Home » Posts tagged 'truth' (Page 5)

Tag Archives: truth

They Did Not Drive Out the Inhabitants of and from the Land

The idea of driving out anybody from almost anywhere is not acceptable in a woke world or does not work according to political correctness, the latter a softer, earlier iteration of wokeness.  The act of driving out inhabitants from the land is a major theme, however, of the Old Testament.  Israel is in bad shape at the beginning of Judges and a major, if not the major, reason is that the various tribes of Israel did not drive out the inhabitants of the land from the land.  You could add, “and keep them out.”

A prerequisite for Israel from God was to drive out the inhabitants of the land God would give them.  In fact, God would drive the inhabitants and He would use Israel to do it.  It wasn’t really even their driving out the inhabitants, but God using them to do it.

It was God’s will to drive out the various Canaanities.

Exodus 23:28, And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.

Exodus 33:2, And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

Exodus 34:11, Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Numbers 32:21, And will go all of you armed over Jordan before the LORD, until he hath driven out his enemies from before him,

Numbers 33:52, Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:

Deuteronomy 4:38, To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day.

Deuteronomy 11:23, Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves.

Joshua 3:10, And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.

Joshua 13:6, All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, and all the Sidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee.

Joshua 17:12, Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.

Joshua 17:18, But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine:: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.

1 Chronicles 17:21, And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?

If they did not drive them out, this was not good — very bad.

Numbers 33:55, But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

Joshua 23:13, Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

This is still a general principle for the success of any people.  The general principle is separate from people, their culture, or their way of life.  Try to reach them and if they do not listen or won’t follow the scriptural way, separate from them.  They won’t like this, but this is the only way to preserve a godly people and culture in order to please God.  It is holiness, which is primary to the nature of God.

In the early history of Israel, one of Abraham’s family settled in Sodom and Gomorrah, and that ruined his family.  God of course destroyed those cities with fire and brimstone.  Just the opposite of driving out people is to join with them.  Psalm 1:1, obviously the first verse of the entire Psalter, says,

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

Israel failed when they did not drive out the people from the land.  They disobeyed God in not doing this.

Judges 1:19, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. 21 And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. 27 Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns:: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. 28 And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. 29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. 30 Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries. 31 Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: 32 But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out. 33 Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, nor the inhabitants of Bethanath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Bethshemesh and of Bethanath became tributaries unto them.

This whole first chapter is about either destroying these inhabitants or not driving them out.  The first good and the latter bad.  Mixing with people, intermingling with them, or coexisting with them is not the will of God.  The rest of Judges testifies to the failure of not driving out or not separating.  They effect the people until they become more and more like the inhabitants.

The New Testament is the same.  You evangelize the lost.  If they won’t listen, you separate from them, especially those who call themselves brothers (1 Cor 5:11).

This principle of driving out inhabitants or separation is crucial to the preservation and practice of truth.  It’s in every New Testament book.  It is a principle that not only protects an individual, family, and church, but it also is crucial for a nation, like Israel.

This above principle applies to the United States, which relates to borders and immigration.  If there is an American way, it won’t be preserved without some form of separation to keep out those who won’t think the same way.  I’m afraid that ship has sailed or that practice won’t be able to be put back into the bottle.

Other nations might need to think about separating from the United States.  Even though the Taliban is godless and pagan, they have a way of life they are protecting by ejecting the United States.  They don’t want American culture to infiltrate their very specific view of the world.  They know that can’t happen without separation.

As an example of what God said and the implementation of this principle, I noticed today that European nations were considering a policy for Americans visiting there to stop the spread of Covid.  Quarantine is an extreme form of separation to stop disease from spreading.  It is the same principle.  People judge Covid to be dangerous.  They don’t want it.  A bubble, like the NBA bubble in 2020, was deemed necessary to continue the season.

The continuation of true doctrine and practice necessitates some kind of bubble.  Young people or a youth culture in general don’t want a bubble.  They want outside of it.  They want amalgamation, integration, and association.  They very often want to be like everyone else and be accepted by them.  It is a fools errand on their part, because it won’t end in acceptance.  It doesn’t work that way.  The cancel culture shows this.  However, it will result in their not being right with God, the most important consideration any of them should ever have.

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?

 

Preach the Word KJV 2 Timothy 4:2

 

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.)

Social media conspiracy theories

 

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

The Coddling of the American Mind, Questioning One’s Salvation, and Showing Grace and Mercy

Three veins of thought I recently read and heard come together into one theme for this post.  Each of them intersected into a common orbit, like three strangers meeting at an English roundabout and deciding to stay.  First I want to credit the three sources.

The first, The Coddling of the American Mind, was mentioned by popular linguist and author, Columbia professor John McWhorter at Substack in a part of his anti-anti-racist series, the article titled, Black Fragility as Black Strength.  He borrowed from the recent conservative book, The Coddling of the American Mind, for the outline of his article.  The title of that Lukianoff and Haidt book also takes from a now classic published in 1987 by University of Chicago professor, Allan Bloom, titled, The Closing of the American Mind.  The coddling of the American mind is a later iteration of closing the American mind, both occurring on university campuses.  Truth approaches a coddled mind and it closes like the Mimosa pudica to escape injury, remaining in error.

Questioning salvation is scriptural.  At least two books of the New Testament, 1 John and James, have this as their subject matter.  Parts of several other New Testament books speak to the unconverted in a mixed multitude, including Hebrews.  Jesus Himself addresses this crowd.  Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 13:5, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.”

With an attitude of great surprise, Tim McKnight on his post, “Social Media: 7 Tips for Christians,” started with these two sentences:

Last night I experienced a first on social media. A person claiming to follow Jesus Christ questioned my salvation.

McKnight, a person claiming to follow Jesus Christ, questioned someone questioning his salvation.  The Apostle Paul said, question people’s salvation, Jesus questioned people’s salvation, and every true evangelist will question someone’s salvation.  It shouldn’t have been a first on social media, but this was considered an offense.

The above offense of questioning salvation then also dovetails with number three, a sermon I was listening to on Christian radio in our area, where the speaker was emphasizing “showing grace and mercy” to others.  As I listened to his defining the practice, I tried to connect the practice to scripture.  I understood from what he said that “showing grace and mercy” was a kind of toleration of unacceptable behavior, putting up with how others behave without saying anything.  That might have become the standard understanding of the concept of showing grace and mercy.

Let me put this together.  Coddled minds, who don’t want their salvation questioned, need us to show them grace and mercy by leaving them alone.  The Apostle Paul didn’t coddle the Corinthians when he called on them to question their own salvation.  Would he have done better to coddle them and would this have been to show them grace and mercy?

Often the Apostle Paul starts his three pastoral epistles with these almost identical statements:

Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Not outdone by Paul, the Apostle John began 2 John with the following in verse 3:

Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

He proceeded to question the salvation of many people in verses 9-10:

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

He also encourages you to question the salvation of others.  Someone could be coddled all the way to eternal damnation, thinking they’re saved, when they’re not.
I’m very much for showing grace and mercy, but I also want to get a handle on what that means.  Everyone needs mercy.  We don’t condemn people when they sin or if they offend us personally.  We show them grace by helping them stop sinning, not by ignoring their sin.  There is a gracious way to help people.  What Paul writes toward the end of 1 Thessalonians is good instruction (5:14):

Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.

Some need comfort, some support, but others warning.  Everyone needs patience.  How long is patient?  It isn’t interminable or else you’d never warn the unruly.
Paul told Titus that grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lust (Titus 2:12).  Showing grace means teaching others to deny ungodliness and worldly lust or to do just what Paul did in Ephesians 5:11 when he wrote:  “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”  Is that showing grace?  Not to a coddled mind.
We’re in a difficult situation today where people need the most questioning in history and with their coddled minds, they can endure none of that.  Questioning is occurring, but it’s mainly about questioning.  They will not show you grace if you do not show them grace, all depending on the meaning of grace.
I recognize that I’m probably preaching to the choir with this post.  Everyone else, show me some grace, okay?

What Formed Crater Lake?

Certain questions, like the title of this post, seem rather remote and disconnected from every day life.  Like I like to put it to people, “It seems like an island that has nothing to do with the mainland, so why paddle out to that.”  The world, however, takes great note of these questions and their answers.  We should have the true answer and be able to state it — not to every such question, but to such questions.  We introduce the world to the real world.  They are stuck in their alternative reality and we are responsible to deliver them from it.  I know that today people state it as taking the red pill, but if this is a pill, it’s probably not red or blue, but the concept itself is valid.

After about a year in Oregon, a friend and member of our church in California came up to visit on the weekend, we went door-to-door evangelizing Friday and Saturday, had Sunday services, and yesterday, we drove up to Crater Lake, which is also a national park about an hour and a half drive from where we live.  Crater Lake is beautiful.  It is essentially the top of a mountain that has been hollowed out with no outlet and water has accumulated there through various means over a long period of time.  It looks like a crater filled with the brightest blue, almost transparent water.  In the lake is another old volcano that also has a crater, a mini-island within the crater, a mountain within a mountain.  It was hazy, when we visited Crater Lake on Monday, because of wind blowing smoke up from fires in California.  Nevertheless, the views, as we drove all the way around and hiked to two locations and got out of the car at least ten times to look, were awe inspiring (if you click on the pictures, they get bigger and better).

Requisite now for national parks, which are very often very beautiful, are historical and apparent scientific explanations.  Crater Lake is the deepest lake in the United States and it is the ninth deepest lake in the world.  At many of the scenic overlooks were placards and displays that talked about the formation.

The explanation for Crater Lake is that it was Mount Mazama, which became an active volcanoe, which erupted 6,000 to 8,000 years ago which blew out twelve cubit miles worth of material to form a cadera, the gigantic crater.  That bowl filled up with water from huge snows and the melting of the snow pack in the winter.  Since there are no inlets or outlets, it is very pure water, some of the purest of the world, and it is estimated the water completely changes every 250 years through the exchange of evaporation and precipitation.

If you read the descriptions on any of the placards or displays, there is no mention of God.  God does not enter into the explanation.  He should.  Crater Lake formed by means of a universal flood over the entire earth from which the original water also came.  Yes, it has since been replenished in the way described, but was a lake at the time of the great flood, revealed in Genesis 6-9 in the Bible.

God was angry with mankind and so He revealed to a righteous man, named Noah, that rain and a flood and destruction were coming, because of man’s sin.  Man was sinning and unrepentant of it.  Violating the moral law of God brings consequences.  God doesn’t allow man to interminably get away with sin.  He reacts with righteous indignation and true justice.

God is also merciful, because He instructed Noah to preach to mankind to warn him for 120 years.  God also provided for a way to escape the destruction of the flood, an ark.  Noah and his family would build the ark to save whoever would repent and believe.  No one did, so except for the eight people in Noah’s family, everyone died.

The flood changed the topography of the earth.  Water came from beneath the earth’s surface and from above.  A feature of the earth before the flood was the firmament, waters which protected the earth from factors that would greatly shorten people’s life spans.  Proceeding from God’s power, waters broke forth from beneath the surface of the earth and rained down from above it.

The pressure of the water that covered the earth completely changed the topography of the planet.  There was a tremendous upheaval that is responsible for what the earth looks like now.  This occurred by the powerful judgment of God and then the natural forces that followed from that.  Genesis 10 talks about the division of the earth.  It took awhile for the earth to settle.  The population was very small and in one location and everywhere else were massive changes from which are repercussions still today.

The forces at work from the worldwide flood caused volcanic eruptions and huge shifts of the earth’s crust, leaving still the consequences of sin in the way of volcanic and seismic activity.  The earth still often shakes with the shifting of plates and destroys what’s on the surface, leading to further death.  Giant waves form and hit the shore of populated area, destroying life and property.  The weather that followed the flood has continued to wreak havoc everywhere and all the time with the far less stable living environment than what existed before the flood.  Life changed drastically and it was all because of sin.

God’s judgment of sin formed Crater Lake.  It also formed the Rogue Gorge, which is nearby Crater Lake about 45 minutes away.

These formations are beautiful to see.  They are powerful.  All of them have arisen from the power of God’s destruction of a former world because of its sin.  No one mentions that at either location, but it is true and it is the most important story at both Crater Lake and Rogue Gorge.

Further judgment is coming to the world.  God has already warned about it.  He wants His children, His saints, to preach about it.  It’s obviously nearer today than it ever has been.  Even the smoke over Crater Lake reminds me of that future fire that will destroy the world.  Like Noah and his family could be saved, God offers salvation.  Let’s not miss that.  A former world was destroyed without repentance.  Only those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ will escape the next judgment of God.

Winning Someone and Winning Over Someone

I was sitting in the doctor’s office today for an appointment for my dad.  I go with him to all his appointments, which are many.  Usually it is also accompanied by medical decisions, such as tweaking a few of his medications, including his insulin intake.  I pulled up today’s list of articles at Realclearpolitics while waitingand one of them was from the New York Times, titled, “Progressives’ Urgent Question: How to Win Over Voters of Color.”  I didn’t immediately read the article, but my mind began weighing the difference between “winning someone” and “winning someone over.”  Were those two different from each other?  I thought so.

Part of what got me thinking about this subject was the consideration of “winning over voters of color.”  What does that mean?  This is the New York Times.  Are voters of color won over in a different way than voters not of color?  Again, is there a difference between winning someone and winning someone over?  The first line of the article reads:

Can progressives win broad numbers of the Black and brown voters they say their policies will benefit most?

The first sentence says “win broad numbers” in contrast to the title, which says, “win over voters of color.”   I’m still suggesting that “win” and “win over” mean something different.  “Winning over” seems to relate to benefits received, so that “slogans and policies that he said threatened the lives of “Black and brown babies”” do not “win over” this constituency.  In this New York mayoral race, the author of the article explains it by saying, “Black people talk about politics in more practical and everyday terms.”  Practical terms are ones that offer immediate physical benefits.
If I’m trying to win someone over, I can do that by offering benefits.  If I’m trying to win someone, I might not offer any benefits, but the truth so as to persuade someone.  I might say, “You’ll suffer more and you’ll lose physical benefits, especially in the short term, but you will believe and do what is true and right.”  “Winning over” uses every possible advantage, profit, and reward to gain the support of someone.  It’s tempting to win someone over, because you’ve now got them on your side, if you do.  In the above illustration, they’ll vote for you, if you win them over.  They want the benefits you’re promising, so you’re trading their advocacy for your assistance and their welfare.
One frustration of progressives is poor people  who won’t be won over by promises of short term physical advantage.  Instead, these poor ignorantly cling to their religion.  They’ve been won by an idea or a belief instead of being won over by a material thing.
I’m not saying that the truth alone will win someone.  A person wants to know he’s loved.  For the person being won, however, the truth should reign.  He should question someone’s attempt to win him over with tangible benefits.  He should embrace the persuasion of truth.  Even if heaven and earth pass away, God’s Words will not pass away.  As Job said, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15).  Being slain won’t win someone over, but Job was still won, because of the character and nature of God.
Evangelism isn’t winning someone over.  It is winning someone.

Shame, Folly, and Conspiracy Theories

I have been thinking about this since writing my post on getting vaccinated for COVID and also my post “Satanic Conspiracy, COVID-19, and the Church’s Response.”  I am not writing this to rehash the contents of those posts.  I would encourage those who disagreed–and those who agreed–with the posts to consider the following Biblical principles before we are convinced by or share as true any conspiracy.

1.) Have I examined both sides of the case for the alleged conspiracy?

Prov. 18:13  He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Prov. 18:17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

Before telling others, spreading on social media, or in any other way adopting or encouraging others to adopt a conspiracy as true, have I carefully examined both sides of the issue? Have I only read people who agree with the conclusion I am predisposed to, or have I read not just arguments for the conspiracy, but also strong arguments against it, and can I refute the arguments against it? If people challenge my belief in the conspiracy, do I take it personally and react to them emotionally–so that, perhaps, they are not even willing to bring problems with my view, and I place myself in an echo chamber where only those who agree with me are willing to say anything–or do I evaluate what contrary opinions say rationally and dispassionately?

If we do not do this, and promote something which is false because we have not read nor refuted the arguments for the contrary view, it is shame and folly.

2.) Have I exercised great care in my investigation?

Deut. 13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain …

Job 29:16 [T]he cause which I knew not I searched out.

Have I made sure that sources that allegedly prove the conspiracy are not taken out of context? Am I looking at the original source, or what someone said that someone said that someone said?  Can I provide a rational mechanism for how what the conspiracy says happened could have taken place, and can I show that other, simpler or less extraordinary explanations fail?  Are the sources reliable ones?  Do I know the bias of the sources I am citing?  We should be very, very careful before assuming a testimonial, a YouTube video, or some other source that would not make it in a high-school research paper or on Wikipedia is giving us the truth while published, peer-reviewed results by people with tremendous knowledge of the field they are writing about are telling us falsehoods.  It is not impossible, but if we are going to make an extraordinary claim like this we need extraordinary evidence.

If we do not follow the two principles above we risk getting taken advantage of by shysters, con-men, and other liars.  We risk bringing reproach to the name of Christ when we utter falsehoods as Christians.  We can put at risk our lives, health, and livelihoods, and the lives, health, and livelihoods of others.

Consider also many of the principles in the Westminster Larger Catechism on the Ninth Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”:

Question 144

What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, (Zech. 8:16) and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own; (3 John 12) appearing and standing for the truth; (Prov. 31:8–9) and from the heart, (Ps. 15:2) sincerely, (2 Chron. 19:9) freely, (1 Sam. 19:4–5) clearly, (Josh. 7:19) and fully, (2 Sam. 14:18–20) speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, (Lev. 19:15, Prov. 14:5,25) and in all other things whatsoever; (2 Cor. 1:17–18, Eph. 4:25) a charitable esteem of our neighbours; (Heb. 6:9, 1 Cor. 13:7) loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; (Rom 1:8, 2 John 4, 3 John 3–4) sorrowing for, (2 Cor. 2:4, 2 Cor. 12:21) and covering of their infirmities; (Prov. 17:9, 1 Pet. 4:8) freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, (1 Cor. 1:4–5,7, 2 Tim. 1:4–5) defending their innocency; (1 Sam. 22:14) a ready receiving of a good report, (1 Cor. 13:6–7) and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, (Ps. 15:3) concerning them; discouraging tale-bearers, (Prov. 25:23) flatterers, (Prov. 26:24–25) and slanderers; (Ps. 101:5) love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; (Prov. 22:1, John 8:49) keeping of lawful promises; (Ps. 15:4) studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report. (Phil. 4:8)

Question 145

What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own, (1 Sam. 17:28, 2 Sam. 16:3, 2 Sam. 1:9,10,15–16) especially in public judicature; (Lev. 19:15, Hab. 1:4) giving false evidence, (Prov. 19:5, Prov. 6:16,19) suborning false witnesses, (Acts 6:13) wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, out-facing and overbearing the truth; (Jer. 9:3,5, Acts 24:2,5, Ps. 12:3–4, Ps. 52:1–4) passing unjust sentence, (Prov. 17:15, 1 Kings 21:9–14,10–11,13) calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; (Isa. 5:23) forgery, (Ps. 119:69, Luke19:8, Luke 16:5–7) concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, (Lev. 5:1, Deut. 13:8, Acts 5:3,8–9, 2 Tim. 4:16) and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, (1 Kings1:6, Lev. 19:17) or complaint to others; (Isa. 59:4) speaking the truth unseasonably, (Prov. 29:11) or maliciously to a wrong end, (1 Sam. 22:9–10, Ps. 52:1–5) or perverting it to a wrong meaning, (Ps. 56:5, John 2:19, Matt. 26:60–61) or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; (Gen. 3:5, Gen. 26:7,9) speaking untruth, (Isa. 59:13) lying, (Lev. 19:11, Col. 3:9) slandering, (Ps. 50:20) backbiting, (James 4:11, Jer. 38:4) talebearing, (Lev. 19:16) whispering, (Rom. 1:29–30) scoffing, (Gen. 21:9, Gal. 4:29) reviling, (1 Cor. 6:10) rash, (Matt. 7:1) harsh, (Acts 28:4) and partial censuring; (Gen. 38:24, Rom. 2:1) misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; (Neh. 6:6–8, Rom. 3:8, Ps. 69:10, 1 Sam. 1:13–15, 2 Sam. 10:3) flattering, (Ps. 12:2–3) vain-glorious boasting; (2 Tim. 3:2) thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; (Luke 18:9,11, Rom. 12:16, 1 Cor. 4:6, Acts 12:22, Exod. 4:10–14) denying the gifts and graces of God; (Job 27:5,6, Job 4:6) aggravating smaller faults; (Matt. 7:3–5) hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; (Prov. 28:13, Prov. 30:20, Gen. 3:12–13, Jer. 2:35, 2 Kings 5:25, Gen. 4:9) unnecessary discovering of infirmities; (Gen. 9:22, Prov. 25:9–10) raising false rumors, (Exod. 23:1) receiving and countenancing evil reports, (Prov. 29:12) and stopping our ears against just defense; (Acts 7:56–57, Job 31:13–14) evil suspicion; (1 Cor. 13:5, 1 Tim. 6:4) envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, (Numb. 11:29, Matt. 21:15) endeavoring or desiring to impair it, (Ezra 4:12–13) rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; (Jer. 48:27) scornful contempt, (Ps. 35:15–16,21, Matt. 27:28–29) fond admiration; (Jude 16, Acts 12:22) breach of lawful promises; (Rom. 1:31, 2 Tim. 3:3) neglecting such things as are of good report, (1 Sam. 2:24) and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name. (2 Sam. 13:12–13)

If we consider the two questions at the beginning of this post, and the principles found in the Ninth Commandment, we will in a greater way glorify the Lord.  Let’s make sure we do this before we adopt, promote, share with others, or in any other way support conspiracy theories (and consider these principles in all other areas of our life as well that involve rational thought).

If after reading this post, your reaction is to post insults in the comment section, tell me that I am just a stooge of Big Pharma, QAnon, or whatever else, and try to promote some conspiracy that you have not read, much less been able to refute arguments against, and which fail the tests found in the verses in this post, kindly re-read the post and pay a bit more attention.

TDR

My Conversations with Numerous Exvangelicals

Exvangelical sounds like either a misspelling or a bit too much cleverness, I would agree, but for the sake of this post, I’m sticking with a word of which I’m reading its contemporary usage.  Of all the words in the title, it gets your attention because it doesn’t sound like a word.  Perhaps I’ll help you in future Scrabble endeavors.I regularly knock on doors of young, ex evangelicals, who grew up in church or a Christian home.  Now they aren’t going to church and a large majority of the time, they don’t have the faith any longer.  It is occurring and even as many of you readers know at an epidemic level.  Churches are hemorrhaging their young people.  Social media spreads the idea like a virus, and all the new forms of communication instantly create an interconnectedness in these exvangelicals that strengthens them against repentance or a return.  They bind together and encourage one another in their apostasy.  For those related, this is very, very sad, as sad an occurrence as they experience in their lives, putting new wrinkles on their faces and more grey in their hair.I’ve had many long conversations with some of these young exvangelicals.  I haven’t gone out of my way to talk with them.  It’s just happened.  Even though they may come from varied backgrounds and situations and different types of evangelical churches, they are all very similar.  For two reasons, I’m writing on this subject:  the long talks with young exvangelicals in person and an article that was written by a Grayson Gilbert at Patheos, entitled, “I’m Not All That Impressed With Exvangelical Deconstruction Stories.”  Gilbert is the polar opposite in that he started where exvangelicals have ended, so he was where they presently are, except seeing it from a unique perspective.I don’t write this post to critique Gilbert’s piece, although I may refer to it, but to write mainly what I have found myself, and then discuss my approach to these exvangelicals.  When I meet one of them, I don’t know they’re there.  I haven’t targeted them.  They just appear without notice and the conversation starts like all the other ones I have.  In the midst of it, they start telling me some of their backstory usually to explain why it is that they might not need to listen to what I have to say.  They say they’ve already heard and thought about it a lot, and they turned away from it for various reasons.  Almost always part of their narrative is some kind of injustice in the group they left, that justifies their having left it.  In other words, something also happened that they didn’t like, so they can’t go back to it for personal reasons, which also serves to validate their decision.  If they were to return, they now contend would support the evil of the former group.What I have to say to them doesn’t bring back exvangelicals, but it has resulted in longer conversations, where it seems to me that they’re giving my preaching at least a consideration.  Like what we read in scripture, the real reason for their defection is why they are very difficult to persuade, so I see myself as just planting seed, giving them the best possible opportunity to come to the truth.  That’s all we can do anyway.Why would exvangelicals eject from Christianity or biblical Christianity at least, if biblical Christianity is the truth?Assume that not every exvangelical will want to talk with you.  They might be hostile.  Many times they will talk though.  I’ll ask, what happened that you left your group?  Or, why aren’t you in the church any more?  Many times they’ll give an answer.  I sympathize with them.  A lot of churches and groups have real problems.  One of the reasons that we can say they’re wrong though is because we can know the truth about what’s wrong, which also means we can know the truth about what’s right.  It would bother me though if the wrong thing was just normally or regularly allowed.  I understand why someone would want to leave, it’s like you’re paddling out to an island that has little to do with the mainland.  Why should you keep putting in that effort?However, just because your church or group went off or way off the rails, that doesn’t mean that the Bible or Christianity itself are not true.  I am here to say that Jesus Christ is the best, really the only valid explanation for why we’re here and what we’re supposed to be doing.From here, I treat exvangelicals a bit like people who say they’re atheists.  I ask, “So do you think all of this, all of this around us, got here by accident?”  It is very, very rare that I have anyone answer, yes, to that question.  I remind them that everything getting here by accident is the view taught in the state schools and it still can’t even be challenged there.  The viewpoint that represents, naturalism, the more we know from science, the more it’s proven to be false.  Darwin looked at a cell and it was just a blob.  Now we can see it under a microscope, and even the cell is irreducibly complex, let alone the human eye or any of our bodily systems.Science now agrees everything must have a beginning.  There can be no eternal regression of causes. Since the explanation for everything is supernatural, what is the true story?  What is the first cause?  When we look at what is caused, because we know it’s caused, it matches with the Bible.I talk to many, many religions, and I believe that every time I talk to one, I’m open to it being the truth.  Nothing comes close to comparing to biblical Christianity.  Christianity is different than everything else, because it is objective truth.  It has proof.  The Bible is historical, scholars agree with that.  Then there is prophecy and fulfilled prophecy.Greater than every other evidence of Christianity is Jesus Christ Himself.  How do you explain Him?  More has been written about Him than about all other historical figures combined.  There is more historical attestation of Jesus than Julius Caesar.  We date our calendars based upon Him.  In His writings, He speaks with absolute authority.  Who could say, Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven?  What He said could not have been said by someone who was just a man.  Then He rose from the dead just like He said He would, and after walking around for forty days so thousands of people could see Him, who were alive when the New Testament was written, He ascended into heaven before over 500 of witnesses.Everything in the Bible fits together.  It fits what we know to have happened.  When people have based their lives upon the Bible, they have thrived.  Its principles bring the success of a nation.You’ve finally got to bite down on something.  You’ve got to make a choice and Christianity blows away the other choices.  You could say that you don’t like the kind of proof of Christianity.  I like to say that the knowledge of the existence of God and the truth of the Bible is not like the knowledge of the existence of your right foot.  You don’t need to seek after your right foot.  God wants you to seek after Him.  You won’t find Him if you don’t want Him, and that’s how He’s designed it.  But the proof is there.Faith according to the Bible is not a leap in the dark.  It’s based on evidence.  Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:6).  God does want you to know Him.  The Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ day wanted an astronomical sign, and Jesus said He wasn’t providing any more (Matthew 16:1-4).  He was saying, there’s enough.  I like to say, for anyone who cares, there is enough.If the proof isn’t the reason for rejection, then what is the reason?  Romans 1 says men have enough proof to justify God’s wrath.  They are holding fast or suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness.  2 Peter 3 says it’s because of their lust. They want what they want to do more than what God wants them to do.  They want to be in charge of their own lives.So exvangelical, just because you had a bad experience, you think, as a child or young adult, doesn’t mean Christianity is false.  For there to be hypocrisy, there needs to be a belief in something. If there is no belief, no one can be a hypocrite.  Don’t be upset at hypocrisy when you can’t even be a hypocrite.So why not bite down?   You’re not open minded unless you are willing to believe something.  If not, then you’re just closing your mind to everything.   You can always say that you don’t have enough evidence, but you’re just rejecting what is by far the best explanation.  Really, it’s the only explanation.Why take God’s free air, food, your circulatory system, your brain, all the good things, and be unthankful?  Use them all up for yourself without any kind of gratefulness to God?  That’s just rebellious.  You’re not going to get away with it.  You’ll get to the end and you’ll be separated from God and His goodness forever.  It won’t be over for you.  You’ll regret for all eternity.

A Love-O-Meter: Love Does Not Rejoice In Iniquity And Does Rejoice In the Truth

In a very important passage, in 1 Corinthians 13 the Apostle Paul shines love through a prism that refracts into fifteen different colors or hues.  Two of them are in verse 6, which reads:

[Love] rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.

As I’ve written many times, love is one of the most perverted concepts in this culture.  Part of critical theory is that words are power, so changing the definition of words is powerful.  Someone who does not want to love can redefine the word so that he is loving.  He can change the meaning of love so that he is loving when he’s actually hateful.  The people who are loving are now hateful.  This is where we stand today.
The two great commandments according to Jesus are (1) love God and (2) love your neighbor.  If love isn’t love, then those two commandments aren’t being obeyed. The New Testament spends pages clarifying love, and the Apostle Paul gives a very through description in 1 Corinthians 13.
In 1 Corinthians 13:6, Paul says in essence, “If it is love, it will not rejoice in iniquity, but it will rejoice in the truth.”  Contrariwise, “it can’t be love if it does rejoice in iniquity, but it does not rejoice in the truth.”  This is a simple love-o-meter that will eliminate most of what is called love.  I would estimate about 90% of so-called love is invalidated by these two simple statements.
Someone can call “up,” “down,” on his social media and get agreement that up is actually down in every comment in support of this concept, and it does not change the meaning of “up.”  “Up” is still never “down,” even if everyone agrees that it is.
As a thought experiment, let’s say that a man contended on the internet, and it even went viral with support, that up was really down.  A few people dared to disagree by saying that up was up and down was down.  The man then did six things in response.  First, he deleted and blocked anyone who said that up was up.  Second, he ghosted those who said that up was up and encouraged others do so.  Third, he encouraged employers to fire those who said up was up, to cancel any engagement with anyone who said that up was up.  Fourth, he called all those who proclaimed up to be up very broken people, toxic personalities, with narcissistic personality disorder.  Fifth, he published an instagram photo on behalf of up is actually down and asked for shows of continuous public support for up being down.  Sixth, he issued a restraining order against anyone who says that up is still up and not down.  He requires boundaries, and hearing that up is up triggers him, bringing psychological damages; hence, he must threaten a restraining order.  He must do this to promote wellness and self-care.
You may remember that the leftist values yard sign says, “Love is love.”  The term love becomes a vessel to pour whatever meaning someone wants it to mean.  “Love is love” serves to justify two men “loving” each other in a homosexual relationship.  Along with this, saying homosexuality isn’t love, is deemed “hate speech.”
Paul says that love “rejoiceth not in iniquity.”  “Iniquity” is a word that means “unrighteousness.”  It is the word for “righteousness” with a “not” at the front of it, a compound Greek word.  If something isn’t right, it can’t be love.  Someone doesn’t love someone by lying to him.  He doesn’t love someone by fornicating with that person.   Anything that disobeys scripture, either through omission or commission, isn’t love.
The verse doesn’t say, “love is not iniquity,” but that love doesn’t rejoice in iniquity.  That’s even stronger.  People supportive of sinful behavior are not loving someone.  People that want support of their sin are not asking for love, because love doesn’t support sinning.  When a young person wants support despite his sin, he is not asking for freedom, because freedom according to Jesus is freedom from sin (John 8:32-36).  Sin is bondage.  Love opposes the bondage of sin, hates it, hates what it does to the person.
Jesus says Satan is liar (John 8:44), and He is referring to the lie in the Garden to Eve and Adam.  Satan tells especially young people that standards and requirements and rules are bondage.  He says, sin is freedom.  The loving person, Satan says, gives you freedom, which means, “lets you sin.”  He says that the person trying to stop you from sin is bringing bondage and that you need boundaries between you and that person.  One of the boundaries you have already applied means you probably won’t even read this, because some good pyschobabble is available instead.
Love does not rejoice at all in any manifestation of what is not right, the word “iniquity” meaning “not right.”  Love does not rejoice in dress that is not right, music that is not right, language that is not right, entertainment that is not right, art that is not right, and associations that are not right.  Whenever someone does rejoice in things that are not right, that is not love.  The people who do rejoice in those things that are not right is not loving, but hating.  This is in the realm of up is up and down is down.
On the other hand, love does rejoice in the truth.  The truth is placed in contrast to iniquity.  Iniquity veers off of the truth into some kind error, doctrinal or practical error.  Love does not rejoice in doctrinal or practical error that contradicts the truth.  Love tells the truth, as Paul says in Ephesians 4, speaks the truth.
If someone wants to “feel loved,” actual love, then he should believe and practice the truth.  Love will rejoice in that.  Let’s try another thought experiment.  Let’s say that someone sees someone sinning, and tells this truth, “That’s sad.”  This isn’t even saying that it is sinful, just that it is sad.  The person who hears, that’s sad, should rejoice in that truth.  It is sad.  Everyone should support someone saying that sinful behavior is at least sad, and even something stronger than that.
If someone sees a disrespectful young person and says, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” that is not an attack.  That is the truth.  Love rejoices in the truth. The loving person would rejoice in Exodus 20:12.  Those who do not rejoice in that are the ones not loving.  They are the ones calling up, down, and down, up.  A young person should be told to honor his father and mother.  When he does not, that is not only sad, but it is not right.  It can’t be rejoiced in.  The truth must be told.
The Bible is a love-o-meter.  What Paul wrote is a simple love-o-meter.  Use it.  If you don’t use it, it likely means you are not a Christian.  You are not saved.  Love is of God. They that love, abide in God.  You don’t love.  You don’t even care what it means if you will not use the Bible to define it.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives