Acts 3:6: ... but such as I have give I thee...

The third chapter of the book of Acts begins with a story that is well-known in most churches, even to people who do not read their Bibles. It has been simplified and told many times, including on flannelgraphs for the children. I’m not going to go into too much depth tonight, nor is this going to be too long – As I write this, there is a Bible open on one knee and a pan of soup on the other because it has been a busy day – but I did want to pose a couple question for you. Some events over the last few days have brought Peter’s words to mind. Here is the story, from Acts 3:1-12:

Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ancle bones received strength. And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God: And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him. And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.
And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

Peter told the man that he would give him what he had. There wouldn’t be a story if Peter didn’t have something in the first place. But what was it? The last sentence in the quote explains – “As though by our own power or holiness.” Power is easy to understand, but holiness? And Peter declares that it is not his own. So here are my two questions: Where is our holiness as God’s church? Why don’t we have enough power and holiness to give away?

Of Geeks and Frogs

Scarily, someone has been requesting this story which took place four years ago or so. I am described in some ways by the word “geek” and that was true even more back then.

As much time as I spent on computers, breaks were a necessity and I soon turned to long walks. It was not uncommon for them to be 7-12 miles at a time across town and out in the country. Some late nights I scared dating teenagers who were clinging to each other at the end of their driveways. Watching them run off yelling and screaming was great fun, and meeting with the guard dogs that farmers owned was not.

About half-way across town was a park with a pond. The city had erected a sign, and I’m scared to think how many committees had to approve it. Here is what it said:

Not that it mattered much. Half of the times that I was there were after dark when the park was officially closed. Sometimes I would sneak over under the shadows of the trees though and just sit down for a bit. The police never evicted me from that park, but it may simply have been that I was there alone and they couldn’t see me.

One particular night there was something else there though. As I walked around the pond (being careful not to wad, because that was forbidden according to the sign), a voice called out to me for help. I couldn’t figure out where it was coming from until it yelled “down here.”

Those are scary words. Just like in the fairy tales, there was a frog sitting there. No, it was not a cartoon frog – it was a real one. I picked it up as it started to explain that it was the daughter of a board member of two Fortune 500 companies. “She” promised me that she could make any wish of mine come true if only I kissed her and returned her to her unenchanted form (it has been too long and the story was complex for how she became enchanted in the first place). Her tale caused me to forget the late night programming problems that I had been facing so after she finished I dropped her in my pocket.

Don’t worry, the pocket had plenty of space for her because of all those walks I was taking at the time.

Like most girls, this action confused her badly and her reaction was to start yelling questions. After a couple minutes, I pulled her back out and listened to her rant for a short while before restoring her to my pocket. This process was repeated most of the way home and it was probably fortunate that there were not many people on the road at that time of night.

Finally she was exasperated badly enough that when I pulled her out of my pocket she asked, “Why do you keep pulling me out of your pocket, smiling at me, and putting me back?” If her father really was a board member of two large companies, you would think she would know something about the world of money. Those ideas must not have ever entered her mind. Thankfully I was not entirely that cruel.

My answer? “Oh, I’m a computer geek. I don’t have time for girls. But a talking frog? Now that’s cool!”

Rant: Security Companies, SSN, et al.

The last couple weeks I have been dealing with a security compliance scan for a website that handles financial transactions. I’m not going to tell you who is involved in any of this though. If anything it is just a general reminder that a lot of things that are touted as secure are very brittle. Not everything, but a lot of things. For instance, a couple weeks ago the Washington Post ran an article where they explained how Social Security Numbers can be predicted. Somebody can guess yours. Anyway, while talking to one of the guys from this security company, he misread the output of a standard testing tool called nslookup. It is for a quasi-obscure vulnerability and I’ll admit that I misread one minor item on their report, so we’re even. I just received a second report from this same company for a scan of another computer. The scan passed the computer with flying colors. So, why is this a problem? The scan didn’t detect anything. At all. It didn’t even see a web server running, but we are certified to use their compliance logo on it. These scans serve a legitimate purpose but some days I can’t help but wonder about people. This is why hackers have a saying that nothing is completely secure. There is always a way in. Don’t trust any more of your data to computers than you absolutely must. PS. Don’t worry if all of this doesn’t make sense. I could explain in more detail but I’m afraid it would make this post even less readable for most people.

