Gen. 2:2–3, 1 Cor. 16:1–2, Matt. 5:17–18, Isa. 56:2,4,6–7) … in the New Testament called The Lord’ s day. (Rev. 1:10)

How is … the Lord’s day to be sanctified?

The … Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, (Exod. 20:8,10) not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; (Exod. 16:25–28, Neh. 13:15–22, Jer. 17:21–22) and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy (Matt. 12:1–13) ) in the public and private exercises of God’ s worship: (Isa. 58:13, Luke 4:16, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:1–2, Ps. 92, Isa. 66:23, Lev. 23:3) and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day. (Exod. 20:8,56, Luke 23:54, Exod. 16:22,25-26,29)

Why is the charge of keeping the [principles of the] sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?

The charge of keeping the [principles of the] sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own. (Exod. 20:10, Josh. 24:15, Neh. 13:15,17, Jer. 17:20–22, Exod. 23:12)

What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?

The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties required, (Ezek. 22:26) all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them; (Acts 20:7,9, Ezek. 33:30–32, Amos 8:5, Mal. 1:13) all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful; (Ezek. 23:38) and by all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations. (Jer. 17:24,27, Isa. 58:13)

What are the reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it?

The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it, are taken from the equity of it, God allowing us six days of seven for our own affairs, and reserving but one for himself in these words, Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (Exod. 20:9) from God’ s challenging a special propriety in that day, The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: (Exod. 20:10) from the example of God, who in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: and from that blessing which God put upon that day, not only in sanctifying it to be a day for his service, but in ordaining it to be a means of blessing to us in our sanctifying it; Wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath-day, and hallowed it. (Exod. 20:11)

Why is the Word Remember set in the beginning of the fourth commandment?

The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, (Exod. 20:8) partly, because of the great benefit of remembering it, we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it, (Exod. 16:23, Luke 23:54,56, Mark 15:42, Neh. 13:19) and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments, (Ps. 92:13–14, Ezek. 20:12,19–20) and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion; (Gen. 2:2–3, Ps. 118:22,24, Acts 4:10–11, Rev. 1:10) and partly, because we are very ready to forget it, (Ezek. 22:26) for that there is less light of nature for it, (Neh. 9:14) and yet it restraineth our natural liberty in things at other times lawful; (Exod. 34:21) that it cometh but once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between, and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to prepare for it, or to sanctify it; (Deut. 5:14–15, Amos 8:5) and that Satan with his instruments labours much to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety. (Lam. 1:7, Jer. 17:21–23, Neh. 13:15–23) (The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996), Questions 116-121)

Let’s consider how these principles relate to your cell phone.  While there are many people who spend all day long trying to figure out how to keep you on your phone as long as possible, people who do not make money from such things know that our over-use of the cell phone is bad for us.  For me personally, I want to make sure that I am not programming myself to constantly look at my phone whenever I have a free moment, like the average American who looks at his phone 344 times a day.  I have therefore used a setting on the phone to make it so that on the Lord’s Day the vast majority of the apps on my phone and Ipad–including my Gmail e-mail app, YouTube, and browsers like Safari or Chrome, –are not accessible:

 

IPad apps blacked out

IPad many apps blacked out

These apps–again, including Gmail, YouTube, and browsers–are not accessible in the morning before I have time to spend in God’s Word.  I want to hear from the Lord before I hear from everyone else.

The only sorts of apps that are accessible on the Lord’s Day, before I am at work in the morning every day of the week, and after a certain time in the evening every day, are those like my Bible apps, Accordance and Logos, my calendar to remind me of responsibilities on the Lord’s Day, the map app for something like getting to church in case there is traffic, and such like.  I don’t need to find out what the world news is by going to conservative political websites on the Lord’s Day. I don’t need to find out who just posted a new video on this or on that.  Spending that time meditating on Scripture instead is far better for my spiritual health (and far better for my family and nation as well).  If you need to reach me, you can call me.

It is a blessing to have these apps turned off.  I am glad to do it.  I would encourage you to think about doing something similar.  You do not need to to exactly what I do–maybe having email turned off would prevent you from hearing from someone you would pick up for church, for example–but I would encourage you to consider the principles in the 4th Commandment and elsewhere and make the Lord’s Day distinctly different.  Use God’s Day as a special opportunity to resist and fight back against all the app developers who spend big bucks and many hours doing everything they can to keep you on their app and on your device, not so that they can help you pursue or follow after holiness (Hebrews 12:14), but so that they can make merchandise of you.  (They also could not care less if they turn the brains of your children into mush–worldly mush, at that–but you should, and so should keep real books in their hands, and devices out of their hands. The rod and reproof will give your child wisdom, Proverbs 29:15, but you just gain temporary quietness if you allow their brains to be sucked out through electronics.)  Lay aside not only the sin which can so easily beset you, but also every weight (Hebrews 12:1) and run with patience towards your risen Lord, Jesus Christ.

TDR

The Bible Makes Us Baptists: Free Christian Book Audio

The Bible Makes Us Baptists, (originally called In Editha’s Days: A Tale of Religious Liberty), is a Christian book for children written in 1894 by Mary E. Bamford.  It is a work of historical fiction, narrating the life of an Anabaptist family in England running for their lives because fo their faith in the Bible, during the dark days when Roman Catholicism still controlled the United Kingdom.  You can order a physical copy of the book at Amazon (affiliate link), or perhaps get it more inexpensively at a place such as Book Heaven.

However, the main point of this post is to inform you that you can hear the book read aloud for free on my KJB1611 YouTube channel here.  The chapters are getting (pretty) consistently posted.  So if you, or your children, want to hear an edifying Christian book read aloud, please use the link below to listen to The Bible Makes Us Baptists read aloud for free.

Click here to hear The Bible Makes Us Baptists (In Editha’s Days; A Tale of Religious Liberty) by Mary E. Bamford read aloud for free.

TDR

 

Remarriage After Divorce: Continual Adultery? Christ’s View

According to Jesus Christ and the New Testament, is remarriage after divorce continual adultery? Christ is clear that putting away or divorcing one’s spouse and marrying someone else when one’s spouse is still alive is a wicked sin, and the consummation of that second marriage is an act of adultery, making the people who commit that sin adulterers:

 

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)

 

A (very) small minority of people in Christendom teach not only that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery, but that one is living in continual adultery with a second spouse, and, therefore, needs to abandon that second spouse and go back to his or her first husband or wife.  Some Amish groups that are confused on the gospel adopt this false teaching, as do some Mennonites (who also very largely are confused on the gospel by denying eternal security and confused on the church by denying the necessity of immersion in baptism).  There are very few groups that get the gospel and the church correct that adopt this false teaching on leaving one’s spouse to go back to a former husband or wife.

 

The Lord Jesus Christ does NOT teach that someone should go back to his former husband or wife if he or she commits the sin of remarriage.  The remarriage was a sin, one that should be repented of with sorrow.  However, some sins, once they are committed, do not allow one to go back to what would have been right formerly.  After Israel sinned by faithlessly refusing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 14), God punished them by swearing that they would have to dwell in the wilderness for forty years.  After they decided not to go up, it was too late for them to change their mind and go into the land.  Some of them tried, and God was not with them:

 

39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly. 40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. 41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper. 42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies. 43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you. 44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah. (Numbers 14:39-45)

 

The same situation takes place after a remarriage.  The sin of divorce should not have been committed (Malachi 2:16), and the sin of remarriage should not have been committed (Mark 10:2-12), but once these grave sins have been committed, there is no going back. It is an abomination to divorce a second time and go back to a former husband and wife, according to the Lord Jesus Christ.  How do we know this?

 

Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?

Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse

Because The Old Testament Taught It Is An Abomination To Do So

 

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads:

 

1  When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

 

As explained elsewhere on this blog by both Dr. Brandenburg and in my article “Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching,” Scripture is clear that going back to a former spouse after a remarriage is an abomination before Jehovah, something that God Himself hates.  What is an abomination to Jehovah is not just a sin for Israel, but for all people at all times; as the Gentiles had defiled the land by abominations, so Israel must not defile the land by committing this abomination. Thus, it is clear that someone who has sinned by entering a second marriage should not sin again by leaving his current spouse to go back to a former one.

 

Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?

Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse

Because The Passages In the New Testament Misused to Claim This Do Not Teach It

 

 

Luke 16:18 reads:

 

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γάμων ἑτέραν μοιχεύει· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.

pas ho apolyōn tēn gynaika autou kai gamōn heteran moicheuei; kai pas ho apolelymenēn apo andros gamōn moicheuei.

 

The verb “committeth adultery” (μοιχεύει, moicheuei) is in the Greek present tense (cf. also Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 5:31-32). People with a surface-level understanding of Greek have concluded from this fact that one who has remarried is committing continual adultery every time the act of marriage takes place. However, the verbs “putteth away” and “marrieth” are also in the present tense, yet are clearly not continual and ongoing actions.  As someone with a deeper knowledge of Greek will recognize, the present tense forms in Luke 16:18 clearly fit the syntactical category of the gnomic or timeless present—continual marriage ceremonies, continual divorces, and continual adultery are not at all in view, any more than the present tense verbs in Galatians 5:3; 6:13 specify continually getting circumcised or the present tense verb in Hebrews 5:1 specifies being ordained to the priesthood over and over again. An examination of pages 523-524 of Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) illustrates that the syntactical features requisite for identifying a gnomic present appear in this context. Luke 16:18 does not teach that those who have committed the grievous sins of divorce and remarriage should commit another abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4) by leaving their current spouses for the previous ones.  Rather, in this passage the “present … [specifies] [a] class … of those who … once do the act the single doing of which is the mark of … the class … [as in] Luke 16:18” (Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1898], 56-57).  The destruction of one family unit through remarriage, the physical consummation of which is an act of adultery, is bad enough; it must not be compounded with a further abomination. Please see my study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew for more information on both Deuteronomy 24 and Luke 16:18.

 

Thus, Scripture is clear that one who has committed the sin of remarriage should not go back to his or her former spouse. God teaches that it is an abomination to do so.  The Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed the Old Testament by His Spirit in His prophets, taught that it is an abomination in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Christ did not contradict what He affirmed in the Old Testament in the Gospels.  Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part.

 

TDR

Social Media and Electronics: Addictive Drugs for Christians?

Are social media and electronics drugs to which Christians are addicted-by the millions?

Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitter, Snapchat, Linkedin, Pinterest, Tiktok–mind-numbing, time-wasting distractions, all.  Then there is email–Gmail, Yahoo!, AOL (if you are really old-school), as well as texting, blogging, threads, and all sorts of other ways to use up on the Internet the days and hours God has given you to serve Him.  Many people spend a lot of time making big bucks trying to figure out ways to keep you on their website longer; scrolling is designed to suck you in, suggested videos on YouTube are there both to keep you on the website longer and to influence what you are thinking about, the “ping” when you get a new text is designed to get you to check it right away.  Many of the apps that are hugely popular on smartphones and devices tap into decades of neuroscience and psychology research funded by the casino and gambling industries, which are designed to be addictive.  Americans check their phones approximately 344 times a day, and nearly half of them openly admit that they are addicted to their phones. Physical substances are not the only drugs that are addictive and which turn your brain into putty and your conscience into a wreck-social media and electronic devices do as well.

mom dad son stare cell phone dumb Christian

Can some beneficial things be found on the Internet, on social media, etc.?  Yes-after all, I have a YouTube channel (and a Rumble channel in case YouTube censors me), a website, and (more than one) email address.  I am thankful for the material at Way of Life Literature.  I am writing (and you are reading) a blog right now.  Occasionally the Internet can save time-making some purchases at home online can save time that would otherwise have to be spent going to a store. In general, however, social media is designed to get you to do the opposite of what God says:

“So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psalm 90:12)

Our use of time should be intentional–we are to “number” our days so that we can properly apply our hearts to wisdom.  Our use of time must not be determined by whatever happens to ping next or whatever thumbnail YouTube has pop up to suck us into spending more of the limited time we have before we go to the grave or before the return of Christ watching a pointless video, or even a somewhat benefical video that is less valuable than an intentional, best use of time.

What can be done?  Here are two suggestions.

1.) Make the Lord’s Day a social media fast.

Make it a distinctly different day.  Don’t use any social media at least one day in seven.  Don’t watch YouTube. Don’t go on Facebook.  Don’t check email.  Don’t read text messages.  Don’t look at your phone, unless it is an important call and someone actually physically calls you.  Make an exception for someone who you are texting to give a ride to church, or to a family who you are going to minister to and fellowship with for lunch, or something like that–but otherwise, stay completely off.  Let the muscle memory atrophy of looking at the phone whenever ten seconds is available, at least one day in seven.  Instead, use that time to practice the greatly-neglected duty of conscious meditation on God and His Word, a duty which is too often swallowed up by being on social media day and night:

This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)

But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. (Psalm 1:2)

While the Lord’s Day is not a Christian Sabbath, the principles of the Westminster Larger Catechism for your use of time on the Lord’s Day are still valuable:

The … Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, (Exod. 20:8,10) not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; (Exod. 16:25–28, Neh. 13:15–22, Jer. 17:21–22) and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy (Matt. 12:1–13) ) in the public and private exercises of God’ s worship: (Isa. 58:13, Luke 4:16, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:1–2, Ps. 92, Isa. 66:23, Lev. 23:3) and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day. (Exod. 20:8,56, Luke 23:54, Exod. 16:22,25-26,29) … The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties required, (Ezek. 22:26) all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them; (Acts 20:7,9, Ezek. 33:30–32, Amos 8:5, Mal. 1:13) all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful; (Ezek. 23:38) and by all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations. (Jer. 17:24,27, Isa. 58:13) (The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs, Questions 117, 119)

Consider abstaining from even a lawful use of social media on the Lord’s Day.

2.) “Number” your days (Psalm 90:12): specifically plan and limit the time you spend on social media the other six days of the week.

Maybe make it a rule that you only check your email once a day, or perhaps only once in the morning and once in the evening. If someone needs you right away, he can use the voice that God gave him to call you on the phone or use his legs to actually walk up to you and speak to you face to face.  Make a rule on how often you check text messages and stick to it.  Make a rule that, unless you have already spent adequate time in seeking God’s face in the reading and study of Scripture, in prayer, and in meditation, you don’t use social media at all, and when you use it you consciously decide ahead of time how long God would be glorified by your being on TikTok or Twitter instead of reading Scripture or an edifying book, and spend that amount of your life up on social media–no more, only less.  If, as a family, you “don’t have time” to have family devotions, or to regularly preach the gospel to your community, or to memorize Scripture, then you certainly don’t have time, as a family, to have any social media accounts.  Have someone keep you accountable to live by your “numbering” (Psalm 90:12) of your life.  How many Christian homes have “addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints” (1 Corinthians 16:15) in comparison to those who have addicted themselves to the slavery of the cell-phone?  Are you loving your children by giving them a cell phone, or by resisting the societal pressure and not giving them one?  Are you loving God and spiritually benefiting yourself by your phone and social media use?

Your life is a stewardship from God for which you must give an account.  Don’t waste it on social media.  Overuse of social media is a tremendous contributing factor to spiritual immaturity in the Lord’s churches, and among people old and young people in professedly Christian homes.  Under-use of social media is a contributing factor to-well, probably, to spiritual maturity, greater intelligence, real Christian friendships, and the ability to do such increasingly rare things as concentrate on something for a long period of time. After all, neuroscience research shows that smartphones make people stupider, less social, more forgetful, more prone to addiction, sleepless and depressed, and poor at navigation. The phone may be smarter, but you are not.

What do you do to resist the mind-numbing, soul-sapping, intelligence-eliminating drugs of social media and electronics?  Feel free to share your suggestions below.  If you don’t have any, because you aren’t doing anything to stay off or wean yourself off from these addictions, maybe it is time to start.

TDR

“I’m sorry” vs. “I repent”

We often hear someone say, “I’m sorry,” after doing something wrong, or something that the person does not think is wrong but the person he is speaking to thinks is wrong.”  When one man says “I’m sorry” to another, the response can cover the range from “I’m sorry that I sinned against God and against you, because this is a godly sorrow, it will lead me to repent,” to “I’m sorry that you feel the way you do right now,” to “I’m sorry I got caught sinning,” to “I’m sorry that you are bothering me with your ridiculous complaint, and I wish you would go away and leave me alone–I didn’t do anything wrong.”

“I’m sorry.”

That range can be seen in the texts that contain the word “sorry” in Scripture.

 

child I am sorry crying

For example, Saul wants people to feel sorry for him when he is plotting evil, pursuing innocent David, and killing other righteous people right and left:

 

1Sam. 22:8 That all of you have conspired against me, and there is none that sheweth me that my son hath made a league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for me, or sheweth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as at this day?

 

King Herod was sorry when he was asked to behead John the Baptist:

 

Matt. 14:9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.

 

In fact, Herod was not just a little bit sorry.  He was really sorry:

 

Mark 6:26 And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath’s sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her.

 

Herod was “sorry.” Really sorry. He could have said to John, “I’m sorry about this,” and then gone ahead and ordered the guard to chop off the Baptist’s head.  He was “sorry,” but he certainly did not “repent.”  Being even “exceeding sorry” is not the same thing as being repentant.  Being “sorry” is simply saying that you have “sorrow” over something–whether that thing is your sin, or whether you are sorry that you didn’t get away with your sin, or whether you are sorry you can’t sin even more, is not expressed.

 

“I repent.”

 

Scripture does not say that if one sins against a Christian brother, he is supposed to say, “I’m sorry.” It does not say that when a child sins against another child, the sinning child should be made to say “I’m sorry.” Scripture says that when one sins against another, the sinning party is to say, “I repent.”

 

I repent turn around U turn

 

Luke 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

 

This is not the place to do a comprehensive study of the Biblical doctrine of repentance, but the evidence provided here and in many other places indicates that genuine repentance always results in a change.  If I sin against you and say, “I repent,” I am telling you that what I did was sinful, and by God’s grace I will not do it any more.  I have sinned against heaven and in your sight.

 

If I say “I’m sorry,” I may mean the same thing as “I repent.”  On occasion being “sorry” is associated with repentance:

 

Psa. 38:18 For I will declare mine iniquity; I will be sorry for my sin.

 

2Cor. 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.

 

The sorrow of the Corinthians did lead to their repentance–that was good. But note that Paul specifically states that he was not glad that they had been made “sorry.”  He was only glad that they had repented as a result of that sorrow.  So even here, where sorrow and repentance are associated, they are still distinct.

 

Have I ever said “I’m sorry” when I meant “I repent”? Yes, I certainly have. Do I condemn parents who tell their children, when the children sin against another, “Say you are sorry!” No, I do not condemn such parents.  If someone sins against me and then says, “I’m sorry,” must I think the best (1 Corinthians 13) and assume he means “I repent,” and therefore forgive him, as commanded in Luke 17:4?  Yes, I certainly must forgive him, even though he did not say what Christ told him to say: “I repent.”

 

However, maybe we all ought to reevaluate our use of language in the light of Scripture, and start saying “I repent” instead of “I’m sorry” when we sin against another person (and also use this language when we confess our sins to the Lord).  Saying “I’m sorry” is easier than saying “I repent.” There is a lot more wiggle room in “I’m sorry.” Maybe we should start telling our children to say “I repent” instead of “I’m sorry.”  This is the pattern in Scripture, and it is always good to stick as closely to Scripture as possible.

 

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

Fight Google’s Censorship!

Is Google still your default search engine? If so, you are helping an anti-Bible, anti-morality, pro-sodomy, pro-perversion, anti-God company with every search you make.  They also intend to censor you and to eliminate your voice if they can.  For example, if you search for “Homosexuality is wicked,” the top result (as of when I wrote this article) is an article that laughably claims that sodomy is not condemned by Scripture, and other pro-sodomy articles are in the top page of results. If you search on the search engine DuckDuckGo, the top result is an article entitled “Five Biblical Reasons Homosexuality is Worse than Most Other Sins” and practically every other article on the first page is anti-sodomy, with the anti-sodomy articles being stronger against this perversion than the ones on Google. Do you really think that the top results on Google are unbiased, or is Google putting a heavy thumb on the scale? If you search for “scientific creationism” on DuckDuckGo, the first page includes links to the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. Neither website is on the first page in a Google search. Do you think that is by chance? If you search for “Hunter Biden China collusion,” the top result on DuckDuckGo is an article from the leading conservative organization National Review entitled “A Collusion Trail: China and the Bidens.” On Google, National Review does not appear anywhere on page one and this article is at the very bottom of page 2. Chance? Oh, no!

 

Google censors Bible truth

 

DuckDuckGo is not specifically conservative–it just doesn’t have the leftist bias of Google. DuckDuckGo just puts up what most people actually are searching for when they do Internet searches. While some interaction with wicked companies is unavoidable, breaking your tie with Google here is easy. Open your “preferences” file in the browser(s) you use right now (it may be some dots in the top right corner of your browser, or it may be in a menu) and change the default search engine from Google to DuckDuckGo. Do it on your phone. Do it on your laptop. Do it on everything. Google wants your data to make money, but it doesn’t want your beliefs. It wants to destroy them. Stop giving Google money with your Internet searches, and resist Google’s censorship of God’s truth. It takes about five minutes. Do it now.

 

TDR

Christian Parents Ought to Have as Many Children as Possible

“And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them” (Genesis 24:60)

In the world today, the blessing above would be viewed as a curse.  Mother of thousands of millions!  Terrible!  Growing the influence of the godly over those who hate them by having many, many children? Are you crazy? We need to save the endangered bugs, not the people!  Sadly, many Christian families have also been influenced by the world’s way of thinking on family size.

Consider also Psalm 127-128:

A Song of degrees for Solomon.

1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. 2 It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep. 3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

A Song of degrees.

Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that walketh in his ways. 2 For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. 3 Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. 4 Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the LORD. 5 The LORD shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life. 6 Yea, thou shalt see thy children’s children, and peace upon Israel.

God says that children are His “reward,” and the man is “happy” or blessed who has a household “full of them.” The man who starts having children with his wife even from his “youth” is blessed. This is the way Jehovah blesses His people–children all around one’s table.  Lots of little mouths is His blessing, not a burden or a curse.  As in Genesis 24, lots of children leads to greater influence for the kingdom, peace and victory over God’s enemies, because of a greater number of saints.

If we go by Scripture alone, we would conclude that believers should seek to have as great a degree of God’s blessing in the area of children as in every other area.  If a Christian family would not limit God’s blessing them in other areas, they should not limit God’s blessing them with children.

Sometimes people say that if they have more children they will not be able to raise the ones they already have properly. But Scripture never says that one is more likely to have his children live for God if he limits the number of blessings God gives them. What if older children are more likely to be responsible and godly if they have to help care for other little ones? Would God’s blessing of more children really be something that leads to more rebellion and unconverted people?

Other people say that they cannot afford to have more children. But God who sends the blessing of children will enable you to take care of the children. Furthermore, if we cannot afford to have many children in the richest country that has ever existed in the history of the world, then for 99.9% of human history nobody could afford to have children, and none of us would be here.

If you are married, seek God’s blessing of children–as many as God can give you. Do it even from the start of your marriage in your “youth” (Psalm 127:4). That may be lots and lots–it may be a few–it may be none–God knows what is best for you.  But for your part, you should think it a wonderful gift if you could be a family that has thousands of millions of children, vastly increasing the number of righteous people in this world.

TDR

No Divorce–Just Legal Separation!

Scripture plainly teaches that God hates divorce, e. g. Mark 10:11-12:

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

But what about “legal separation”? Can a believer justify separating himself or herself from his or her spouse, going to law in custody battles, and in other ways remaining unreconciled, as long as “legal separation” and not “divorce” is what this is called?  Consider the following passages.

1.) 1Cor. 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Cor. 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1Cor. 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Cor. 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Cor. 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Note that “let …” is the English way of rendering a 3rd person imperative in Greek–in other words, these are not just allowances, they are commands,  infallible orders in God’s Word.  “Let not the wife depart from her husband … Let not the husband put away his wife” are not options, but commands, commands just like the commands not to commit idolatry, not to steal, to confess Christ, etc.Note as well that a believing spouse is not suggested, but commanded to “not leave” even an unconverted spouse–and what kind of unconverted people are we talking about? What kind of people are the unconverted at Corinth? They were “unrighteous … fornicators … idolaters … adulterers … effeminate … abusers of themselves with mankind … thieves … covetous … drunkards … revilers … extortioners” (1 Cor 6:9-10). Even spouses who are unconverted and are engaging in such filthy perversion and gross wickedness come under the command, not the option, but command, “Let not … leave.”The only person who is seen leaving is the unconverted spouse.  Leaving is what an unconverted person would be characterized by, not a converted person who can love, suffer, patiently endure wrong, etc. like Christ because of the fruit of the Holy Spirit.Note as well that leaving does not result in a better situation for the household. Staying with even a spouse who is a fornicator, adulterer, thief, etc. results in the household being “sanctified” and the children being “holy.”  It is better for the children for the two to stay together, even if one spouse is engaged in such gross wickedness.  Nothing in the text says anything about separating until the other person gets better or changes.  On the contrary, the only mention of change in the evil of the one spouse is if they stay together (1 Cor 7:16):
1Cor. 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
where the “whether” is the Greek particle for “if” with the assumption of the reality of the condition (1st class conditional)–in other words, “whether/if thou shalt..” with the assumption that staying together will result in the positive change (1st class), not “whether/if” with this presented as only being possible (3rd class) or unlikely (4th class conditional).  The only thing the text says happens when the two are not together is children who are unclean instead of holy and the other spouse not making positive change.
2.) Mal. 2:13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
Mal. 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal. 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Mal. 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Note that Jehovah, the God of Israel, says that “he hateth putting away.”  Note that Jehovah does not say that He only hates giving a certificate of divorce.  He says that He hates–He finds detestable in His holy Being–“putting away.”  A simple search for this word (shalach, Piel stem) indicates that “putting away” appears in passages such as:
Gen. 12:20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.
Ex. 10:7 And Pharaoh’s servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?
Josh. 24:28 So Joshua let the people depart, every man unto his inheritance.
and many others.So what God “hates” is not just signing a divorce certificate, although He certainly does hate that.  He hates “putting away.” He hates it when spouses “depart” or “go” from each other, and when this happens, not only do they do something that He “hates,” but they do something that greatly compromises the “godly seed”–something also seen, as noted above, in 1 Cor 7.  “Putting away” meaning literally “departing” or “going” etc., not just “divorce,” as something hated by God is also seen in 1 Cor 7 above, where “put away” is paralleled with “depart,” not being “reconciled,” “dwell with,” “not .. leave,” etc.So what God hates, what He calls “treachery” to the marriage vow in Malachi 2, is not just divorce, but “putting away.”  Consider the contextual curses related to the sins of the chapter like “putting away” include:
Mal. 2:2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
Mal. 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
The text indicates God calls putting away of a spouse treachery, and He curses those who do it, corrupts their seed, spreads dung on them, and takes them away.
3.) Psa. 15:1-4 LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
Psa. 15:2 He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
Psa. 15:3 He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
Psa. 15:4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
Note that this passage says that those who “speak truth” and “swear to [their] own hurt, and changeth not” are those who will “dwell in [God’s] holy hill,” and are contrasted with the “vile person.”  The upright person swears to his own hurt and does not change, while the vile change and when swearing is to the vile person’s own hurt, he changes, unlike the righteous.So if someone calls together a large group of witnesses, and then swears to God something such as, in part:
“I, ___, take thee, ___, to be my wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith.”
Even if one later thinks he or she should not have made this vow it does not matter. The righteous swears to his own hurt and does not change.  The vow has been made and must be kept even to one’s own hurt.  Christ’s people know that their time on earth is about losing their life, taking up the cross–which is terrible, humiliating suffering and excruciating death–to follow Jesus Christ. So even if keeping one’s vow means one will be in awful misery, he needs to keep his vow that was sworn to one’s hurt, and not change, since Jehovah calls spousal separation “treachery” in Malachi 2. It is better to endure lifelong misery than to sin. It is better to suffer a horrible death like crucifixion than to sin. While God gives comfort to His obedient people in suffering, and it is not likely that staying in a marriage will mean life-long suffering for a believer, even if it does the believer is to swear to his own hurt and not change.  This life is nothing compared to eternal life, and suffering for 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 100 years is nothing compared to eternity.  It is better not to make a foolish vow, but once it has been made it must be kept, because life is not about our feeling comfortable, but about the glory of God.If we have the following attitude:
Is. 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
it is very clear that “legal separation” is hateful to God. Believers who file for “legal separation” are sinning against the Lord.  If a spouse is running at you with a meat cleaver screaming he is going to kill you, you can run away so you don’t get killed. If you are getting beaten up, you can flee to prevent that from happening because of the Biblical principle in the Sixth Commandment to preserve life from murder (Exodus 20:13).  You do not get to leave if you have an unsaved spouse who is mean, who says terrible things to you, or anything like that. Obey God. Reject legal separation, just like you reject divorce. God rejects them both.
TR

The SNOWMAN is a hater–systemically racist, sexist, fascist, and anti-LGBTQ+!!!!!!!

Happy Winter Solstice!  I wanted to point out an important point of systemic racism in this evil United States culture of racism, sexism, and xenophobia that you may have overlooked, although it is all around you, promoting microaggressions against womyn and all people of color everywhere.  After reading this article, you will have no justification for continuing use of this racist and sexist language, and you should immediately cancel anyone you know who continues to do so.  You must start going into restaurants, malls, and other random places, accosting people, and finding out if they are fascists who refuse to cancel these great evils that you are now woke to.  If they do not immediately agree with you, hit them in the face, vandalize their car, and take their wallet, as Antifa would explain is the ONLY proper response.  What do I refer to, you ask?  What could have been missed in the gazillion mandatory diversity training sessions at work, in the now ubiquitous political brainwashing everywhere?  I refer to the racist, sexist, and fascist language of the SNOWMAN.

snowman with happy children

The Snowman—

 universal symbol of patriarchy, bigotry, 

and fascist, racist, sexist hate.

Note, first of all, the sexism here—it is the snowMAN.  Snowwomen, and non-binary, LGBTQ+ snow persuns, are vastly underrepresented minorities in this cold, hard world.  You must immediately cease referring to the patriarchal term “snowman” and speak, instead of “snow persuns.”  Certainly children—excuse me, those who identify as being in the age group whose age assigned at birth is zero/newborn—should not be encouraged to build or play with snowmen.  At the very least, all snowmen should be built with a frown instead of a smile, and with frozen tears or icicles of contrition for the sexist male privilege into which they have been ushered, and a taller, stronger, happy, Biden-Harris snowwomyn should be built next to any snowman.

irish snowwoman stuffed

The snowwoman—not sexist like the snowman, but still racist and white supremacist


Note as well, that snowmen—and even snowwomyn—are overwhelmingly white.  Diversity in snowpersuns is almost entirely lacking.  White snowmen should be frozen out high-level colleges and job opportunities attractive to them, whether in refrigeration, arctic travel, or ice cream sales, until snowpersuns of color, and snowpersuns of every kind of racial, gender, and sexual minority, are overrepresented in every income bracket of our systemically racist, sexist, and fascist nation, and there are equal numbers of diverse snowpersuns found in winter in North Dakota and in summer in Arizona.

Don’t try to cover your hate with the argument that snowpersuns are white because snow is white—it’s just nature.  That’s the same type of old fascist argument people make against transgender rights when they claim there are only men and women—it’s just nature.  No, “nature” is just a social construct, just like “men,” “women,” and the color of snow.  This does not need to be proven—everyone that is woke knows it, and if you deny it you are giving in to white privilege and are just a RACIST SEXIST FASCIST.  Q. E. D.

A LGBTQ+ Non-Binary, Socialist/Communist, 

Snowbeing of Color Snowpersun—

the ONLY acceptable alternative for tolerant persuns. 

(No picture included because there aren’t any yet.)

I hope that you are now woke to the great evil of building, encouraging children to play with, or in any way supporting the racist and sexist evil of the SNOWMAN.  Dear reader, if you have every used such racist and sexist language, please send me a check of no less than $10,000 for every time you have supported patriarchy with this now cancelled term, to show that you are now fully in on diversity, inclusion and tolerance.  I will donate the appropriate portion of your guilt offering to our local Antifa chapter while keeping the rest for myself.  If you do not, I will burn your house down to show what tolerant people do to intolerant fascists like you.

stuffed snowman

So in conclusion: The snowman—cancel him! 


AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives