New Address

Ever since Blogspot sold out to Google, people have told me how hard it is to comment on my blog. I was hoping at a certain point that would be taken care of, however, the complaints keep coming.

Therefore, I have decided to make the jump over to a wordpress blog. You can find the new anti-itch at http://antiitchmeditation.wordpress.com/

I ask a question. To see if you can comment please feel free to answer it. We'll see how that goes.

Illustrating Sin Pt. 2

The solid line to the right represents the way God wants us to go. The lines all over the place represent the way we go. The smiley face in the lines represents the good times we convince ourselves we are having while sinning.

The solid line down represents tradition, not exactly opposite of what God said, half right so we settle for it and solidify that as being OK.

The dot in the lower left corner represents where we are at birth. How can we get from there up to God's line? Only by faith my friends, only by faith.

Illustrating Sin

This is the illustration I used to teach kids about sin the other night. Can you discern my teaching?

My text was 1 John 3:4.

Atonement = Propitiation

Atonement is an Old Testament word. Look it up in the concordance and you will find that it is not used one time in the NT. Romans 5:11, in the KJV, translates a word as atonement but the word is actually reconciliation. A botched translation. One of the few, certainly fewer than the NIV, eh.

Atonement, contrary to your Sunday School teacher's definition "atonement means at-one-ment," gag, means to cover. Christ has not covered our sins, He done got rid of em.

However, there is a NT word that closely resembles atonement. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, uses the word propitiation for atonement. This is the right word to use.

Propitiation is a large word that God put in the Bible so adults could laugh at kids with speech impediments. It means, "to reconcile or atone for sin." It means to make a payment for. Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

Glad we got that cleared up.

Teaching Kids About God

I gave one of my children a chess lesson. It was a good first lesson. I have attempted to teach my children chess at a young age to see if I had any prodigies.

I'm gonna go with "no" on that one, but hey, a guy has to check. In fact, there's one kid I haven't even bothered trying to check. Yeah. Just wasn't gonna happen. You never know, this might be a choosing David thing though. Hmm, maybe I'll try.

Anyway, chess is a large game. It requires attention and thinking ahead, putting multiple factors into play at one time to reach a good decision. It's tough to teach to a kid. How much do I teach before it becomes frustrating? What about castling and en passe? Will their brain fry completely and they'll forever resent me and chess?

While I was teaching chess, I was also in the midst of figuring out what to teach a group of 3rd-6th grade kids about the Bible. How much do you give them? What bits do you "leave for later?" What are the essentials? If salvation is essential, sin is essential, then hell is essential, then shedding of blood is essential and on and on.

How much do you give them before their brains fry and they just come to resent you? What if you force so much down them they grow up to hate the whole thing? But if you keep it too light it seems to simplistic and they'll leave it for the fairy tale nature of it all.

Or do I just do what I do and let the Spirit worry about it?

I don't know. All I know is that my five year old son totally got how a knight moves and that thrills my soul.

God is Love

Everyone likes this sentiment. God is love. How nice.

At the same time pessimistic, cynical people like myself get too hard on people who make much of these verses. God being love is indeed a very cool thing. It's G.

Or something.

The best way to remember the two verses about God being love is this:

John is the disciple whom Jesus loved, so "God is love" must be in a book John wrote. John was the first disciple to run to the empty tomb. So, we're in 1 John. Got it?

Then, to remember the verses remember this: twice 4 is 8, twice 8 is 16.

God is love is found in 1 John 4:8 and 16. Oh no, you're welcome.

A little known fact about 1 John 4:8 is that, yes it does say that God is love but it also lets you know if you know God's love. Yeah, if only we knew that part as well as the last part. Indeed.

Matt Millen and the Gospel

I was surprised to see Matt Millen as a commentator before the Super Bowl. Matt Millen completely destroyed the Detroit Lions franchise with his management. Soon after he was fired, he gets hired as an expert analyst?

Apparently, the channel carrying the Super Bowl in Detroit ran a scroll at the bottom of the screen every time Millen was on camera that read, "Matt Millen was president of the Lions for the worst eight-year run in the history of the NFL. Knowing his history with the team, is there a credibility issue as he now serves as an analyst for NBC Sports?"

The whole world knows it: if your words don't make sense coming out of your life, people will not listen to you.

"Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame" (1 Corinthians 15:34).

Ye Must be Born Again

John Wesley used to hammer John 3:7 continuously. He was once asked "Why do you keep preaching 'ye must be born again?'"

His answer, "Because ye must be born again."

It's that simple really. John 3 shows Jesus convincing Nicodemus of the necessity for a new birth. Paul explains later that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Our natural man, the flesh body we were born in from our momma, is going to stop on earth. If you desire eternal life you must do better than clean up the natural man. You must do better than apologize for the natural man. You must do better than make pompous resolutions about what your natural man can do. You must do better than think happy thoughts about your natural man.

Your natural man must be crucified with Christ and you must take to yourself new life, spiritual life, life from above. There is no other way to heaven.

New life always manifests itself. Even in the brief time the thief on the cross had, he confessed his guilt, Jesus' innocence, rebuked a sinner and asked Jesus to intercede for him. Not bad for a few hours of new life living.

Many use the thief on the cross as an excuse for ineptitude, for continuing in the old man. Big difference between you and the thief on the cross--you aint dead yet.

Believers are dead to sin and alive to God. "How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Before you were born physically you didn't do physical things. You didn't do anything. But since the time of your physical birth you began physical life with all its characteristics.

The same is true of the new birth. The old is passed away, all things have become new. We are the righteousness of God. It's a beautiful thing and it's the only shot you have.

Facts About A. W. Tozer

1. Preached at Southside Alliance Church in Chicago for 31 years.

2. Has more than 40 books, most are compilations of articles he wrote for Alliance Life, a publication he edited for 13 years.

3. His "classic"work is entitled The Pursuit of God and was written while travelling by train from Chicago to Texas.

4. Tozer was father to six boys and one girl.

5. He married Ada Cecelia Pfautz.

6. He and his wife never owned a car.

7. Tozer died in 1963 and is buried in Ellet Cemetery in Akron, Ohio.

Tozer sermon audio.
More Tozer Sermon Audio.

Potluck Lawsuit

I know this isn't funny, somebody died, but still.

Religious States

Where does your state rank on the most religious states in the US?

Perhaps they should follow this with the ranking of states with the highest percentage of habitual liars.

Christian Football Picks

It's been three years since I did the regular Christian Football Picks. Back in the 2005 season our picks went 29-15. Christian football picks is based on the premise that God will elevate the team that deserves His favor.

First we have the Arizona Cardinals. The Cardinals have one thing for them, some church officials are indeed called Cardinals, this has to be good. They also have Kurt Warner, who, if you hadn't heard, every Christian in the world is desperate to point out is a Christian. God does like winners.

However, Arizona has some things on the negative side as well, all closely related to their positives. Cardinals are Catholic church officials and it's debatable that God likes Cardinals that much (if they were that great they wouldn't be cardinals, they'd be pope). Also, if Kurt Warner is indeed a believer, expect him to have to endure persecution and trial.

Then we have the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Steelers represent industrialization and the raping of God's green earth. All good things. It's only through industrialization that we're able to send Joel Osteen messages to all corners of the earth. On top of that Ben Roethlisberger, lined up against Warner's pristine testimony, is nothing more than a drunken slob heathen.


These are the kind of guys God likes to bless.

It has been decreed from eternity past:

Pittsburgh 32
Arizona 24

Lion Patrol

Christians frequently talk about the joys of doing God's Word. How swell it all is. When we follow God's Word the birds sing sweetly, the sun shines brightly, the temperature rises to 73. All is well.

The only way you can possibly have this view is if you have no idea what God says.

Imagine you're out walking one day and a guy comes up to you, claiming to speak for God, and tells you to smite him with a sword. "Um, what?"

"Go ahead, hit me."

"I don't think so. Why would I do that? Sorry man, find someone else." That's what I'd say.

1 Kings 20 has this scenario in it. The guy refuses to nail the prophet. The prophet turns around and says "Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee."

Guess what? The guy leaves and a lion eats him. He gets eaten by a lion for not listening to God's Word! He refuses to hit a prophet with a sword and gets eaten by a lion. Good grief, God! A lion?!

That's a tough one to wrap the mind around. I don't care about your "grace didn't show up to the NT" theory either, doesn't matter. A lion eats him for not hitting a prophet?!

David got mad at God for smiting Uzza for reaching out to steady the ark. It's tough stuff. Perhaps we forget how serious God is about this whole faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God deal.

Watch out for lions.

Answer for Evil

The Bible is full of creepy guys. Literally, these guys make your skin crawl they are so evil. Ahab was one of those guys. We're told that "Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him."

What I love about God is that He doesn't forsake His people. When a bad guy comes, God always has a good guy ready. Ahab is mentioned first in 1 Kings 16 28. By 17:1 Elijah, the chief of the prophets, is on the scene!

Just when it seems like things couldn't get any dumber, God comes along and totally redeems the situation. You can never get discouraged with bad guys, bad times, bad situations, because God has something good coming. Sometimes it takes a long time; sometimes the good comes quickly.

Doesn't really matter: good is coming! Keep the faith!

Is Israel's Kingdom in Minneapolis?

One of the central tenets of Reformed/Covenant theology is that the Kingdom of Israel is now fulfilled in the Church. The Church has replaced Israel, therefore, Israel will not get a kingdom, thus making reformed and dispensational end times views vastly different.

This is a huge sticking point for me. I do not see how you can read the Bible and not come to the conclusion that God will restore the kingdom to Israel. The only way you can do it is to "spiritualize" the text, to make it say what it does not literally say.

Here's one "proof" that reformed theology misses the boat. At the beginning of Acts, Jesus tells His guys to wait for the power of the Spirit to come on them. The disciples ask, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6)

If Reformed theology were true, Jesus would say something like, "Oh, you guys, don't you get anything? Israel won't get a kingdom, I gave it to a bunch of white guys in Minneapolis."

However, this is not even remotely close to what Jesus says. Jesus says, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons." In other words, not yet guys. This obviously implies that Jesus thought the Kingdom would indeed be restored, He just wasn't telling them when.

"Restore" means to reconstitute, to bring back again. In other words, Israel is going to get back their kingdom. Next time Christ will reign and the Kingdom will be more awesomer than it ever was before. This will fulfill the covenant God made with David that there will be someone on David's throne forever.

Reformed theologians say Jesus' answer dismisses their question, they missed the boat still thinking about an earthly kingdom. But if this were the case, Jesus would not have answered about time, He would have answered about place. He does not correct their question, He answers their question in relation to time, by refusing to reveal when it would occur! No doubt because it would have been highly depressing.

The disciple's question was correct it just wasn't time yet. To deny that is to twist words.

The Faith of Harry Connick Jr.

Harry Connick Jr. did a brief interview with Christianity Today about his faith, which is "practicing Catholic." Keep practicing, maybe someday you'll get to play. Here's a snippet.

"When I was young I felt more tension between my faith and entertaining than I do now. When I was 22 there were things that I thought were wrong that I now know are not wrong. For example, I don't have a problem with profanity in movies. I did for a while and I did many movies in which I would not curse. I wouldn't kiss an actress. I realize now that's silly. Part of the reason God put me here is to be an entertainer."

The Vatican Channel

The Vatican has launched a Vatican Channel on YouTube where you can keep up to date on the latest appearances of Pope Ben and Co. Enjoy!

Holy Priesthood

"No lead pastor" view guys quote 1 Peter 2:5,9, we are the holy priesthood of God. They follow it up with, "See, I'm a priest myself, I don't need a pastor."

This is an ironic point because serious contenders for the "no lead pastor" view use much ink in telling us not to use the OT examples of Moses, Joshua, the priests, or the king as an example of pastoral power today. A point I agree with.

However, by saying, "since I'm a priest I don't need a pastor" they now switch the argument back and equate the OT priest with the NT pastor. You can't have it both ways.

Peter's point is that we are all the priesthood of God in that we are all capable of offering God spiritual service and showing forth the praises of God. Believers are all God's representatives and can all approach the throne room of God and can all serve Him. There is no special class of guys who get closer to God than others.

Peter's point is that we all, in Christ, fulfill the pictures of the OT and are God's representatives now. It's not a temple, a class of priests, a selected nation. It's a people born again to new life in Christ.

This is a far cry from saying that there are no leaders in the church. Ephesians 4, which details gifted men who lead the church, tells us that these gifted men are there to equip believers to do the work of the ministry, i.e.--teach them to offer spiritual service to God as a priest might do.

Furthermore, Hebrews 7 says that Christ is our priest. "No lead pastor" view guys argue against using OT offices as NT guides to church leadership, as they were all fulfilled in Christ. I agree, but again, they switch it back and now claim to be the office of priest!

The word Peter uses for "priesthood" (again with the Greek concordance here), is different from the word "priesthood" used in Hebrews to talk about Christ. The priesthood in Peter is not a class, it's a description of believer's actions.

We have one high priest today and that is Christ. Christ has gifted men in the church to equip believers to do the work of priests--spiritual service. Thank you. That is all.

Pastors

Seriously, I like much of what Frank Viola says. His critique of the problem is excellent. His solutions, a tad one sided. Here's another example.

He mentions that the word "pastor" is only used one time in the NT, therefore it's odd that we make so much of pastors in our day. Two things.

1) "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is mentioned one time in the OT, yet appears rather important to the mind of Christ. Let's be careful not to determine how important God thinks something is based on our obsession with numbers.

2) I don't know, with all due respect, Mr. Viola needs to implement a Greek concordance. I mean no disrespect, it's just that my Greek concordance undermines much of what he says so authoritatively about certain words.

The King James uses the word "pastors" one time in Ephesians 4. However, the Greek word and it's derivatives are used several times.

1 Corinthians 9, in defending the paying of pastors, says that shepherds eat from their flock so to should elders/pastors get paid.

1 Peter 5 tells the elders to feed the flock of God. "Feed" is the Greek word "pastor."

Acts 20:28 says again to "feed," pastor, the flock of God while speaking to the elders at Ephesus.

Saying that the word "pastor is only used once" is right in that only once is a man called a pastor. However, calling an elder a pastor is not a mistake, is supported by the activity a pastor is to do and is also what Ephesians 4 does indeed call them.

The shakiness of the central points trouble me.

Spiritual Rank

I'm trying to maintain composure. It really frosts me when people use Scripture in a twisted way. This Reimagining Church book is starting to get to me. Boy I wanted to like this book.

Exousia is a Greek word that means "authority." The author maintains that at no point in the NT is one believer given exousia over another believer. All are equal, there is no hierarchy and no rank.

In order to maintain this, he has to fudge words around and ignore passages, like most of 1 and 2 Corinthians, which is Paul's defense of his authority over them, even using exousia a few times.

If a guy were to look up the word "rule" in the NT he would find that this word, proistemi, (which is defined as "to stand before in rank") is used several times of the higher rank of some in the church over others.

When he does mention "rule" he says it means to "guide." I don't see this at all in the word. Pro means "before" and histemi means "stand." It means literally to stand before, in front of. One might say to rank ahead of.

In fact, Romans 12 lists ruling, having rank over others, as a spiritual gift! 1 Thessalonians 5:12 says we are to esteem those who have the rule over you in the church highly! One of the qualifications of a pastor is that he rules his own house well, how else can he care for the church?

However, the author would have us believe there is no rank in the Body. Does this mean believing parents don't have authority over their believing kids? Does this chuck the whole man is responsible for his woman deal?

1 Thessalonians 5:17 says those elders who rule (rank) over you well get double honor. We are warned to stay away from "brothers" who are unruly (those who don't submit to authority)!

Goodness. It just bugs me more that he's so sloppy with Scripture. I truly wanted his point to be true. I did. But it's not. It just isn't.

It bugs me that he doesn't even veer into these passages. He just skips them as if they don't exist, mostly mentioning them in an appendix and he uses words deceptively to walk around passages. It's like talking to a Calvinist. Man. What a bummer.

Double Honor

Continuing some thoughts on 1 Timothy 5:17. The reason I'm reading this book trashing the modern church (Reimagining Church by Frank Viola) is because I'm not content with the modern form of church. I really wanted him to tell me not to get paid and that I can slough off my responsibilities on the lazy laymen.

I desperately wanted that. I also wanted to be one of the high and mighty spiritual ones who could then down pastors who get paid and brag that I'm one of God's priests, I don't need you. I earnestly desired such a thing. Still do.

However, the Bible just doesn't go that way, as much as I and others would like it to. A few more thoughts on double honor.

--If double honor doesn't mean "pay" but means "respect," then you have the unfortunate situation of doubly respecting certain members of the Body of Christ, which violates many scriptures. One of the main tenets of this book is that all members are equal, there is no leadership or hierarchy (institutional anyway). However, if double honor means I treat certain people better than others, seems I've missed something.

--I may grant that "double honor" doesn't mean a wage. I can agree with that based on the Greek. However, it can mean "to pay a price for something." If all members of the Body gave double to a pastor more than what they pay to anyone for any other service, a pastor wouldn't need a wage anyway!

--I still desire to be convinced not to be paid for this job. "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:14). I view this statement as being a command, the way things ought to be. I also view it as a giant curse. A curse which many today are desiring to get out from underneath and I know why.

Getting paid for this job is one of the most humiliating (humbling) things I've ever done in my life. It carries a huge weight and burden. It carries with it a nagging sense that whatever I spend money on is letting down lots of people. If I were not paid for this, I'd be even more of an ego maniacal, raving jerk.

I can honestly say that being paid for this job has been one of the most trying things I've ever faced and it has lead to much growth in my life. I still have the right to forgo pay, but I also know I need to grow more before I can trust myself with such freedom.

Paid Pastors

I've long thought over the role of the modern day pastor. The current office is not the original intent. At the same time, whenever I read spoutings off on the modern pastor role, they tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater, which, you know, babies are annoying and everything, but still.

A recent guy I'm reading talks about 1 Timothy 5:17, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour." This is a statement used to support the paying of pastors, which he attempts to deny.

First, he says that the Greek word used is not the usual Greek word referring to wages. This depends. Yes, there is a word that refers to wages but there is also a word that is more commonly used referring to paying money, and that is the word "honor" in 1 Timothy 5:17.

Second, there are charges in the NT for believers to honor each other and honor God etc. Therefore, it must always mean "respect." This is true, the word is used that way, however, my Greek concordance also shows me that it is also frequently used in regard to paying money.

Third, he attempts to show that the context means we are to respect elders, not pay them. I would argue the exact opposite from the context. Ox eat the grain they tread, sounds like a physical payment to me. This point is further proven by looking at 1 Corinthians 9:9-11 (a passage he neglects to bring up) where the same analogy is used to refer to paying a guy for spiritual work. Granted, Paul refused the payment but he still says it is acceptable. "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (9:14).

Further, the anti-paid-pastor guy says that earlier in chapter five the church is to honor widows. He says this refers to respecting them. However, the context shows that Paul is literally talking about paying widows, putting them "in the number," on the account sheet to provide for them.

It always bothers me when guys make points and neglect to raise the total context of their passages and words. Makes me suspicious of their agenda.

In all, I think pastors should endeavor to pay their own way, Paul is an excellent example of this sacrificial service. At the same time, the Bible seems to back up the notion of paying guys who help you. Christian love says to pay guys who don't help you (Matthew 5:38-42) so I'd assume paying helpful people is also love!

Pastors should, however, be more concerned with their service to others and if reducing salary induces edification, go for it. Being paid is a right; foregoing it is a privilege.

Angels

Pyromaniacs has a very well done post on angels. Rather than focusing on the silliness of what we've done with angels, he focuses on the focus of angels and brings home a very nice application. Well done.

Let's Judge Everybody

Go here for a good time.

A Post to Disagree With

Seth Godin has a blog post today about doing goals that no one ever sets out to do but perhaps should. He says,

"It's not stupid to have a stated goal of starting several ventures that will fail, or asking three stupid questions a week, or posting a blog post that the world disagrees with. If you don't have goals like this, how exactly are you going to luck into being remarkable?"

Being stupid is a very attainable goal for me. I will accomplish this goal by doing a blog post the world will disagree with. Here goes.

The apostle Paul instructs women to be quiet in church (1 Corinthians 14:34,35; 1 Timothy 2:11-15). No one ever adheres to this instruction. Even people who pride themselves on reading the Bible literally don't literally interpret these passages.

The explanation I always hear is that these passages are to be interpreted culturally. Paul was speaking to the culture he was in and it has no ramifications for today.

Here's the deal, if this is cultural, consider what it does to the context. If the Holy Spirit truly does gift women to speak in church and Paul culturally tells them not to, Paul is thwarting the Holy Spirit. Paul is putting a human rule, a yoke of bondage, on people, something he specifically preaches against.

If this passage is cultural, then Paul does not listen to his own teaching, he is an opponent of the Holy Spirit, and he undermines the authority of Scripture by showing that the Bible is not God-inspired.

If that's the case, women, feel free to speak. If it is not, I suggest women shut up.

Let the disagreement begin.

Sacrifice and Obedience

It's common knowledge that the sacrifices of the OT were a picture of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The sacrifices were a picture or a shadow of the perfect sacrifice of Christ.

Sacrifices in the OT were spoken of to illustrate the various ways Christ's death would fulfill God's righteous demands.

When we see sacrifices in the OT our minds should point to Christ, it's where the school master brings you.

Here's an interesting one. Saul and the boys wooped up on the bad guys. God told them not to take any of the spoils. The people, true to form, took some spoils. This is the classic line of Samuel in the King James, "What meaneth the bleating of the sheep?"

Saul says, "Oh yeah, the sheep, well the people took those but we were gonna use them for a sacrifice to God." Yeah, a sacrifice, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.

Samuel's response, "to obey is better than sacrifice" Obedience is better than sacrifice.

Hmm, thinking of Christ, school master bringing me along. Hmm.

Christ is not sacrificed again, He did it once for all. That being the case, there are many who assume that since Christ died and I'm forgiven sin is no big deal. But something tells me listening to God is better than taking advantage of the sacrifice.

"Should we sin that grace may abound? God forbid." I believe Paul and Samuel have the same human proclivity in mind in their similar statements.