Birth Control and The Wonders of Nonoxynol-9

Our world is full of irony and I learned about another one of those tidbits the other day. There are few who would deny that our culture worships sex and we have tried to separate the “fun” from the aspect that will get the girl pregnant. Every method of birth control that we have has a failure rate. To be honest, if we ignore rape, even abstinence has one documented failure. Alright, all joking aside, there are a surprising number of couples that have stopped using any form of birth control because they do not like the side effects. There are also a lot of people who continue to try different forms but never settle on one that they are happy with. You don’t have to look very far to learn what the failure rates are for each method and those who find themselves in that statistic can get pretty upset. Many argue that everyone else should switch away from the method that failed them. In fact, being stuck with children at all is now viewed as a horrible thing by some. There is a book that is making waves in France where the author says “I really regret it. I really regret having children.” Somehow our “education” makes us think that we ought to have perfect control over everything. This is not at all what the Bible says. Genesis 29:31:

And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

I’ve heard people put down this belief as one that was antiquated. Such a view cannot be held without crossing out huge portions of the Bible. Consider what Paul wrote in Romans 4:19:

And being not weak in faith, he [Abraham] considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

If God opens and shuts the womb, how can we get angry? Is it because we think that we have figured out the secret formula that governs our own lives? We make our plans; God directs our steps (Proverbs 16:9). While I have not fully settled on how this knowledge is going to play out in my own life yet, I have tried to pay attention to what certain other people are doing. One of the methods that several of those couples are using (in conjunction with other methods) is the use of spermicides. The most common “active” ingredients in spermicides is a chemical called Nonoxynol-9 (N-9 for short). It seems that this chemical increases the woman’s susceptibility to yeast infection. So, even when we “can’t wait,” we increase the number of times we have to. Amusing, no?

A Sermon and a Half

As I’ve mentioned in a couple other blog posts, I’ve begun to copy some of the cassettes from my church with older sermons into computerized formats. My goal is to eventually make them available on CD and/or from the web. Tonight I started playing one of those recordings from the former pastor, Bracy Greer, that is called “Cain’s Offering.” In my opinion, it is well worth the hour and a half for you to listen to it. Here’s one of the points that he made:

Jesus' death makes my justification possible. There's a lot of people -- millions of people -- pointing to Jesus' death as the total and sole means of their justification. Jesus' death makes your justification possible. Your dying with him makes your justification a reality.

I’ve been recording these into OGG/Vorbis format because I get better compression most of the time and it is not a patented music format like MP3 is. If you are on Windows, you will probably have to install a codec before you can listen to it:

http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/oggdsf/oggcodecs_0.81.15562-win32.exe

Alternately, you can download a lower-quality version of this sermon from a website that is named after one of his favorite phrases (from Hebrews 2:1):

http://moreearnestheed.org/bfiles/2001/08.26.01.mp3

If you can spare the hour and a half, this is worth hearing. Some of you know that I don’t say that about too many things.

What is Marriage Really About?

No, I’m not married. But if you pay attention there are all kinds of examples for how a marriage should operate – yes, even in our culture where it is projected that with current trends, as much as 50% of marriages will end up in divorce. The deep level of respect by the father for the mother in the Swiss Family Robinson is one of the reasons that I enjoyed it so much, even though he was willing to give her a heart attack by blowing up a hole in the ship without her knowledge. Tonight one of my friends posted an audio clip of a sermon from Paul Washer that is on YouTube. So far I have been impressed with what I have heard from him though I have not delved too deeply into his other sermons. He has studied some of the same people that I am currently:

The funny/odd thing about this is that it is so different from how our western culture defines marriage, yet it is the way that I have been coming to see it. Marriage is about refining your own rough edges as much as anything. Another series of sermons that I have heard somewhat recently that you might find interesting (if you want to learn more about this topic) was given by Dr. Voddie Baucham. In the past he has had The Reformed Pastor (by Richard Baxter) listed on his website as his favorite book outside of the Bible. I’ve read a decent amount of the book (but haven’t finished it yet). It was written by a pastor to pastors in the 1600s and it is very hard on ministers who are not there to minister. I know several other people who have been impressed with Dr. Baucham as well. In any case, here are the links if you want to watch them:

Biblical Manhood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDR3xCaXiXcn

Biblical Womanhood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6uNj7lauhA

In Other News... There was a Hacker Convention This Past Week

This last week has seen a vulnerability show up in core software that is used as the backbone of the internet. If you know what DNS is, you might like to read about the cache poisoning for BIND. This whole week has been one of high alert for some companies because of Defcon, an annual hacker convention, which was held this week. Unfortunately it appears that somebody was not paying attention to where this convention was to be at. A scammer set up a fake ATM at the hotel in Las Vegas.

From http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136179/Fake_ATM_doesn_t_last_long_at_hacker_meet:

As the conference was kicking off a few days ago, attendees noticed that at ATM placed in the Riviera Hotel, which plays host to the annual event, didn't quite look right, according to a senior conference organizer who identified himself only as Priest. "They looked at the screen where there would normally be a camera," he said. "It was a little bit too dark, so someone shined a flashlight in there and there was a PC."

Brilliant. They tried to scam a bunch of hackers. Better luck next time.

Baptism

Baptism is a strange rite. Even among people who study it there are wide differences in their opinions.

Many people who follow Calvin in his teachings will baptize infants just as the Catholic church does. In this they are following the teachings that Augustine made popular in the early 5th century. The view that they hold is that baptism is a replacement for the circumcision that the Jews performed under the old law.

Some of the others who follow a newer kid on the block, Dispensationalism, believe that baptism is no longer relevant to us because it was not commanded by Paul. From the book Things That Differ by C. R. Stam that I am currently reading through (page 227):

That question is not whether water baptism is found in the Scriptures, nor who should be baptized, nor how. The first question which concerns us is: should we practice water baptism now? Is it included in God's program for the present dispensation?

This view is what has prompted tonight’s post and there is enough implied in this paragraph to get us started. Ironically, I questioned this same assumption nearly a decade ago. At the time I told God that if he wanted me to get baptized he needed to show me that he required it of us now. That was the wrong thing to pray. For the next two weeks, I heard about baptism everywhere. It was in the Bible where I was reading for almost every day. It was on the radio (yes, we did listen to mostly Christian radio stations). It was being preached about at church. I’m sure it was not mentioned at other times more than once out of every month or two. Was it coincidence? I decided at the time that it wasn’t. Sometime late last year, I was again intrigued by baptism. This time it was a specific verse, Luke 3:16, that caused it:

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

If I took the Dispensational view, I would be sorely tempted to say that John was speaking of Paul. On the page 231, Stam says:

In his later letters, written after the setting aside of Israel, he [Paul] states emphatically that there is now but "ONE BAPTISM" (Eph. 4:5). This baptism is the operation of the Holy Spirit whereby believers are made one with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-4, Gal. 3:26,27, Col. 2:9-12), and so are also made members of "one body," the "body of Christ" (I Cor. 12:13,27, Gal. 3:26-28).

It seems that the clear separation of the baptism of the Spirit must be under Paul’s teachings, right? Unfortunately the previous verse, Luke 3:15, makes it clear that John is speaking of who the Messiah would be when he came. This cannot be Paul. The same passage from Matthew (3:11-13) ties Jesus directly to this speech of John’s. Jesus did send the Holy Spirit and he has enabled us to lay hands on others for them to receive also. More on this in a bit. The sad part is that Stam has done some fairly good research. He knows that the word “baptism” is not found in the Old Testament, and he has dug far enough to know that the idea of baptism came from the purification rites of the priests (ie. Leviticus 16:4). He has not expounded much on it but this practice was taken and performed on those who wished to convert to Judaism. John did not invent the idea of baptizing, nor is it something entirely Christian. This may have added some complexity to the Pharisee’s answer when Jesus asked them where John’s baptism was from (Mark 11:30-32). After this, Stam tries to conclude that John’s Baptism to repentance was so that God could fulfill his promise to make Israel a nation of priests (pages 228-229; Exodus 19:6). I disagree with him on this because Stam claims an earthly kingdom would have been set up then. Jesus tells Peter to sheath his sword when the soldiers come for him and later, while being examined by Pilate, he makes it very clear that his kingdom is not of this world (see John 18). But I digress. What I thought was cool in Luke 3 is that we have a baptism by water and a baptism by fire. How has the world been destroyed and how will it be destroyed next? How about a hint? Water and fire. The old world was laid to rest under water. Yes, the sinful nature of humans has remained still. It will take fire to purge it out entirely. Yet while I think destructively, Tertullian (roughly 160 - 220 AD) saw baptism in a more constructive light. He pointed back to the creation:

For the suspension of the celestial firmament in the midst He caused by "dividing the waters;"[8] the suspension of "the dry land" He accomplished by "separating the waters." After the world had been hereupon set in order through its elements, when inhabitants were given it, "the waters" were the first to receive the precept "to bring forth living creatures."

In other words, it was from the water that sky was first made (Genesis 1:7,8) and that the firm, dry land was raised (Genesis 1:9). It was also in the water that the first life was created (Genesis 1:20,21). This is neat imagery and from an early Christian. But what if we lay aside the imagery and see what Paul actually did. After all, it is his teachings that we are supposed to study most heavily if Stam is right about the Dispensations. Here we have Acts 19:2-6:

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

It is interesting that Paul immediately rebaptized them when he heard they had only John’s baptism. He did not lay his hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit until after that. Stam, on page 230, quotes I Corinthians 1:17,18:

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

This sounds like a pretty convincing argument. But read the preceding five verses (12-16):

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.



"Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" This is the point where I cough and gently ask whose name they were baptized in.
Two more questions and I'll quit this post. How do we follow Paul as he followed Christ (I Corinthians 11:1)? Can we dismiss that Jesus was also baptized even though he had no need to repent?

Whipping a Dead Horse

This was stolen from today’s funny from Mikey (http://www.mikeysfunnies.com/). Enjoy:

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from one generation to the next, says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.
However, in modern business, because of the heavy investment factors to be taken into consideration, often other strategies have to be tried with dead horses, including the following:

1.  Buying a stronger whip.

2.  Changing riders.

3.  Threatening the horse with termination.

4.  Appointing a committee to study the horse.

5.  Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.

6.  Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.

7.  Appointing an intervention team to reanimate the dead horse.

8.  Creating a training session to increase the riders load share.

9.  Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.

10.  Change the form so that it reads: "This horse is not dead."

11.  Hire outside contractors to ride the dead horse.

12.  Harness several dead horses together for increased speed.

13.  Donate the dead horse to a recognized charity, thereby deducting its full original cost.

14.  Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.

15.  Do a time management study to see if the lighter riders would improve productivity.

16.  Purchase an after-market product to make dead horses run faster.

17.  Declare that a dead horse has lower overhead and therefore performs better.

18.  Form a quality focus group to find profitable uses for dead horses.

19.  Rewrite the expected performance requirements for horses.

20.  Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

Happy Birthday to Sarbanes-Oxley

This is just a friendly reminder of a ruling that has increased the amount of paperwork (and costs) that a company must go through:

Happy 7th Birthday, Sarbanes-Oxley.

Was Jesus Virgin-born?

It is funny how many views there are on any given topic in the world. One potential website that I may be doing work on had a link to another site that attempts to be a complete exposition on the Bible when it comes to sex. Don’t worry, I didn’t go read the whole site. Anyway, there are a few issues that are controversial in some of the circles that I run in so I had wanted to see what the author said about those topics. I disagreed with the author about half of the time. The man who put this together, Ronald L. Ecker, seems to be rather liberal in his theology. There were a couple times that he essentially says “this is what they believed then” (implying that we know better now). When it comes to the question of whether Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth, he actually pits the Bible against itself. From:

http://www.ronaldecker.com/andv.htm#VIRGIN_BIRTH

He starts off well enough:

Sure enough, Mary is soon "found to be with child of the Holy Ghost." Joseph has some doubts, though, about the paternity, and is about to divorce her, till things are divinely explained in a dream. Joseph doesn't "know" Mary until she has borne her son Jesus. According to Catholic belief, Joseph doesn't even know her after that. Immaculately conceived by Saint Anne (see the noncanonical book of James), Mary remains forever a virgin, Joseph's other children considered to be from some previous marriage.

He sounds a little dubious but I should say that there is good cause for that with the last part. I’ve read St. Jerome’s arguments for the “Perpetual Virginity” of Mary and am a little less than impressed. It pretty much falls to his own preferences in beliefs as opposed to what was actually recorded. But then Mr. Ecker continues:

The cult of Mary the perpetual Virgin reflects the rise in Christianity of an ascetic attitude, not found in biblical Hebrew religion, toward sexuality. The virgin birth of Christ is found only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. It is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament. And by denying Joseph a role in Christ's conception, the virgin birth contradicts Matthew's own contention, through a lengthy opening genealogy, that Jesus was "the son of David, the son of Abraham," by direct descent. The Apostle Paul (writing years before the gospels were written) also posits a Davidic human father of Christ in Rom. 1:3-4, stating that Jesus "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," and "was _declared_ to be the Son of God" (emphasis added)[sic] by virtue of the resurrection. It is strange indeed, if belief in the virgin birth of Christ was current among Christians of Paul's day, that Paul is silent on that belief even when discussing how Christ was "made" and became God's Son.

Likewise, there is Galatians 4:4. It was also written by Paul:

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Clearly Jesus was God’s son before the resurrection. Coming back to life simply declared this fact. And it also says that he was made of woman. Why is the father absent here? The article continues to rail against Matthew and Luke for their writings:

Matthew seems determined, though, to contradict himself, by appealing to the prophet Isaiah. But Matthew's effort to find a virginal conception foretold in the Old Testament--"Behold, a virgin shall be with child" (Matt. 1.23, based on Isa. 7:14)--takes some liberty with the original text. Isaiah's sign of Immanuel (7:14), which is non-Messianic, is a "young woman" (Hebrew almah) who conceives. The Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah, not almah. Yet almah was translated into Greek as parthenos, "virgin," which Matthew, working from a Greek text, found much to his liking.

The “Greek text” that he is referring to is the Septuagint. This was the same Greek text that Paul quoted in his writings, which means that Paul would have seen the “virgin” prophesy in exactly the same way Matthew read it. There was no reason for Paul to have specifically taught this. It was already clear. I have heard from others that the way the Revised Standard Version translators chose to interpret the word in Isaiah 7:14 as “a young woman” is part of what sparked the KJV only movement. Whether that is true or not, I do not know (though I do refer to both translations periodically). What I do know is that the virginal birth of Jesus is taught by the New Testament writers and that those who have come before us were right to acknowledge it as an important piece of our faith. Here’s a funny twist on the liberal theology of Mr. Ecker. I don’t think it is a straw man argument, but if you think it is please explain why. In Isaiah 9:6,7, we find:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

This child will be born to sit forever on the throne of David. Even Samuel had to make a choice whether he would serve God or not. Or Samson, who was to judge Israel before he was born, lost his authority because he pushed God’s permissiveness too far. If this child, named in Isaiah, was to become the son of God sometime after being born by natural human means, I think that you would have to accept the doctrines of Calvinism. You would have to ensure that this human child did not ever err (Hebrews 4:15). But if you did that, the conservative ideas that come with Calvinism would not allow such a teaching as this in the first place. Acknowledging that Jesus Christ was the son of God from the very beginning is so much easier. It is also supported by Scripture. John 1:1-2,14:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Became flesh. He didn’t indwell someone else’s body (except maybe for the pregnancy), he became his own.

I Kings 19:15: ... Go, return ...

node/82

Healthcare You Can Understand

In the interest of helping you understand how the new Obama-supported health care changes are going to help you, here is a flow chart from Kevin Brady of how the bureaucratic process will work (full-size in .pdf format):

Pretty colorful? It sure isn’t simple. According to Roll Call, there are some complaints raised by Democrats that it is inaccurate. The paper seem to have a copy that it hasn’t supplied us:

For example, Democrats argue that the chart depicts a Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund that is simply a recipient of IRS funds, with no outflow. ... This is false.

If, and I stress if, that is not taken out of context, then this sounds like they are complaining that the flow chart is not complex enough. If you can find a full copy of the memo, please send it my way. I haven’t succeeded in finding it yet. In a slightly unrelated (but related) issue, while trying to check the validity of the various claims Republicans are making, I found that John Carter’s office was told to change what he called this health care plan:

What we proposed as language was as follows, âHouse Democrats unveiled a government-run health care plan, Carter said.  Our response from Franking was, âYou cannot use that language.  You must use, âThe House majority unveiled a public option health care plan, which is Pelosi-speak or [sic?] âjust last week the House majority unveiled a health care plan which I believe will cost taxpayersâ¦

Senator Bob Casey believes that this “public option health care plan” is a good idea and attempts to justify the name they have given it. A transcript of a revised flow chart he created on CNN’s The Situation Room is available here (the only place I have been able to find video is from The Daily Show; there is some language but you can watch it here). It’s enough to drive me crazy, but near the end of the text you find this:

The -- right. But the way it is in our bill is it starts with the government. The government provides it initial financing. But then it's supposed to exist on its own. And it's an apples to apples comparison. You're not talking about some kind of program that just has government backing all the way.

So… the government is creating a business to compete with the rest of the health care industry. Does it have all the constraints that a regular business has to exist inside of – including profitability (covers its own costs)? Why in the world is a government getting involved in this instead of private individuals creating such a venture? Are they afraid the idea doesn’t really work and they would lose their money? They could learn a few lessons from BAM (Business As Mission) methods. Even if there are problems with the full accuracy of the chart above, this bill is a mess. Please don’t fall for it. I have specifically chosen not to have insurance because it won’t benefit me in the future. What am I going to do then if I can’t live without it now? This current bill would require me to carry health insurance. If you haven’t already, contact your congressman and senators. So far I’ve only gotten one letter back and it was a form-letter that hardly fit what I had written. Perhaps a phone call would shake them up a little more… For those of you who want to round out your understanding of the arguments surrounding this issue, here’s an interesting explanation of France’s medical system (which they still admit needs to be reformed):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNR_6UuVl4s

Isaiah 65:3: ... and burneth incense upon altars of brick

Sometimes we get really impressed with our own accomplishments and think that God and everyone else should be just as impressed. Our work should be worth something to them. Somehow it doesn’t seem like God is pleased simply because we find some way to make work for ourselves. In Isaiah 65:3-5:

A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels; Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.

Among other things in the passage is the accusation that they burn incense on altars made of brick. What is that about? If you turn all the way back to Exodus 20:24,25:

An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

That is a strange command, isn’t it? At least by our standards it is. Even after God allowed one of the Hebrew kings to build a temple, they built it in a very foreign manner to how we build our churches. I Kings 6:7:

And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building.

What do you think this means then? There is a growing number of people who do not believe that we should be interfering with how nature operates. I don’t think that is what this is complaining about. After all, later in the chapter from Isaiah we hear that God is going to create a new place for us to live that is not stained by the problems of this world. Isaiah 65:17,21:

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. [...] And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.

If you wanted to argue that it is possible to build a house and plant a vineyard without nails or other iron tools, I would have to agree. However, I would like to see you build a solid house without using iron on a tree somewhere along the way. Rotting trunks (that cause the tree to fall on its own) hardly make for a good frame.

Our savior, Jesus, was a carpenter. This means that he used hammers and planes on boards and, probably, was involved in constructing whole buildings.

Then what other reason could there be for God to command this? An altar was a place where someone sought God. The first time that we hear mention of one, it is being built by Noah after the flood (Genesis 8:20). In the next verse, the Bible says that God saw it much different than the smoke in the nose and continual burning that he speaks of in Isaiah. It says that he smelled the sweet savor of Noah’s sacrifice.

If we want God’s presence, there is a time of building (and we often use what others, who have come before us, have built). We select from what we have available and our respect for God shows in how we prepare for his Holy presence. When the altar is being made, the builder should do his best to lay out the stones properly but there is no way he can pretend it is perfect.

You know, his life is not any different. God sees what is there and whether he has thrown the stones together, has dealt harshly with them, or whether he is doing the best he can with what is available. It is not allowed for him to make a new altar in exactly the same way that he did the previous time.

What do you think? How do you stack up the stones in your life? Do you respect the Holy?

PS. I’m not necessarily knocking our building methods. I actually used a power saw for two minutes right outside the door of my church today. But we do need to be respectful.

PPS. Today is the 20th anniversary for my church’s existence. We have been working to prepare it for the “homecoming” but it means nothing if God’s presence isn’t there with us. If you would, please pray that it pleases Him. Thanks!

A 13-yo with a Walkman

Like many churches, mine has a rather large collection of tapes. They went digital with the recording about the same time that I started to attend it, and I’ve taken an interest in some of the old sermons. The only problem is that I left my tape player behind during the last move so transferring them to computer has been at the church and has been slow. A couple weeks ago I managed to finagle for a pretty nice tape recorder and have been able to record the tapes at home much faster (I’ll probably return the tape deck after these tapes are converted). The computer can record while I’m working and editing only takes a couple of minutes. In the last two weeks I’ve converted about 30 tapes, so I found this article on the BBC website to be pretty amusing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8117619.stm

It looks like the Sony Walkman has been out for 30 years. Impressive, isn’t it? A writer convinced his 13 year old son to trade in his iPod for a Walkman. It was only to be for a few days but here are some of the valuable lessons that the son learned:

It took me three days to figure out that there was another side to the tape.

I'm relieved that the majority of technological advancement happened before I was born, as I can't imagine having to use such basic equipment every day.

To make the music play, you push the large play button. It engages with a satisfying clunk, unlike the finger tip tap for the iPod.

Oh how I wish that I could teach him that there is life without portable music players. In the last four years I’ve gone from always playing music while driving to hardly ever turning the radio on. It gives more time for thinking and learning how to stalk. Music dominates and controls our thoughts entirely too much (see my post on The Crowd for a quote). Incidentally, I have not listened to most of the tapes that I’ve recorded yet. In time I’ll pick out some of them and will plan to upload the rest to a server for others to download. The last two weeks have been pretty busy.

Embarrassment At Now Common Things

Somebody I have recently heard speak said that “young people” need to follow Daniel’s example and purpose in their hearts not to defile themselves (Daniel 1:8) – with drugs, alcohol, sex, etc. While I agree with him, I also noticed that most of the people in the room were not “young people.” After he finished, I went to talk to him for a moment to explain that I knew people who were not “young,” in the sense that he had used it, but who still had not purposed in their hearts to be undefiled by these things. My statement was fairly subdued, “I know a woman who is nearly 50 and did not believe that there were any men left who would wait until marriage.” His reaction was to bring the conversation to an end with “I’m glad that is not true. Have a good day.” There were a few other things going on so he may have simply been distracted by them. My fear, though, is that we are not addressing what are now common situations in our culture. Whenever most people in the church hear a reference to sex, they clam up. They seem to think that this sort of conversation is beneath them or best left for counseling sessions. I do not think that Christians can afford to behave that way. Yes, our speech should be chaste (and we should not use coarse jokes as others do), but our culture is saturated in sex. It is used in advertisements all over the place and is a heavy theme in some games. Most of what is on TV is mild compared to what happens every day in a lot of high schools. Even though I was not in public schools for most of my education, I’ve seen a lot of it. Sometimes a passage from Paul is used as a reason to not say anything. Ephesians 5:11-12:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

It is a shame to speak of the things people do in private. But what about when those things are no longer secret? When they are flaunted? Our conversations should still have a very different tone than the one that everyone else uses. As I said before, we should not use coarse jokes. Somewhere, though, we need to address what is said and done. I found this video shortly after it was uploaded by a Catholic priest and was pretty impressed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHefRh9H5bQ (~6 minutes)

He does a good job of handling the topic without going into more detail than is necessary. When reading the Old Testament, we find that there are several places where the entire law was read before all of the people of Israel who could be gathered. That meant all of the men, women and children. Joshua 8:34,35:

And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them.

The same thing happened several other times, with various other men, after Israel (as a nation) had wandered away from God. The reason that I bring this up is that the words of the law contained descriptions of when men were not allowed to go in to their wives (Leviticus 20:18). Some sexual acts were governed by the law but it was worded in a way that children would understand it as their time came. We can be (and should be) sensitive about issues but I do not think we can be entirely quiet. If people only hear emphasis on or the reasoning for one side, they become easy victims. Please don’t be afraid to search out why God demands abstinence – and commands marriage or death when it isn’t observed. People need to know why it makes even more sense than what everyone else seems to be doing.

Inflation

While Obama and his office work frantically to assure people that all of their spending is really saving our economy, I’m still unconvinced. Inflation is hitting my local Wal*mart pretty hard:

Just to be clear, “Bakery Reduc[ed Item]” is four bagels that expire today.

Forced Sterilization and Textbooks

Tonight I heard about a statement by John Holdren (Obama’s Science Czar or adviser) about a need for forced sterilization in the United States. I was told to look it up, so I’ve done a little bit of digging to see what the story was. The original report on this issue seems to have been here:

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

One of the quotes:

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

On the next page of the book Ecoscience (Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, John P. Holdren) that it was taken from:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Both quotes can be found at that link above. David Freddoso says that he has tracked down a copy of the book. It was published in 1977, and that seems to be part of the defense that John Holdren’s office is now making. The Washington Post reports:

When asked whether Mr. Holdren's thoughts on population control have changed over the years, his staff gave The Washington Times a statement that said, "This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization."

This statement is ludicrous. Is the staff telling us not to trust college textbooks? Or are they saying that we can’t trust an education that we received 32 years earlier? Is there a point to getting a college degree? Sure, we should never stop learning but why is there such an emphasis on college if that information isn’t reliable? That’s a rather sticky subject, so I’ll leave you to think about the rest of what it could mean. There’s another wrong statement in there but you have to dig through the confirmation hearing for John Holdren to find it. The first link (from Zombie Time) provides the links and I’ve verified them (three-hour video, transcript of the relevant Q&A). Here was what Mr. Holdren said when asked about how in 1973 he had “encouraged ‘a decline in fertility to well below replacement’ in the United States”:

I no longer think it's productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States. I don't think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities. It's a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling for years 'sustainable prosperity'.

So I must ask, was it that he never held this position or that he no longer holds it? The thing that worries me is that forced sterilizations were performed in the United States between 1907 and 1981 (about.com) in various forms. As quoted above, the book that John Holdren co-authored recommends putting these sterility drugs into food and water supplies. They go even further with talking about creating an international body to regulate the optimum population levels are for each region of the world. Some say that the United States is only avoiding depopulation because of the numbers of migrants that are entering the country. Others simply say that we are just hovering at the the bare minimum of 2 (and a third for every 10th couple) children per family when averaged out.

Other people think that the depopulation levels would not cause any problems in keeping the economy running. They expect the governments and automation to take over for the decreasing numbers of working people. My problem with it? No government keeps a buffer for when this happens. Abortion is a “voluntary” form of population control. It, already, is horrendous. Please keep an eye out for these others as well. I don’t think that John Holdren will try to force it on us – at least not openly – but the ideas are out there and are being pushed. The break-up of family units is having a bigger effect on the housing market (single people prefer apartments) than most of our leaders have been able to predict. Population controls will have far-reaching effects as well. I’m tired after looking through this so far so I’ll leave off some of the other effects from forced population controls. The world is not overpopulated as many people are claiming. Down in the mountains of Latin American countries, such as Peru, they are discovering that the old ways of farming the mountains yield more food than our modern methods. Many of the impoverished countries of the world are that way because of the cultural mores or a corrupt government. It has little to do with the resources that are available. Yes, we need to care for the earth and we probably need to do better than we are now. But it is not going to collapse under us. At the worst, the abusers will push themselves to extinction through some form or another, very much like several current ideas say happened with Easter Island.

Stalking 101

Have you ever tried to stalk someone before? From my studies, I have concluded that the best time is when they are in their car. It’s like they have this irresistible urge to tell you where they are going. Right blinker, left blinker, brakes, back-up lights. Try to stay out of their way. The idea is to imitate their moves, not let them back up into you. With this basic knowledge, a driver’s license and a car, you can play the stalking game any time you want. People pretend to get agitated or worried but they keep sending you less-than-subtle hints about where they are going next. Try it! You won’t be disappointed. Once you have mastered the simpler techniques, there are more subtle aspects that can be introduced for even more fun. One of them that I will briefly explain involves yellow and blue lights. This play is the only one that you won’t have any advance warning of – the person being stalked waits until they are near a yellow light when another car with blue lights can see them. When this situation is met, they accelerate in order to pass through the intersection before the yellow light turns red. This move is designed to test your prowess as a stalker, so don’t try to go through the red light until you have mastered the basics first. There are other tricks that are similar but I’ll leave those for you to discover on your own. If you find these rules to be too difficult to follow, there is an alternate version with simpler rules. All that you need for it is a long knife and a good sense of direction. Then you have to find a corn field… This latter method does have one minor inconvenience though. If others discover you with lots of squarish marks on your forehead, they might laugh at you for stalking corn. Most of your friends will probably think it is even funnier than a joke about ambulance chasers. Be safe, don’t destroy anyone’s property and good luck.

Eternal Security

Alright, I will admit my supposed bias. The churches that I have grown up in all taught that it was possible to lose salvation after placing your trust in Jesus. About two years ago I moved into the “Baptist Bible Belt” and the fun commenced. Most Baptists, including those who have rejected 3 or 4 other points of Calvinism still hold to a teaching that is called “Eternal Security” (Calvinists know it as “Perseverance of the Saints”). I say “still hold to” for a reason. Before getting started, let’s name a few assumptions. The explanations for them would take more space than I wish to spend here tonight:

Men were created to have fellowship with God.
Man wrecked that by choosing to know how to do evil.
God made it possible for that relationship to be restored though the Christ, Jesus.
God calls men to believe in Him and what He has done.

Is that a good base to start from? Great. Sin separates us from God. God creates a way to restore the relationship. How can we do evil when God is working to restore us to Himself? Even worse, how can we willfully sin against Him while expecting that He will take us from our sins? This makes no sense to me. In order to swallow it, I would have to also accept John Calvin’s (or rather, Augustine’s) teaching of “Irresistable Grace” because we can not do anything to resist or remove ourselves from God’s grace. Even further than that, if God were to force His salvation on us, why do we have to accept it in the first place? How does Original Sin differ from the sins we commit willingly after coming to Jesus? I would have to accept “Unconditional Election” as well. And if I took that, there is only one satisfactory explanation that I have found to explain why only some people are saved: “Limited Atonement.” It does not appear to me that many Baptists (those who reject “Unconditional Election,” “Limited Atonement,” and “Irresistible Grace”) are being terribly consistent with their beliefs. Let us leave this logic for a moment and consider what the Bible says. Romans 8:35-39:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 10:28-30:

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

These are very common passages that are used to say that salvation is permanent. I would argue that they are speaking of external forces; things that we do not always control. It was common in the early church for men to purchase accounts from the courts of tortures that took place. A few weeks ago I read an account from one of those that told how meat that was sacrificed to idols was forced down the throats of three Christian men. One had sharp sticks inserted under their fingernails, another had his tongue cut out, and the other was burned with fire. It was very gruesome and they were killed the following day. The reason that I bring up this story is that they resisted eating the meat as best they could. When the court representative jeered at them after the meat had been forced down, they told him that God saw their hearts and knew that they meant Him no irreverence. This is what the words quoted above from Romans and John are talking about. If we take Scripture as a whole, we find that God does change the way that he deals with people based on their actions. In the Old Testament, physical and spiritual death are often linked. The first commandment with promise (Honor your father and mother; Exodus 20:12) speaks of long life. Solomon said that the expectation of the righteous would not be cut off (Proverbs 23:17,18). Ezekiel wrote of what happened to men who changed their ways. Ezekiel 18:26,27:

When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

Turning to the New Testament, we find Jesus telling his disciples (as he sends them out to cast out demons and heal the sick!) these words in Luke 12:5**:

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

That is quite a sobering warning when read in context with the whole chapter. The writer of Hebrews gives another (3:14):

For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

If we hold on to the end. There are many other passages that can be used to demonstrate this as well but let’s try to wrap up the post. One more verse, from the final chapter of the Bible. Revelation 22:19:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

There is at least one offense that would cause our names to be removed from the book of life. Tampering with some of God’s words is plainly off-limits. If our salvation is God’s glory (and He delights in it) how can our actions proclaim that sin is alright? Is this not a manner of making God’s words null? Some people do find a way to separate the last four points of Calvinism. At the moment I do not see how it can be done. Does God force his salvation on us or do we have responsibilities also? I’ll try to answer that question soon but for now I’ll simply quote a passage that Tiffany used in her reply to yesterday’s post. I Peter 1:5-10:

And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

If we believe this, we have work to do in order to make sure that we do not lose our calling and election. This does not make our salvation one of works (it is still God who saves), but works must follow. There are conditions for God’s restoration but the only one before that work begins is that we place our trust in Jesus. John 1:12, from one of my favorite passages:

But as many as received him [Jesus], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

One final note: Just because I argue that it is possible to lose your salvation, I am not saying that our salvation is fragile. God wants to save us from our errors. If He didn’t, He would not have put so much work into His plan for our redemption. But please don’t mock it. Turn, do what is right.

** Oops, I quoted a different author than I had intended. Matthew records the same event with slightly different details in Matthew 10:28.

Epic Voyage

The Wanderer's Journal