In the last post, we saw why it is important to determine whether a parable is a salvation parable or a reward parable. One parable that covers both is the parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30).
"For it is like a man, going into another country, who called his own servants, and entrusted his goods to them. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one; to each according to his own ability. Then he went on his journey.
THIS is an example of grace. The man who has servants is God. He has entrusted a value to each servant out of His own supply. This is the same as God FIRST divinely influencing the hearts of everyone and it happens to different degrees because it is according to the ability of the individual.
The second half of charis is its reflection in the life…what the individual does with the influence. Let’s see what each individual does with it…
Immediately he who received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. In like manner he also who got the two gained another two. But he who received the one went away and dug in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
Two of the servants interacted with others to generate more value. One servant interacted with no one. Notice, the parable says the servant “hid his lord’s money”. The money is still the property of the master.
The servants can’t take credit for the money because it was given to them and ultimately is not theirs. Likewise, we can’t take credit for grace because it is given to us and ultimately is not ours.
"Now after a long time the lord of those servants came, and reconciled accounts with them. He who received the five talents came and brought another five talents, saying, 'Lord, you delivered to me five talents. Behold, I have gained another five talents besides them.' "His lord said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.'
"He also who got the two talents came and said, 'Lord, you delivered to me two talents. Behold, I have gained another two talents besides them.' "His lord said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.'
Two of the servants created more and were called “good” and “faithful”. The master then did two things.
First, he set them over many things. This is the reward judgment. People are getting different amounts of value based on what they did.
Second, the master told them to enter into the joy of your lord. This is the salvation judgment. Both entered into the same joy. People are getting the same benefit regardless of how much they did.
"He also who had received the one talent came and said, 'Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter. I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the earth. Behold, you have what is yours.'
"But his lord answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I didn't scatter. You ought therefore to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest.
First of all, what the servant says about the master is NOT true. The master very clearly is reaping where he has sown. This servant has a poor attitude about his master. However, the master doesn’t argue this; he essentially lets the servant testify against himself.
The master says if this were true, then the servant ought to have at the very least maintained the value of what he had been given. The talent given before is worth less today. The only way to maintain the value is to get interest.
Notice, getting interest would have required this servant to interact with ONE person. By hiding the money, the servant interacted with NO ONE. (This is a densely layered parable that has wide applications. We will revisit this point in the future.)
Second, the servant is called “wicked” and “slothful”. Whether he returns the same value or less, the point is this servant has not created anything. Let’s see how he does with his reward and salvation judgments…
Take away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away. Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
The value is taken from him and he is sent to hell. It looks as if he would have been able to go to heaven if he had generated ANY value. In fact, he is called an “unprofitable” servant just before he sent to outer darkness. Notice also the value he had is not wasted. It is given to the one who has the most.
This parable does a great job of demonstrating salvation AND reward. The “work” is rewarded. It is an effect. However, the work doesn’t save us.
We are given a value through grace that we are responsible for reflecting in our life and interacting with others in order to become more profitable. THIS cause results in salvation. The work isn’t the cause of salvation.
What specifically was the cause of salvation in this parable? What caused the servant to go to hell? The servant’s attitude towards his master was the cause and the effects were his actions.
Salvation is based on an internal cause: loving God with all your heart, mind, and soul.
Reward is based on an external effect: loving your neighbor.
Next Post
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Legalism
Jesus has two messages. The first is salvation. The ultimate way to achieve this is to love God. The second message is reward. The ultimate way to achieve this is to love your neighbor. Notice, both of these messages are made perfect in “love”. In the future, we will look at love and how it relates to justice.
In the past weeks, we have seen how justice is involved in our interactions with other people…that is, with our “neighbor”. For now, let’s just say that the ultimate way to get reward is to love our neighbor and eventually let justice pay us back.
Today’s issue concerns the effects of not realizing there are two separate and distinct messages being presented by Jesus. It seems that people either ignore one of these messages, try to make them the same message, or use the ladder of abstraction to make one or both messages more abstract.
The most obvious and damaging example of this is “legalism”. Basically, legalism is the belief that we are saved by works. Legalism tries to take the reward portion of Jesus’ message and apply it to salvation.
The reward message says justice will equal out our works. If we have good works, then we will get a value. If we have bad works, we will have to pay a value. This is REWARD…to recompense either good or bad.
However, if someone were to make salvation a reward instead of a gift, they would be able to link the reward scriptures to salvation. Once this is done, all of the reward scriptures will be talking about our works resulting in the “reward” of salvation.
Making the two messages into one is VERY simplistic. This technique is favored by the fundamentalists and traditionalists. This technique allows them to put requirements on people to do specific works AND declare whether people are “saved” or not based solely on the outward actions. This is the same as The Law!
Why don’t these people realize they are doing the SAME THING as the Pharisees? In fact, every time these people call others “Pharisees” (or teach about the Pharisees) while making the same mistake, they are proving they are hypocrites…and justice will require a value to equal it all out.
Some people just ignore the reward scriptures. They want so bad to believe we don’t have to do ANYTHING that they ignore the scriptures that clearly speak of doing good works. If they do reference these scriptures, they either say there are translation errors or cultural differences between then and now.
They don’t want to believe that people will have different amounts of reward because they’ve seen the abuse of this belief. Yet, the Bible explains why those instances were abuses and it uses justice to prove it.
If someone does a good work for the sole purpose of getting a value today, they have gotten their reward! Basically, when you do a good work it results in a value that is owed to you through justice. This value can have an upper limit. It can also be lessened. Everything you do that benefits you (as it relates to the good work) results in less value on your part.
Here’s what we got so far:
Justice says everything will eventually equal out EXACTLY. When you do a good work, the value you are owed is equal to the value you gave minus the value you received. We have the option of having that value here or keeping it in Heaven for eternity.
Next week we will look at the triggers that release this value as it relates to both the salvation and reward messages.
Tomorrow, we will tie up the loose ends of this week’s topic by looking at a parable that covers BOTH the salvation and reward messages.
Next Post
In the past weeks, we have seen how justice is involved in our interactions with other people…that is, with our “neighbor”. For now, let’s just say that the ultimate way to get reward is to love our neighbor and eventually let justice pay us back.
Today’s issue concerns the effects of not realizing there are two separate and distinct messages being presented by Jesus. It seems that people either ignore one of these messages, try to make them the same message, or use the ladder of abstraction to make one or both messages more abstract.
The most obvious and damaging example of this is “legalism”. Basically, legalism is the belief that we are saved by works. Legalism tries to take the reward portion of Jesus’ message and apply it to salvation.
The reward message says justice will equal out our works. If we have good works, then we will get a value. If we have bad works, we will have to pay a value. This is REWARD…to recompense either good or bad.
However, if someone were to make salvation a reward instead of a gift, they would be able to link the reward scriptures to salvation. Once this is done, all of the reward scriptures will be talking about our works resulting in the “reward” of salvation.
Making the two messages into one is VERY simplistic. This technique is favored by the fundamentalists and traditionalists. This technique allows them to put requirements on people to do specific works AND declare whether people are “saved” or not based solely on the outward actions. This is the same as The Law!
Why don’t these people realize they are doing the SAME THING as the Pharisees? In fact, every time these people call others “Pharisees” (or teach about the Pharisees) while making the same mistake, they are proving they are hypocrites…and justice will require a value to equal it all out.
Some people just ignore the reward scriptures. They want so bad to believe we don’t have to do ANYTHING that they ignore the scriptures that clearly speak of doing good works. If they do reference these scriptures, they either say there are translation errors or cultural differences between then and now.
They don’t want to believe that people will have different amounts of reward because they’ve seen the abuse of this belief. Yet, the Bible explains why those instances were abuses and it uses justice to prove it.
If someone does a good work for the sole purpose of getting a value today, they have gotten their reward! Basically, when you do a good work it results in a value that is owed to you through justice. This value can have an upper limit. It can also be lessened. Everything you do that benefits you (as it relates to the good work) results in less value on your part.
Here’s what we got so far:
Justice says everything will eventually equal out EXACTLY. When you do a good work, the value you are owed is equal to the value you gave minus the value you received. We have the option of having that value here or keeping it in Heaven for eternity.
Next week we will look at the triggers that release this value as it relates to both the salvation and reward messages.
Tomorrow, we will tie up the loose ends of this week’s topic by looking at a parable that covers BOTH the salvation and reward messages.
Next Post
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Parables
Everything Jesus talked about either focused on salvation or reward. For example, Matthew 18 begins this way:
In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Jesus called a little child to himself, and set him in the midst of them, and said,
"Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Whoever therefore humbles himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven."
The first part of Jesus' response concerns salvation (enter into the Kingdom of Heaven). The second part deals with reward (greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven).
Some people want to believe we will all have the same amount of reward when we get to Heaven. Their reason? If we have different amounts there will be envy and strife…and we know there is no envy and strife in Heaven. This is a real good example of comparative thinking!
The Bible clearly states there will be greater and lesser in Heaven. Jesus is obviously the greatest. The disciples will sit on thrones. Rather than start there and look contrastively, it is easier to apply our current comfortable state (on earth) and project it forward.
Justice says some deserve more than others. Why wouldn’t we get to Heaven and realize justice is going to require that some have more than others? Is anyone really going to envy and have strife over justice being upheld?
A good place to contrast salvation and reward is with the parables. The following parables are examples of salvation parables: Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46), Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:45-46), and Laborers in Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16).
Salvation parables result in a group of people all getting the same value. Whether it is a group of people all going to Heaven or a group of people all being tortured. This also applies to all the parables where Jesus talked about something being “lost” and “dead” (hell) or “found” and “alive” (Heaven).
Salvation parables also focus on getting ONE value. Whether it is the one coin in the Vineyard parable or the one Pearl, the value is one of something. Let’s look briefly at the three parables.
The Sheep and Goats parable talks about the “righteous”. Again, salvation is based on righteousness…the righteousness we get through God (grace). All of one group inherits the kingdom and receives eternal life. Notice, inherit implies a gift. All of the people in the other group received eternal fire.
The Pearl of Great Price parable shows how a person gave everything he had to obtain one great value. Notice, there isn’t a set number it took to buy the Pearl. The parable doesn’t depend on us achieving great reward in order to be able to afford the Pearl. It takes EVERYTHING and therefore the parable can apply to EVERYONE EQUALLY.
The laborers in the vineyard received the same value regardless of how long they worked. It doesn’t matter how long you have been operating in grace. In the end, we all receive the same value when it comes to salvation…eternal life. Notice also, the master says he will pay whatever is “right”. Again, we have a reference to righteous.
The following parables are examples of reward parables: Sower (Matthew 13:3-23), Humbled Guest (Luke 14:7-11), and Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).
Reward parables result in people getting different value. The Sower parable mentions 30, 60, and 100 fold returns. Notice, the result is NOT a gift. It is a reward. It is in response to something that was done AND how well it was done.
The reward parables also are concerned with equaling out justice. The Humbled Guest parable says it will all be equaled out. Whoever exalts will be humbled and whoever humbles themselves will be exalted.
The Good Samaritan parable actually comes out of a discussion about Jesus two messages. Loving God and loving your neighbor are mentioned. Then Jesus is asked who our neighbor is? THAT is a reward question.
The point of the reward parables seems to contradict the salvation parables…and that’s when the confusion starts. If people think Jesus had ONE message, they try to make these parables say the same thing…but they clearly don’t.
The Vineyard parable says everyone gets the same value and this upsets some people. In fact, it is the point of the parable. The Sower parable clearly says people will get different rewards.
Jesus must have had two messages.
Next Post
In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Jesus called a little child to himself, and set him in the midst of them, and said,
"Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Whoever therefore humbles himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven."
The first part of Jesus' response concerns salvation (enter into the Kingdom of Heaven). The second part deals with reward (greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven).
Some people want to believe we will all have the same amount of reward when we get to Heaven. Their reason? If we have different amounts there will be envy and strife…and we know there is no envy and strife in Heaven. This is a real good example of comparative thinking!
The Bible clearly states there will be greater and lesser in Heaven. Jesus is obviously the greatest. The disciples will sit on thrones. Rather than start there and look contrastively, it is easier to apply our current comfortable state (on earth) and project it forward.
Justice says some deserve more than others. Why wouldn’t we get to Heaven and realize justice is going to require that some have more than others? Is anyone really going to envy and have strife over justice being upheld?
A good place to contrast salvation and reward is with the parables. The following parables are examples of salvation parables: Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46), Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:45-46), and Laborers in Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16).
Salvation parables result in a group of people all getting the same value. Whether it is a group of people all going to Heaven or a group of people all being tortured. This also applies to all the parables where Jesus talked about something being “lost” and “dead” (hell) or “found” and “alive” (Heaven).
Salvation parables also focus on getting ONE value. Whether it is the one coin in the Vineyard parable or the one Pearl, the value is one of something. Let’s look briefly at the three parables.
The Sheep and Goats parable talks about the “righteous”. Again, salvation is based on righteousness…the righteousness we get through God (grace). All of one group inherits the kingdom and receives eternal life. Notice, inherit implies a gift. All of the people in the other group received eternal fire.
The Pearl of Great Price parable shows how a person gave everything he had to obtain one great value. Notice, there isn’t a set number it took to buy the Pearl. The parable doesn’t depend on us achieving great reward in order to be able to afford the Pearl. It takes EVERYTHING and therefore the parable can apply to EVERYONE EQUALLY.
The laborers in the vineyard received the same value regardless of how long they worked. It doesn’t matter how long you have been operating in grace. In the end, we all receive the same value when it comes to salvation…eternal life. Notice also, the master says he will pay whatever is “right”. Again, we have a reference to righteous.
The following parables are examples of reward parables: Sower (Matthew 13:3-23), Humbled Guest (Luke 14:7-11), and Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).
Reward parables result in people getting different value. The Sower parable mentions 30, 60, and 100 fold returns. Notice, the result is NOT a gift. It is a reward. It is in response to something that was done AND how well it was done.
The reward parables also are concerned with equaling out justice. The Humbled Guest parable says it will all be equaled out. Whoever exalts will be humbled and whoever humbles themselves will be exalted.
The Good Samaritan parable actually comes out of a discussion about Jesus two messages. Loving God and loving your neighbor are mentioned. Then Jesus is asked who our neighbor is? THAT is a reward question.
The point of the reward parables seems to contradict the salvation parables…and that’s when the confusion starts. If people think Jesus had ONE message, they try to make these parables say the same thing…but they clearly don’t.
The Vineyard parable says everyone gets the same value and this upsets some people. In fact, it is the point of the parable. The Sower parable clearly says people will get different rewards.
Jesus must have had two messages.
Next Post
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Two Judgments
In order to complete our overview of these two “themes”, we have to look at the end. Revelation 20:11-15 says:
I saw a great white throne, and him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. There was found no place for them.
I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and they opened books. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Notice, there are “books” that are opened and then A book is opened…there are two different purposes.
The books record EVERYONE’S works. Everything has to be equaled out first. This means EVERYONE is going to get all the value they deserve and pay for everything they owe. We saw the definition of “reward” was “to recompense both good and bad”.
It would take “books” to list EVERY person AND EVERY good or bad thing they have done. These good and bad things people have done are known as “works” throughout the Bible.
The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works.
Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Notice there is A book that lists who is saved and who is not. This book only lists names AND only the names of people making it to heaven. It would only take a book to list these names.
It appears this book focuses on salvation. Notice, works don’t save us but they are important. This is because they are two separate issues.
Ephesians 2:8-9 says:
for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, that no one would boast.
One of the areas of confusion occurs with the difference between a “gift” and a “reward”. Some people use these words interchangeably. They are not the same word. We saw that a reward is the EFFECT of an act.
A gift is the CAUSE. A gift is first given, with NO prior cause, in order to get an effect. However, the effect can be either good or bad.
If I gave you a car and you never used it, the result would be NO BENEFIT to you. However, if you chose to use it, you would receive a benefit. Whether you use it or not, it doesn’t affect me at all…it affects you. Your use or non-use of the gift doesn’t make me bad. Finally, if you choose to use it, you can’t take credit for the car…only your decision to use the car.
Likewise, salvation is a gift. We saw what grace and faith were. God first divinely influences our hearts. This is the gift. God has given us the gift of grace and we choose whether we are going to use it, that is, whether we are going to let it reflect in our actions.
When it does, we get no credit for the influence, but we determine whether we are good or bad (righteousness) by our decision. We are showing by our actions whether we are a good steward over what God has first given us.
In order to determine whether the influence is of God or our flesh, we need faith. We need to test the influence according to knowledge and experience.
It appears there are two messages that run throughout the Bible: Salvation and Reward. Salvation depends on righteousness that comes from God. Reward depends on justice.
All of the Old Testament rests on these two messages. Everything Jesus said either concerned salvation or reward. The Bible ends with everyone getting judged twice.
It seems that people ignore one of these messages, try to make them the same message, or use the ladder of abstraction to make one or both messages more abstract. Before we give examples of each of these and the implications, we will look more closely at the difference in the two messages.
Next Post
I saw a great white throne, and him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. There was found no place for them.
I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and they opened books. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Notice, there are “books” that are opened and then A book is opened…there are two different purposes.
The books record EVERYONE’S works. Everything has to be equaled out first. This means EVERYONE is going to get all the value they deserve and pay for everything they owe. We saw the definition of “reward” was “to recompense both good and bad”.
It would take “books” to list EVERY person AND EVERY good or bad thing they have done. These good and bad things people have done are known as “works” throughout the Bible.
The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works.
Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Notice there is A book that lists who is saved and who is not. This book only lists names AND only the names of people making it to heaven. It would only take a book to list these names.
It appears this book focuses on salvation. Notice, works don’t save us but they are important. This is because they are two separate issues.
Ephesians 2:8-9 says:
for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, that no one would boast.
One of the areas of confusion occurs with the difference between a “gift” and a “reward”. Some people use these words interchangeably. They are not the same word. We saw that a reward is the EFFECT of an act.
A gift is the CAUSE. A gift is first given, with NO prior cause, in order to get an effect. However, the effect can be either good or bad.
If I gave you a car and you never used it, the result would be NO BENEFIT to you. However, if you chose to use it, you would receive a benefit. Whether you use it or not, it doesn’t affect me at all…it affects you. Your use or non-use of the gift doesn’t make me bad. Finally, if you choose to use it, you can’t take credit for the car…only your decision to use the car.
Likewise, salvation is a gift. We saw what grace and faith were. God first divinely influences our hearts. This is the gift. God has given us the gift of grace and we choose whether we are going to use it, that is, whether we are going to let it reflect in our actions.
When it does, we get no credit for the influence, but we determine whether we are good or bad (righteousness) by our decision. We are showing by our actions whether we are a good steward over what God has first given us.
In order to determine whether the influence is of God or our flesh, we need faith. We need to test the influence according to knowledge and experience.
It appears there are two messages that run throughout the Bible: Salvation and Reward. Salvation depends on righteousness that comes from God. Reward depends on justice.
All of the Old Testament rests on these two messages. Everything Jesus said either concerned salvation or reward. The Bible ends with everyone getting judged twice.
It seems that people ignore one of these messages, try to make them the same message, or use the ladder of abstraction to make one or both messages more abstract. Before we give examples of each of these and the implications, we will look more closely at the difference in the two messages.
Next Post
Monday, August 28, 2006
Greatest (Two) Commandments
Matthew 22:35-40 is a very well known passage. Let’s look at it more closely:
But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, gathered themselves together.
One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him."Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?"
Jesus is being asked a straightforward question. What is the greatest commandment in the law? The answer is obviously one commandment that is better than every other one.
Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
'This is the first and great commandment.
A second likewise is this,'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
'The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
Jesus’ answer is two commandments. He gives the greatest commandment which is to love God. However, he says the second is like it…but it is NOT the same commandment. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have said SECOND.
More powerful still is the last sentence: the WHOLE of the law AND the prophets depend on these two commandments. Think about that!
Jesus came to fulfill the law. He is saying the whole of the law and everything the prophets said depend on two commandments.
What is the significance of these two commandments?
Are these two "messages" in which EVERYTHING can be fitted under?
Is one showing us how to get to Heaven?
Is the other one showing us how to get reward on earth and in Heaven?
Next Post
But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, gathered themselves together.
One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him."Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?"
Jesus is being asked a straightforward question. What is the greatest commandment in the law? The answer is obviously one commandment that is better than every other one.
Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
'This is the first and great commandment.
A second likewise is this,'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
'The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
Jesus’ answer is two commandments. He gives the greatest commandment which is to love God. However, he says the second is like it…but it is NOT the same commandment. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have said SECOND.
More powerful still is the last sentence: the WHOLE of the law AND the prophets depend on these two commandments. Think about that!
Jesus came to fulfill the law. He is saying the whole of the law and everything the prophets said depend on two commandments.
What is the significance of these two commandments?
Are these two "messages" in which EVERYTHING can be fitted under?
Is one showing us how to get to Heaven?
Is the other one showing us how to get reward on earth and in Heaven?
Next Post
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Sermon on the Mount
One of the best places to see the effects of Justice is in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5 shows the sermon begins this way:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
The basic structure of the beginning of the sermon is: “Blessed are the (people who have this cause) for they will (get this specific effect because of justice)”. There three points to be made here.
First, the sermon is based on causality. The sermon gives a cause and then an effect.
Second, notice Jesus gives the reason WHY. Everything after the “for” is the reason. In my Bible, all of the following words are circled: “for”, “that”, “because”. These words set up the reason. The Bible gives the reason! It is not a book that believes in randomness.
Third, justice drives this sermon. Whether it is the merciful getting mercy or the hungry and thirsty getting filled, Jesus showed that justice is the engine that provides rewards to causes. Notice, justice is a higher principle that determines God’s mercy.
Then this portion of the sermon ends in an interesting summarizing statement:
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are you when people reproach you, persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven. For that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
This phase of the Sermon ends with Jesus talking about how those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake will get the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:10). He further says that we should rejoice and be exceeding glad when men persecute us and say all manner of evil falsely against us because of Jesus (Matthew 5:11-12). Why? Jesus says our reward in Heaven will be great.
Notice one verse talked about getting to Heaven because of righteousness, the other talked about getting rewarded in Heaven. Both are resulting from Justice being upheld in the Long Term.
However, it looks as if Jesus may have two messages. One message is how to get to Heaven. The other message is how to get reward.
Are these the same message?
Did Jesus actually have two messages?
What are the implications?
We will spend the rest of the week investigating these questions.
Next Post
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
The basic structure of the beginning of the sermon is: “Blessed are the (people who have this cause) for they will (get this specific effect because of justice)”. There three points to be made here.
First, the sermon is based on causality. The sermon gives a cause and then an effect.
Second, notice Jesus gives the reason WHY. Everything after the “for” is the reason. In my Bible, all of the following words are circled: “for”, “that”, “because”. These words set up the reason. The Bible gives the reason! It is not a book that believes in randomness.
Third, justice drives this sermon. Whether it is the merciful getting mercy or the hungry and thirsty getting filled, Jesus showed that justice is the engine that provides rewards to causes. Notice, justice is a higher principle that determines God’s mercy.
Then this portion of the sermon ends in an interesting summarizing statement:
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are you when people reproach you, persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven. For that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
This phase of the Sermon ends with Jesus talking about how those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake will get the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:10). He further says that we should rejoice and be exceeding glad when men persecute us and say all manner of evil falsely against us because of Jesus (Matthew 5:11-12). Why? Jesus says our reward in Heaven will be great.
Notice one verse talked about getting to Heaven because of righteousness, the other talked about getting rewarded in Heaven. Both are resulting from Justice being upheld in the Long Term.
However, it looks as if Jesus may have two messages. One message is how to get to Heaven. The other message is how to get reward.
Are these the same message?
Did Jesus actually have two messages?
What are the implications?
We will spend the rest of the week investigating these questions.
Next Post
Friday, August 25, 2006
Grace & Justice
Tuesday we talked about how people equate grace and mercy. If grace is unmerited favor and mercy is the permanent postponement of a punishment, then these two words can be used interchangeably. Now that we understand justice better, we can look at this misconception in a different light.
When I sin, justice says I owe a value. Unmerited favor says God gives me a value I didn’t earn in order to cover the value I took. The implications of this model are:
1. Everything ends up equal for me, but God is out a value.
2. We all need different amounts of value so God must give everyone different amounts of grace. 3. This process of “grace” is initiated by my doing something bad.
Think about that last point.
There is NO grace UNTIL I do something wrong. Further more, the amount of grace the individual has is completely out of his control. It is some amount God has determined for the person. Basically, it is all God’s fault.
Charis begins with God gifting a value to the individual…“the divine influence on the heart”. This grace is made perfect when the individual chooses to let this value flow through them to create more value. This is “the reflection in the life”. The implications of this model are:
1. We end up ahead AND God ends up ahead because value is created.
2. God is constantly giving grace to everyone
3. This process of “grace” is initiated by God doing something good.
God’s grace is on everyone…believer and non-believer. It is the individual’s choice whether they let the influence come out. The action of letting God work through you is not something you claim as an accomplishment because it is God doing the work, not you. However, it is an act you can be judged for because it is an expression of your will. All of the blame is ours for not accepting this gift.
All of the verses in the New Testament using the word "charis" match up with the second model for grace. One of the best places to see grace is in the parable of the talents. God gives to each person and they are responsible for letting it come out in order to generate more. The ones who do, enter into the joy of the Lord. The one who doesn’t let it come out ends up where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The other area I would like to address is justice. We will continue to see Biblical scriptures showing how justice works. These passages will get more complex. For now, I’d like to point out a simple passage.
"Be careful that you don't do your charitable giving before men, to be seen by them, or else you have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Therefore when you do merciful deeds, don't sound a trumpet before yourself, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may get glory from men. Most certainly I tell you, they have received their reward." (Matthew 6:1-2)
The passage begins with a qualifier: “charitable giving”. This means giving to someone who can’t pay you back AND you don’t expect them to pay you back. So justice can’t be equaled out from the recipient.
Suppose you and I separately give a value to the needy. If I do it before men and draw attention to myself, this passage says I got my reward. The word “reward” references justice!
The definition of “reward” is “to recompense BOTH good and bad”. (emphasis added) Most people think of reward as only getting good value. Reward in the Bible also means losing value.
However, if you don’t let people see your giving, from whom and when do you get your reward? You get it from God. The when is still up to you…
…we will address your ability to determine when in the coming weeks.
Next Post
When I sin, justice says I owe a value. Unmerited favor says God gives me a value I didn’t earn in order to cover the value I took. The implications of this model are:
1. Everything ends up equal for me, but God is out a value.
2. We all need different amounts of value so God must give everyone different amounts of grace. 3. This process of “grace” is initiated by my doing something bad.
Think about that last point.
There is NO grace UNTIL I do something wrong. Further more, the amount of grace the individual has is completely out of his control. It is some amount God has determined for the person. Basically, it is all God’s fault.
Charis begins with God gifting a value to the individual…“the divine influence on the heart”. This grace is made perfect when the individual chooses to let this value flow through them to create more value. This is “the reflection in the life”. The implications of this model are:
1. We end up ahead AND God ends up ahead because value is created.
2. God is constantly giving grace to everyone
3. This process of “grace” is initiated by God doing something good.
God’s grace is on everyone…believer and non-believer. It is the individual’s choice whether they let the influence come out. The action of letting God work through you is not something you claim as an accomplishment because it is God doing the work, not you. However, it is an act you can be judged for because it is an expression of your will. All of the blame is ours for not accepting this gift.
All of the verses in the New Testament using the word "charis" match up with the second model for grace. One of the best places to see grace is in the parable of the talents. God gives to each person and they are responsible for letting it come out in order to generate more. The ones who do, enter into the joy of the Lord. The one who doesn’t let it come out ends up where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The other area I would like to address is justice. We will continue to see Biblical scriptures showing how justice works. These passages will get more complex. For now, I’d like to point out a simple passage.
"Be careful that you don't do your charitable giving before men, to be seen by them, or else you have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Therefore when you do merciful deeds, don't sound a trumpet before yourself, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may get glory from men. Most certainly I tell you, they have received their reward." (Matthew 6:1-2)
The passage begins with a qualifier: “charitable giving”. This means giving to someone who can’t pay you back AND you don’t expect them to pay you back. So justice can’t be equaled out from the recipient.
Suppose you and I separately give a value to the needy. If I do it before men and draw attention to myself, this passage says I got my reward. The word “reward” references justice!
The definition of “reward” is “to recompense BOTH good and bad”. (emphasis added) Most people think of reward as only getting good value. Reward in the Bible also means losing value.
However, if you don’t let people see your giving, from whom and when do you get your reward? You get it from God. The when is still up to you…
…we will address your ability to determine when in the coming weeks.
Next Post
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Forgiveness
Yesterday we covered how suffering can result in a value if it is the CAUSE and the suffering person handles it well. When we don’t know the cause of the suffering, we need to have faith and not get into condemnation, doubt, or anger so we don’t lose the value. However, what happens when the cause of our suffering is another person. How do we handle this well?
The Bible says the way to handle this well is to forgive. What is forgiveness? Forgiveness is the expression of your will NOT to work towards resolving an injustice done against you. It is a decision about an action. It is not a feeling. You can forgive someone and still be upset at them.
THE REWARD MODEL
When a person does something unjust towards you, they have taken a value. Justice says you are owed a value. However, God cannot give you that value until He is sure you aren’t going to try to get your own justice. If God were to give you the value and then you were to take a value from the person, God would have to take the value back and possibly take an additional value from you.
It is God’s mercy that causes Him to wait until you have expressed your will towards not getting your own justice immediately. In fact, you could end up owing even if you didn’t initiate this exchange! We’ve already shown there are numerous ways for us to get our justice immediately: strike back, badmouth, etc.
Notice, it is possible for the offending person to be owed a value if we don’t forgive and continue to take a value from them in retaliation. Even though we DIDN’T initiate the conflict, we can end up owing! This also begins to explain one of the reasons why “bad” people prosper in this life. The answer? Because people don’t forgive them!
I call this “obnoxious and oblivious”. You’ve seen these people. They are obnoxious to others and oblivious to the results of their offenses. Yet, they are seen as a “success” by the world. Part of the reason they have value is that they initiate conflict and then take no further value. Meanwhile, the offended party speaks ill about the offender to others. The others speak ill and the offender is actually gaining through justice.
Remember also, we have the choice to have our value here or in Heaven. These people better enjoy their value here because they most likely won’t get to enjoy it after they leave this existence. Again, Jesus’ answer to this is to forgive these people. It is the quickest way to limit their value and allow God to move against them.
So, the right thing to do is to forgive those who persecute us. It would follow that the quicker we forgive people, the more right we are. Are we more right than God? Of course not! That would mean that God must forgive even quicker than us. There is a difference between God’s forgiveness and justice. God forgives quickest so that justice can handle the situation.
Some famous writers have stated that it is the hardest thing in the world to believe God forgives us. Then they tell you to just believe it without giving an explanation. No wonder it is hard. Now you know the WHY behind God’s forgiveness. For Him not to forgive would make Him less right than you.
When we ask someone for forgiveness, we are asking them not to move against us. This would certainly benefit us in the short-term if the person we are approaching is someone who has power over our existence (like a king). However, when we ask for forgiveness, we are really asking for the person to let our punishment come from God.
Forgiveness benefits the forgiver in the Long Term. It DOES NOT benefit the forgiven in the Long Term because justice says we will ALWAYS have to make it equal.
Now we have learned a third way to obtain a value. Forgive people the things they’ve done to you, even if it happened years ago.
Next Post
The Bible says the way to handle this well is to forgive. What is forgiveness? Forgiveness is the expression of your will NOT to work towards resolving an injustice done against you. It is a decision about an action. It is not a feeling. You can forgive someone and still be upset at them.
THE REWARD MODEL
When a person does something unjust towards you, they have taken a value. Justice says you are owed a value. However, God cannot give you that value until He is sure you aren’t going to try to get your own justice. If God were to give you the value and then you were to take a value from the person, God would have to take the value back and possibly take an additional value from you.
It is God’s mercy that causes Him to wait until you have expressed your will towards not getting your own justice immediately. In fact, you could end up owing even if you didn’t initiate this exchange! We’ve already shown there are numerous ways for us to get our justice immediately: strike back, badmouth, etc.
Notice, it is possible for the offending person to be owed a value if we don’t forgive and continue to take a value from them in retaliation. Even though we DIDN’T initiate the conflict, we can end up owing! This also begins to explain one of the reasons why “bad” people prosper in this life. The answer? Because people don’t forgive them!
I call this “obnoxious and oblivious”. You’ve seen these people. They are obnoxious to others and oblivious to the results of their offenses. Yet, they are seen as a “success” by the world. Part of the reason they have value is that they initiate conflict and then take no further value. Meanwhile, the offended party speaks ill about the offender to others. The others speak ill and the offender is actually gaining through justice.
Remember also, we have the choice to have our value here or in Heaven. These people better enjoy their value here because they most likely won’t get to enjoy it after they leave this existence. Again, Jesus’ answer to this is to forgive these people. It is the quickest way to limit their value and allow God to move against them.
So, the right thing to do is to forgive those who persecute us. It would follow that the quicker we forgive people, the more right we are. Are we more right than God? Of course not! That would mean that God must forgive even quicker than us. There is a difference between God’s forgiveness and justice. God forgives quickest so that justice can handle the situation.
Some famous writers have stated that it is the hardest thing in the world to believe God forgives us. Then they tell you to just believe it without giving an explanation. No wonder it is hard. Now you know the WHY behind God’s forgiveness. For Him not to forgive would make Him less right than you.
When we ask someone for forgiveness, we are asking them not to move against us. This would certainly benefit us in the short-term if the person we are approaching is someone who has power over our existence (like a king). However, when we ask for forgiveness, we are really asking for the person to let our punishment come from God.
Forgiveness benefits the forgiver in the Long Term. It DOES NOT benefit the forgiven in the Long Term because justice says we will ALWAYS have to make it equal.
Now we have learned a third way to obtain a value. Forgive people the things they’ve done to you, even if it happened years ago.
Next Post
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Suffering
Yesterday’s entry focused on a topic related to the justice process: mercy. Justice doesn’t say when God has to equal everything out. This time interval between the unjust action and the equaling out is called “mercy”.
We also saw an example of how having the correct perspective of justice leads to more understanding and intentional progress. A popular and important example is suffering. This example relies on justice and causality.
When a person is suffering, the first thought that races through their mind is “why?” This can take many forms including: “Why is this happening to me?” or “Why can’t I get over this?” This is an appeal to causality.
Remember, causality says specific effects come from specific causes, even if we don’t yet understand the cause. Some people state this as “Everything happens for a reason”. What this does mean is the effects you see came from a specific cause. What this doesn’t mean is that God is the specific cause for everything that has happened.
When something happens to a person that causes suffering, the focus should turn towards determining the cause. What about justice?
Some would say justice proves that he must have done something wrong…that is, suffering is the effect of something he caused. This isn’t necessarily true. We know people do suffer from things they didn’t cause. How do we resolve the apparent contradiction?
There must be two types of suffering. One suffering is a cause and the other is an effect. For instance, if I do something wrong, I cause myself (and possibly others) suffering. This suffering is an EFFECT or a result. In this case, I could limit my punishment by actively repairing the unholy cause and effects.
One example of this occurs with twelve step programs. Part of the process for the person who has admitted their addiction is to realize how their actions have caused their own suffering and the suffering of others. Once this has been realized, the person who CAUSED the suffering actively addresses each person they have injured in an attempt to limit or repair the suffering.
Sometimes the admission is enough. For instance, there may be people who are suffering because of something I did, yet they don’t know I did it. So their suffering takes on the form we saw earlier: “Why is this happening to me?” They can’t seem to move on because they can’t get an answer. When I tell them their suffering has been caused by me, they can now move on because they know the cause.
However, if I don’t cause my suffering, then the suffering occurs for no just reason. This suffering is a CAUSE. What does justice say about this situation? It appears that justice says I’m due a value because my suffering is unjust.
Remember, justice is going to make everything eventually EXACTLY equal out. How much of a benefit am I due? It depends on how I handled the suffering. If I was unjust during the handling of the suffering; then justice will lessen the value due to me.
My benefit (effect) is a result of how I handle the suffering. If I handle the suffering well, then I am due the value. If I handle the suffering poorly, then I receive little to no value. That leads to a mind blowing conclusion…
Justice not being IMMEDIATELY upheld in this world actually allows us the opportunity to acquire value.
Earlier we saw one way to receive value through justice was to give a value to someone who won’t (enemies) or can’t (disadvantaged) pay you back. Now we’ve seen a second way to receive a value: handle injustice well.
Tomorrow we will look at the key to handling injustice well and the implications.
Next Post
We also saw an example of how having the correct perspective of justice leads to more understanding and intentional progress. A popular and important example is suffering. This example relies on justice and causality.
When a person is suffering, the first thought that races through their mind is “why?” This can take many forms including: “Why is this happening to me?” or “Why can’t I get over this?” This is an appeal to causality.
Remember, causality says specific effects come from specific causes, even if we don’t yet understand the cause. Some people state this as “Everything happens for a reason”. What this does mean is the effects you see came from a specific cause. What this doesn’t mean is that God is the specific cause for everything that has happened.
When something happens to a person that causes suffering, the focus should turn towards determining the cause. What about justice?
Some would say justice proves that he must have done something wrong…that is, suffering is the effect of something he caused. This isn’t necessarily true. We know people do suffer from things they didn’t cause. How do we resolve the apparent contradiction?
There must be two types of suffering. One suffering is a cause and the other is an effect. For instance, if I do something wrong, I cause myself (and possibly others) suffering. This suffering is an EFFECT or a result. In this case, I could limit my punishment by actively repairing the unholy cause and effects.
One example of this occurs with twelve step programs. Part of the process for the person who has admitted their addiction is to realize how their actions have caused their own suffering and the suffering of others. Once this has been realized, the person who CAUSED the suffering actively addresses each person they have injured in an attempt to limit or repair the suffering.
Sometimes the admission is enough. For instance, there may be people who are suffering because of something I did, yet they don’t know I did it. So their suffering takes on the form we saw earlier: “Why is this happening to me?” They can’t seem to move on because they can’t get an answer. When I tell them their suffering has been caused by me, they can now move on because they know the cause.
However, if I don’t cause my suffering, then the suffering occurs for no just reason. This suffering is a CAUSE. What does justice say about this situation? It appears that justice says I’m due a value because my suffering is unjust.
Remember, justice is going to make everything eventually EXACTLY equal out. How much of a benefit am I due? It depends on how I handled the suffering. If I was unjust during the handling of the suffering; then justice will lessen the value due to me.
My benefit (effect) is a result of how I handle the suffering. If I handle the suffering well, then I am due the value. If I handle the suffering poorly, then I receive little to no value. That leads to a mind blowing conclusion…
Justice not being IMMEDIATELY upheld in this world actually allows us the opportunity to acquire value.
Earlier we saw one way to receive value through justice was to give a value to someone who won’t (enemies) or can’t (disadvantaged) pay you back. Now we’ve seen a second way to receive a value: handle injustice well.
Tomorrow we will look at the key to handling injustice well and the implications.
Next Post
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Mercy
Yesterday’s post showed how God used Pharaoh’s skewed perspective of justice to “hardened” Pharaoh’s heart. Some may ask, “What about mercy?” What is mercy?
First, we need to start with justice. When we do something wrong (take a value unjustly), God has every right to move against us because of justice. However, justice DOESN’T determine when God will do it. Justice only states that everything will eventually EXACTLY equal out in the end.
God wants us to wake up and fix our wrong so He doesn’t make us pay for it either in this existence or the next. In order to give us the opportunity to make a change, God allows us time to realize it. However, this time interval is not the same for every person or every unjust act. This time interval is known as “mercy”.
Mercy is the postponement of judgment…but it is only a postponement.
Mercy is the act of allowing an interval of time between the bad act and the punishment. For instance, if God would strike me with lightning the second I did something wrong, that would be an example of little to no mercy. If I instantly punished my kid the minute they did something wrong, this would also be an example of little to no mercy.
If God were to wait years before He struck me for a specific bad act, that would be an example of great (or a lot of) mercy. Notice, justice says the mercy will not last forever. There will come a time when justice will require everything to be EXACTLY equaled out.
However, God can also show His mercy BY punishing us. For instance, if allowing us more time causes us to do worse things, God is actually being merciful by striking us in order to wake us up. If God hadn’t corrected us, then we would have gotten further off track and justice would have required a greater value from us. In the Big Picture and Long Term, we actually would WANT God to punish us now so we don’t face a bigger punishment later.
God allows a period of time because He wants all of us to wake up and compensate for the value we’ve taken to avoid getting punished from Him. Yes, this is uncomfortable. However, in the Long Term, we should want to make things right no matter how much short-term pain we experience.
Before we discuss this process further, this is a good place to cover one of the misconceptions when it comes to mercy: grace. We have already covered the definition of grace. It is charis (“the divine influence on the heart and its reflection in the life”). However, some people think it is “unmerited favor”. They use the word “grace” interchangeably with “mercy”. Why?
First of all, the concept of “unmerited favor” contradicts justice. The idea is that we get a value from God that we didn’t deserve in order to cover our sin (a value we have obtained unjustly). We aren’t going to get something for nothing. This contradicts justice. People know this…
So, the answer is that while we deserve a punishment, “grace” (unmerited favor) says the punishment never comes. In effect, “mercy” lasts forever. Infinite mercy IS the same as unmerited favor. Both admit we took a value AND both try to put off our ever having to repay that value…even though justice requires it to equal out.
In the coming posts, we will cover how grace and mercy actually follows justice and results in an explanation for salvation that lacks contradiction. For now, watch for people who speak of “grace” and “mercy” interchangeably…they are denying justice.
We saw what happened to Pharaoh when he had a skewed perspective of justice…
Next Post
First, we need to start with justice. When we do something wrong (take a value unjustly), God has every right to move against us because of justice. However, justice DOESN’T determine when God will do it. Justice only states that everything will eventually EXACTLY equal out in the end.
God wants us to wake up and fix our wrong so He doesn’t make us pay for it either in this existence or the next. In order to give us the opportunity to make a change, God allows us time to realize it. However, this time interval is not the same for every person or every unjust act. This time interval is known as “mercy”.
Mercy is the postponement of judgment…but it is only a postponement.
Mercy is the act of allowing an interval of time between the bad act and the punishment. For instance, if God would strike me with lightning the second I did something wrong, that would be an example of little to no mercy. If I instantly punished my kid the minute they did something wrong, this would also be an example of little to no mercy.
If God were to wait years before He struck me for a specific bad act, that would be an example of great (or a lot of) mercy. Notice, justice says the mercy will not last forever. There will come a time when justice will require everything to be EXACTLY equaled out.
However, God can also show His mercy BY punishing us. For instance, if allowing us more time causes us to do worse things, God is actually being merciful by striking us in order to wake us up. If God hadn’t corrected us, then we would have gotten further off track and justice would have required a greater value from us. In the Big Picture and Long Term, we actually would WANT God to punish us now so we don’t face a bigger punishment later.
God allows a period of time because He wants all of us to wake up and compensate for the value we’ve taken to avoid getting punished from Him. Yes, this is uncomfortable. However, in the Long Term, we should want to make things right no matter how much short-term pain we experience.
Before we discuss this process further, this is a good place to cover one of the misconceptions when it comes to mercy: grace. We have already covered the definition of grace. It is charis (“the divine influence on the heart and its reflection in the life”). However, some people think it is “unmerited favor”. They use the word “grace” interchangeably with “mercy”. Why?
First of all, the concept of “unmerited favor” contradicts justice. The idea is that we get a value from God that we didn’t deserve in order to cover our sin (a value we have obtained unjustly). We aren’t going to get something for nothing. This contradicts justice. People know this…
So, the answer is that while we deserve a punishment, “grace” (unmerited favor) says the punishment never comes. In effect, “mercy” lasts forever. Infinite mercy IS the same as unmerited favor. Both admit we took a value AND both try to put off our ever having to repay that value…even though justice requires it to equal out.
In the coming posts, we will cover how grace and mercy actually follows justice and results in an explanation for salvation that lacks contradiction. For now, watch for people who speak of “grace” and “mercy” interchangeably…they are denying justice.
We saw what happened to Pharaoh when he had a skewed perspective of justice…
Next Post
Monday, August 21, 2006
Moses and Pharaoh
Yesterday’s post covered why we are supposed to love our enemies and let God invoke punishment. In fact, the post talked about how we can initiate the process of our enemies getting punished by God. This raises numerous questions. There are a lot of ways to go from this point and a lot of ground to cover. We will get to all the implications. For today, let’s focus on this one: How does God initiate punishment?
How can God punish (move against someone) without it being unjust? How does God make sure He is completely Righteous ALL the time?
God punishes justly by giving a good or neutral value and getting a bad value in return. This allows God to settle the accounts through justice by “punishing” the unjust. There are numerous examples. Let’s look at one: Moses and Pharaoh.
The process began when God told Moses to tell Pharaoh to let His people worship Him in the wilderness (Exodus 5:1). Notice, there is NOTHING wrong with this request. God has NOT taken a value away from Pharaoh.
Today, there are fundamentalists who believe it is a sin to CONSIDER another perspective of God and/or the Bible. This is a defensive (almost cultish) mentality. The real problem is these people are focused on how things look. They are concerned with appearances…and so were the Pharisees. These people are not being asked to believe something that is wrong or act on something that is wrong. There is nothing wrong with considering another possible interpretation of the Bible and then making a decision not to believe it or act on it.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with Pharaoh being asked to consider a request and then deciding to not believe it or act on it. Pharaoh denied Moses’ request. So far there have been no violations of justice on either side of the issue. However, Exodus 5:4-9 says Pharaoh then made work harder for the Israelites. Pharaoh is obsessed with how things look. Justice is now against Pharaoh and for God.
Moses is told to go to Pharaoh again (Exodus 6:11). When Moses disagrees, God lets Aaron speak to Pharaoh. Then God tells Moses His plan (Exodus 7:1-5).
God says He will harden Pharaoh’s heart and Pharaoh will not listen. This does not mean God “sovereignly” makes Pharaoh do it against his will. This means God knows Pharaoh. He can predict what Pharaoh will do because He knows Pharaoh thinks he is on the right side of justice. This is a key point.
God knows Pharaoh thinks that he has equaled out justice. Pharaoh considered the request as an offense. Pharaoh first thought he was on the right side of justice (is owed) then believes justice has no bearing because everything is equal. However, God knows justice is against Pharaoh.
Since justice is against Pharaoh, God can now JUSTLY take a value away from Pharaoh in order to equal out justice. Once God does this, everything will be equal. However, God believes this act will cause Pharaoh to think he is owed even more according to justice and allow him to take even more…which then allows God to invoke a greater punishment…which causes Pharaoh to think he is owed even more. Understanding justice leads to knowing the WHY behind Pharaoh’s actions and God’s plan.
The rest of the story is simply a ramping up of justice against Pharaoh. In fact, Pharaoh makes it worse by agreeing several times to let the Israelites go and then backing out each time. Every time Pharaoh backed out of a deal it allowed God to justly repay with even more damaging plagues (frogs, lice, flies, pestilence, boils, hail, locusts, and darkness) leading eventually to the first-born being killed during Passover.
Next Post
How can God punish (move against someone) without it being unjust? How does God make sure He is completely Righteous ALL the time?
God punishes justly by giving a good or neutral value and getting a bad value in return. This allows God to settle the accounts through justice by “punishing” the unjust. There are numerous examples. Let’s look at one: Moses and Pharaoh.
The process began when God told Moses to tell Pharaoh to let His people worship Him in the wilderness (Exodus 5:1). Notice, there is NOTHING wrong with this request. God has NOT taken a value away from Pharaoh.
Today, there are fundamentalists who believe it is a sin to CONSIDER another perspective of God and/or the Bible. This is a defensive (almost cultish) mentality. The real problem is these people are focused on how things look. They are concerned with appearances…and so were the Pharisees. These people are not being asked to believe something that is wrong or act on something that is wrong. There is nothing wrong with considering another possible interpretation of the Bible and then making a decision not to believe it or act on it.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with Pharaoh being asked to consider a request and then deciding to not believe it or act on it. Pharaoh denied Moses’ request. So far there have been no violations of justice on either side of the issue. However, Exodus 5:4-9 says Pharaoh then made work harder for the Israelites. Pharaoh is obsessed with how things look. Justice is now against Pharaoh and for God.
Moses is told to go to Pharaoh again (Exodus 6:11). When Moses disagrees, God lets Aaron speak to Pharaoh. Then God tells Moses His plan (Exodus 7:1-5).
God says He will harden Pharaoh’s heart and Pharaoh will not listen. This does not mean God “sovereignly” makes Pharaoh do it against his will. This means God knows Pharaoh. He can predict what Pharaoh will do because He knows Pharaoh thinks he is on the right side of justice. This is a key point.
God knows Pharaoh thinks that he has equaled out justice. Pharaoh considered the request as an offense. Pharaoh first thought he was on the right side of justice (is owed) then believes justice has no bearing because everything is equal. However, God knows justice is against Pharaoh.
Since justice is against Pharaoh, God can now JUSTLY take a value away from Pharaoh in order to equal out justice. Once God does this, everything will be equal. However, God believes this act will cause Pharaoh to think he is owed even more according to justice and allow him to take even more…which then allows God to invoke a greater punishment…which causes Pharaoh to think he is owed even more. Understanding justice leads to knowing the WHY behind Pharaoh’s actions and God’s plan.
The rest of the story is simply a ramping up of justice against Pharaoh. In fact, Pharaoh makes it worse by agreeing several times to let the Israelites go and then backing out each time. Every time Pharaoh backed out of a deal it allowed God to justly repay with even more damaging plagues (frogs, lice, flies, pestilence, boils, hail, locusts, and darkness) leading eventually to the first-born being killed during Passover.
Next Post
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Loving Enemies
The concept of Justice runs throughout the Bible and serves as the engine that makes things work. For example, there are three places in the Bible where we are told to love our enemies. Jesus, Solomon, and Paul all said for us to do it. Why?
When we give someone a value, justice says we are owed a value because EVERYTHING has to equal out. Likewise, when we take a value from someone, justice says we will eventually pay a value of EXACTLY the same amount. So, what happens when we give a value to our enemies?
Justice would say our enemies should pay us back. However, our enemies are the LAST people who will repay us. If our enemies won’t give us a value back, from where are we going to get the value? The only place is God. Jesus said this!
“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great…” (Luke 6:35)
In fact, Jesus said there is no reward from God for being kind to your friends…because they will be kind back.
“When you make a dinner or a supper, don’t call your friends, nor your brothers, your kinsmen, nor rich neighbors, or perhaps they might also return the favor, and pay you back.” (Luke 14:12)
Furthermore, they may return greater value to us and we are the ones who owe! Being kind to people who can’t or won’t pay you back is one sure way to get a value from God. God wants us to not repay people with evil so we can receive a value from God.
Notice how the New Testament never says to take revenge on someone. We are humans and prone to err. If we try to administer our own justice and are wrong, we will be due a greater penalty because of justice. For example, Jesus warned us not to pull up the tares because we might accidentally pull up the wheat. (Matthew 13:29) So who gets the revenge?
“Don’t seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God’s wrath. For it is written, “Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord.” Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing so, you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Don’t be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12: 19-21)
Paul says loving your enemy causes God’s judgment to fall on them. Some people want to believe this passage means it actually goes well for the enemy because he has “coals to warm his head through the desert at night”. THIS is a perfect example of comparative thinking. The reality is this passage speaks of coals of FIRE and is mentioned in the context of God handling evil through justice BECAUSE we are good to them.
God always tells us to be kind so that God can handle it. If we take a value from people who mistreat us, then God CAN’T justly move against the offending party! Religions that say it is okay for individuals to resolve a personal injustice are short-term and contradict a God that is Big Picture and Long Term.
So, which one is it? Do we love our enemies in order to get a reward, like Jesus said? Or do we love our enemies so that God can move against our enemies, like Paul said?
“If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat. If he is thirsty, give him water to drink: for you will heap coals of fire on his head, and Yahweh will reward you.” (Proverbs 25: 21-22)
It looks like both are right! We are supposed to love others and not try to get our own justice so that God can handle it and we can get a reward.
However, when people are wronged, they do get their justice apart from God through any number of ways. For example, they attack back, take “an eye for an eye”, they badmouth the person, or they have ill feelings toward them. If they take any of these actions to an extreme, they may even end up deserving a punishment from God!
Remember, this world is not the end. Ultimately, we have a choice whether we want to be paid or punished in this world or the next. If we decide to avoid our punishment here, then we will be punished after this life.
Next Post
When we give someone a value, justice says we are owed a value because EVERYTHING has to equal out. Likewise, when we take a value from someone, justice says we will eventually pay a value of EXACTLY the same amount. So, what happens when we give a value to our enemies?
Justice would say our enemies should pay us back. However, our enemies are the LAST people who will repay us. If our enemies won’t give us a value back, from where are we going to get the value? The only place is God. Jesus said this!
“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great…” (Luke 6:35)
In fact, Jesus said there is no reward from God for being kind to your friends…because they will be kind back.
“When you make a dinner or a supper, don’t call your friends, nor your brothers, your kinsmen, nor rich neighbors, or perhaps they might also return the favor, and pay you back.” (Luke 14:12)
Furthermore, they may return greater value to us and we are the ones who owe! Being kind to people who can’t or won’t pay you back is one sure way to get a value from God. God wants us to not repay people with evil so we can receive a value from God.
Notice how the New Testament never says to take revenge on someone. We are humans and prone to err. If we try to administer our own justice and are wrong, we will be due a greater penalty because of justice. For example, Jesus warned us not to pull up the tares because we might accidentally pull up the wheat. (Matthew 13:29) So who gets the revenge?
“Don’t seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God’s wrath. For it is written, “Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord.” Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing so, you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Don’t be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12: 19-21)
Paul says loving your enemy causes God’s judgment to fall on them. Some people want to believe this passage means it actually goes well for the enemy because he has “coals to warm his head through the desert at night”. THIS is a perfect example of comparative thinking. The reality is this passage speaks of coals of FIRE and is mentioned in the context of God handling evil through justice BECAUSE we are good to them.
God always tells us to be kind so that God can handle it. If we take a value from people who mistreat us, then God CAN’T justly move against the offending party! Religions that say it is okay for individuals to resolve a personal injustice are short-term and contradict a God that is Big Picture and Long Term.
So, which one is it? Do we love our enemies in order to get a reward, like Jesus said? Or do we love our enemies so that God can move against our enemies, like Paul said?
“If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat. If he is thirsty, give him water to drink: for you will heap coals of fire on his head, and Yahweh will reward you.” (Proverbs 25: 21-22)
It looks like both are right! We are supposed to love others and not try to get our own justice so that God can handle it and we can get a reward.
However, when people are wronged, they do get their justice apart from God through any number of ways. For example, they attack back, take “an eye for an eye”, they badmouth the person, or they have ill feelings toward them. If they take any of these actions to an extreme, they may even end up deserving a punishment from God!
Remember, this world is not the end. Ultimately, we have a choice whether we want to be paid or punished in this world or the next. If we decide to avoid our punishment here, then we will be punished after this life.
Next Post
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Justice
God is completely Just ALL the time.
Just means that God operates according to justice and this defines God quantitatively. Every other attempt to quantitatively describe God either limits or contradicts Just. Justice says everyone will get exactly what he or she deserves. They will get rewarded for all the good and punished for all the bad.
At first this talk about Justice sounds very naïve and childish. However, when you think about it, every religion believes in Justice. Every religion is based on the idea that you can’t do whatever you want without paying for it. Every religion believes in being rewarded for doing good and being punished for doing bad.
We know Justice exists intuitively. This knowledge creates guilt when we do something that deserves punishment. If we didn’t believe we would have to pay we would be denying Justice. That is the same as denying God’s existence.
The most familiar application of Justice occurs in stories, especially movies. Their plots tend to be driven by the need to resolve an injustice. These stories are universal and consequently so is the concept of Justice.
Other religions use different words to describe Justice. The most familiar version of this is Karma. Karma says that when you put out good energy, you will receive good energy. Likewise, when you put out bad energy, you will receive bad energy in return.
Let’s be clear: this is not fate. Karma does not say there’s nothing you can do about your future. It says the opposite. It says you are determining the direction of your future, but not specific events.
The Bible references Justice when it uses the phrases: “with the same measure”, “an eye for an eye”, “as a man sows, so shall he reap”, etc.
Justice is also seen in the comments about how someone will receive little recognition after this life if they receive great recognition during this life. (Matthew 6:2) This leads to a Big Picture view of Justice.
The Old Testament has several passages that have a small picture view of Justice. In fact, some would say that the Old Testament speaks about Justice not existing. In the Old Testament, Job, Solomon, David, etc. questioned Justice. They saw evil people prospering and asked how could this be just? (“Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal.” Ezekiel 18:25)
When the response was that these evil people are yet to experience a horrible punishment, the writers stated they saw good people die early. How can Justice exist without contradiction?
If we take a Big Picture view, we realize Justice is upheld at the end. This world is not the end. A lot of famous literature misses the boat on this point. God can’t violate Justice. If God were to be unjust, then everything would cease to exist.
We have a free will. We can choose to do anything apart from our nature. This is one of the major differences between God and us. We can choose to be just or unjust; God cannot. God gave us this ability because it would have been unjust to control or limit us. This is why things in this world are not perfect…because God is Just.
The concept of Justice runs throughout the Bible and serves as the engine that makes things work. It is a HUGE concept that can explain God’s “Rules of Engagement” with man.
Justice explains EVERY instance where God moved on the behalf of someone, moved against someone, or didn’t move at all. Ultimately, Justice is the solution to the issue that has stumped the church for ages: sovereignty/predestination vs. free will.
Next Post
Just means that God operates according to justice and this defines God quantitatively. Every other attempt to quantitatively describe God either limits or contradicts Just. Justice says everyone will get exactly what he or she deserves. They will get rewarded for all the good and punished for all the bad.
At first this talk about Justice sounds very naïve and childish. However, when you think about it, every religion believes in Justice. Every religion is based on the idea that you can’t do whatever you want without paying for it. Every religion believes in being rewarded for doing good and being punished for doing bad.
We know Justice exists intuitively. This knowledge creates guilt when we do something that deserves punishment. If we didn’t believe we would have to pay we would be denying Justice. That is the same as denying God’s existence.
The most familiar application of Justice occurs in stories, especially movies. Their plots tend to be driven by the need to resolve an injustice. These stories are universal and consequently so is the concept of Justice.
Other religions use different words to describe Justice. The most familiar version of this is Karma. Karma says that when you put out good energy, you will receive good energy. Likewise, when you put out bad energy, you will receive bad energy in return.
Let’s be clear: this is not fate. Karma does not say there’s nothing you can do about your future. It says the opposite. It says you are determining the direction of your future, but not specific events.
The Bible references Justice when it uses the phrases: “with the same measure”, “an eye for an eye”, “as a man sows, so shall he reap”, etc.
Justice is also seen in the comments about how someone will receive little recognition after this life if they receive great recognition during this life. (Matthew 6:2) This leads to a Big Picture view of Justice.
The Old Testament has several passages that have a small picture view of Justice. In fact, some would say that the Old Testament speaks about Justice not existing. In the Old Testament, Job, Solomon, David, etc. questioned Justice. They saw evil people prospering and asked how could this be just? (“Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal.” Ezekiel 18:25)
When the response was that these evil people are yet to experience a horrible punishment, the writers stated they saw good people die early. How can Justice exist without contradiction?
If we take a Big Picture view, we realize Justice is upheld at the end. This world is not the end. A lot of famous literature misses the boat on this point. God can’t violate Justice. If God were to be unjust, then everything would cease to exist.
We have a free will. We can choose to do anything apart from our nature. This is one of the major differences between God and us. We can choose to be just or unjust; God cannot. God gave us this ability because it would have been unjust to control or limit us. This is why things in this world are not perfect…because God is Just.
The concept of Justice runs throughout the Bible and serves as the engine that makes things work. It is a HUGE concept that can explain God’s “Rules of Engagement” with man.
Justice explains EVERY instance where God moved on the behalf of someone, moved against someone, or didn’t move at all. Ultimately, Justice is the solution to the issue that has stumped the church for ages: sovereignty/predestination vs. free will.
Next Post
Friday, August 18, 2006
Determining Definitions
Let’s wrap up some loose ends from this week’s topic…
There are a variety of ways to determine the specific definitions of key words. The first and best way is to take the definition given by the Bible. We did this with faith. Paul wrote a specific definition. We found faith was two things.
Faith is a belief in something that: 1) We can’t see and/or 2) Hasn’t happened yet.
When the Bible doesn’t give a specific definition, the next best way to determine the specific definition is through a concordance. A concordance gives the definition of the word in its original language. We did this with grace. We found out the word used for grace was “charis”.
Charis is the divine influence on the heart and its reflection in the life.
We saw how we can give charis to others. Ephesians 4:29 says we can influence the heart of others and it can come out in their actions. It is a beautiful example of how we can be like God to others.
We saw Galatians 2:21 says we can frustrate the grace of God by looking to the Law for the influence that is reflected in our actions.
We can prove this definition of grace is non-contradictory by showing that it fits EVERY verse in the Bible that uses the word “charis”. Unmerited favor DOES NOT fit every verse in the Bible that uses the word “charis”. What is sad is how people fight for this definition even though it has never fully made sense in the 500 years that it has become the accepted definition.
It would be nice if these two techniques gave us the specific definition of every key word in the Bible. Unfortunately, they don’t. There are words that aren’t defined by the author of the Bible. The definitions of these words according to a concordance are abstract. What do we do?
The third technique is to determine the definition that makes all the verses non-contradictory. (The first two techniques should also give non-contradictory definitions.) A simple example is “holy”. A concordance says holy means “pure, clean, set apart”. There are verses where pure fits the definition of holy better than set apart. Then there are verses where set apart fits the definition of holy better than clean. What is the specific definition?
It appears the specific definition would be the cause that would result in the effects given in the abstract definition. There is a specific definition of holy and it results in things being pure, clean, and set apart. My favorite example is love.
We saw with the Henderson 4000 that the specific definition is NOT simply a list of the effects. The same could be said for “love”. People like to say I Corinthians 13 gives the definition of love. It doesn’t. It gives 16 EFFECTS (or RESULTS) of love…and 9 are what love IS NOT!
That would be like me explaining "car" to you by saying, “It has wheels, it doesn’t have wings, it doesn’t have a horse pulling it,…” Can you really explain what “car” is to someone based on my listing of what “car” is and is not?
However, when you determine the specific definition, it is proven by its ability to give the “why” behind the effects listed by the Bible. When you understand the specific definition of love, you instantly see WHY it is patient, kind, not keeping record of wrongs, etc. You can see why it is possible to love someone even when you don’t feel like it. In fact, it will show you HOW to intentionally love someone when you don’t feel like it.
Last week I went on a blog and discussed our ability to know what we are talking about. One person in the ministry (!) said we COULDN’T know the definition of love. Jesus said they will know us by our love for one another. Love is HUGELY important and this minister didn’t believe we could know what we are talking about…YET we should continue to act as if we do? I responded this way:
Not only can we know what "love" means, we can also know what we mean when we say, "I love you."
It may sound simple, but think about it for a second...If love is an emotion, then it is not something we can control.
Love is something we are supposed to be able do EVEN WHEN WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT.If love is something we do, then isn't telling somebody "I love you" bragging or drawing attention to something we do...which isn't love according to I Cor 13.
We use that word everyday...it is hugely important...and you don't think we can know what it means?
I got no response…
Next Post
There are a variety of ways to determine the specific definitions of key words. The first and best way is to take the definition given by the Bible. We did this with faith. Paul wrote a specific definition. We found faith was two things.
Faith is a belief in something that: 1) We can’t see and/or 2) Hasn’t happened yet.
When the Bible doesn’t give a specific definition, the next best way to determine the specific definition is through a concordance. A concordance gives the definition of the word in its original language. We did this with grace. We found out the word used for grace was “charis”.
Charis is the divine influence on the heart and its reflection in the life.
We saw how we can give charis to others. Ephesians 4:29 says we can influence the heart of others and it can come out in their actions. It is a beautiful example of how we can be like God to others.
We saw Galatians 2:21 says we can frustrate the grace of God by looking to the Law for the influence that is reflected in our actions.
We can prove this definition of grace is non-contradictory by showing that it fits EVERY verse in the Bible that uses the word “charis”. Unmerited favor DOES NOT fit every verse in the Bible that uses the word “charis”. What is sad is how people fight for this definition even though it has never fully made sense in the 500 years that it has become the accepted definition.
It would be nice if these two techniques gave us the specific definition of every key word in the Bible. Unfortunately, they don’t. There are words that aren’t defined by the author of the Bible. The definitions of these words according to a concordance are abstract. What do we do?
The third technique is to determine the definition that makes all the verses non-contradictory. (The first two techniques should also give non-contradictory definitions.) A simple example is “holy”. A concordance says holy means “pure, clean, set apart”. There are verses where pure fits the definition of holy better than set apart. Then there are verses where set apart fits the definition of holy better than clean. What is the specific definition?
It appears the specific definition would be the cause that would result in the effects given in the abstract definition. There is a specific definition of holy and it results in things being pure, clean, and set apart. My favorite example is love.
We saw with the Henderson 4000 that the specific definition is NOT simply a list of the effects. The same could be said for “love”. People like to say I Corinthians 13 gives the definition of love. It doesn’t. It gives 16 EFFECTS (or RESULTS) of love…and 9 are what love IS NOT!
That would be like me explaining "car" to you by saying, “It has wheels, it doesn’t have wings, it doesn’t have a horse pulling it,…” Can you really explain what “car” is to someone based on my listing of what “car” is and is not?
However, when you determine the specific definition, it is proven by its ability to give the “why” behind the effects listed by the Bible. When you understand the specific definition of love, you instantly see WHY it is patient, kind, not keeping record of wrongs, etc. You can see why it is possible to love someone even when you don’t feel like it. In fact, it will show you HOW to intentionally love someone when you don’t feel like it.
Last week I went on a blog and discussed our ability to know what we are talking about. One person in the ministry (!) said we COULDN’T know the definition of love. Jesus said they will know us by our love for one another. Love is HUGELY important and this minister didn’t believe we could know what we are talking about…YET we should continue to act as if we do? I responded this way:
Not only can we know what "love" means, we can also know what we mean when we say, "I love you."
It may sound simple, but think about it for a second...If love is an emotion, then it is not something we can control.
Love is something we are supposed to be able do EVEN WHEN WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT.If love is something we do, then isn't telling somebody "I love you" bragging or drawing attention to something we do...which isn't love according to I Cor 13.
We use that word everyday...it is hugely important...and you don't think we can know what it means?
I got no response…
Next Post
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Definitions: Grace
When you ask most people their definition of “grace”, their answer is “unmerited favor”. Some people think this was the definition in the Old Testament. According to Strong’s Concordance, the word for “grace” in the Old Testament was “chen” and has a reference number of 2580. It means “kindness” or “favor”. It is from a root word “chawan” (reference number 2603) meaning “to stoop in kindness to an inferior.” The definition “unmerited favor” does not come from the Old Testament.” We will see it is based on tradition.
Grace: The divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life. (Charis 5485)
There are two steps to grace! First we have to intentionally let God influence our heart. We have to focus on strengthening our ability to hear God and our ability to let God influence our heart. These are actions that are in our control and can be improved with experience.
Further, these are actions that are consistently mentioned in the Bible so they can be better understood through knowledge. Also, these are actions we could be condemned for not doing. Finally, notice this divine influence occurs individually on our hearts. Grace is a process that occurs between God and the individual…there are no other participants.
This first part of grace could be described as “unmerited favor”. God’s influence is definitely “favor”. Also, it is “unmerited” in that we did nothing to deserve this influence. Actually, God is speaking to everyone whether they are a Christian or not. God’s grace extends to everyone. It is our fault if we don’t listen to God.
However, if we stop here, we miss the real impact of grace. Unfortunately, tradition has stripped Christianity of its full power by recognizing only half of the definition of “grace”.
The second part of grace concerns our actions. We have to intentionally choose to let this influence come out in our actions; otherwise it didn’t really influence our heart. Grace is consistent with faith in that it doesn’t exist unless it comes out in actions. So grace, like faith, is the cause and the actions are the result. Also, grace, like faith, is a result that can be increased with knowledge and experience.
Allowing God to influence our heart and having it reflected in our lives are actions we can control. These are attributes we can increase intentionally. These are actions on which we can be judged objectively. All of this is consistently written about in the Bible. In fact, we are told we will be rewarded for these actions because of Justice.
It would seem that grace is actually the best way to improve our relationship with God. What could be better than listening to God and intentionally choosing to let God direct your actions? Yet, while people tell us to “Have faith”, you don’t hear them say, “Have grace”. Why? That’s because when most people speak of grace, they are talking about “unmerited favor”. It wouldn’t make sense to tell people to “have unmerited favor”.
Further, that definition puts the responsibility on God instead of us. Since grace is half of salvation, that would mean we don’t have control over our salvation. This contradicts free will.
Notice the only way for us to “do the right thing” is for God to do it through us, which is “grace”. Grace is the ultimate way for us to become righteous because it is God who is working through us. We can act apart from our unholy nature by choosing to let God work through us. Our free will allows us to become holy by choosing to let God work through us instead of walking in the flesh.
Consider the following questions:
Can we give grace to others?
Can we frustrate grace?
Can we understand grace?
If “grace” is “unmerited favor from God”, the answer to all of these questions is “no”.
“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” (Ephesians 4:29)
“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:21)
There are several scriptures describing how we are supposed to understand grace and grow in knowledge and grace. A few are: 2 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 3:18, Colossians 1:5-10 and Colossians 4:6.
Next Post
Grace: The divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life. (Charis 5485)
There are two steps to grace! First we have to intentionally let God influence our heart. We have to focus on strengthening our ability to hear God and our ability to let God influence our heart. These are actions that are in our control and can be improved with experience.
Further, these are actions that are consistently mentioned in the Bible so they can be better understood through knowledge. Also, these are actions we could be condemned for not doing. Finally, notice this divine influence occurs individually on our hearts. Grace is a process that occurs between God and the individual…there are no other participants.
This first part of grace could be described as “unmerited favor”. God’s influence is definitely “favor”. Also, it is “unmerited” in that we did nothing to deserve this influence. Actually, God is speaking to everyone whether they are a Christian or not. God’s grace extends to everyone. It is our fault if we don’t listen to God.
However, if we stop here, we miss the real impact of grace. Unfortunately, tradition has stripped Christianity of its full power by recognizing only half of the definition of “grace”.
The second part of grace concerns our actions. We have to intentionally choose to let this influence come out in our actions; otherwise it didn’t really influence our heart. Grace is consistent with faith in that it doesn’t exist unless it comes out in actions. So grace, like faith, is the cause and the actions are the result. Also, grace, like faith, is a result that can be increased with knowledge and experience.
Allowing God to influence our heart and having it reflected in our lives are actions we can control. These are attributes we can increase intentionally. These are actions on which we can be judged objectively. All of this is consistently written about in the Bible. In fact, we are told we will be rewarded for these actions because of Justice.
It would seem that grace is actually the best way to improve our relationship with God. What could be better than listening to God and intentionally choosing to let God direct your actions? Yet, while people tell us to “Have faith”, you don’t hear them say, “Have grace”. Why? That’s because when most people speak of grace, they are talking about “unmerited favor”. It wouldn’t make sense to tell people to “have unmerited favor”.
Further, that definition puts the responsibility on God instead of us. Since grace is half of salvation, that would mean we don’t have control over our salvation. This contradicts free will.
Notice the only way for us to “do the right thing” is for God to do it through us, which is “grace”. Grace is the ultimate way for us to become righteous because it is God who is working through us. We can act apart from our unholy nature by choosing to let God work through us. Our free will allows us to become holy by choosing to let God work through us instead of walking in the flesh.
Consider the following questions:
Can we give grace to others?
Can we frustrate grace?
Can we understand grace?
If “grace” is “unmerited favor from God”, the answer to all of these questions is “no”.
“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” (Ephesians 4:29)
“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:21)
There are several scriptures describing how we are supposed to understand grace and grow in knowledge and grace. A few are: 2 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 3:18, Colossians 1:5-10 and Colossians 4:6.
Next Post
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Semantics, Definitions and "Faith"
We have to understand the importance of defining the meaning of words. When people fail to communicate well, they use “semantics” as a cop out to let themselves disagree.
Actually, there are two possible reasons for the failure in communication. First, both parties are using different definitions for the same word. Or secondly, both parties are using different words for the same definition. The solution to these conflicts is for both parties to define the words they are using.
In this blog, we are going to use the words in the Bible, but we are going to determine the definitions according to their ability to be non-contradictory. This is going to cause you to rethink the definition of several words you use on a regular basis. Take time to think through what you mean when you use these words. This shouldn’t be a problem unless you believe the Bible intended to contradict itself.
Sometimes the Bible will give the definition, for example: faith. The Bible says, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) So there are actually two versions of faith.
1. Faith is the belief in something you can’t see (“the evidence of things not seen”).
Do you believe in gravity? Have you ever seen gravity? While you haven’t seen gravity (cause), you have seen the effects. Magnetism is another good example. Can you imagine what people thought when they first realized that some rocks attracted or repelled other rocks? How could they explain it?
One great scientist, as late as the 1600’s, tried to explain it by saying the one object actually sent out waves in the shape of a screw and the other object had holes in it like a nut. So that depending on the shape of the screw and the nut, the objects would either screw themselves closer or farther away.
We do not see magnetism, yet we believe it exists. Why do we believe magnetism exists? Because we see the results of magnetism. The objects being attracted and repelled aren’t themselves magnetism. They are not the causes. Electricity is another great example of a cause we believe in even though all we see are the effects.
Although you see the effects, you have faith as to the causes. We can’t prove the causes by seeing them, because the causes can’t be seen. The causes are eventually proven with the Scientific method, which consists of posing and testing theories with a contrastive perspective.
2. Faith believes something will happen that hasn’t happened yet (“substance of things hoped for”).
How do you know if someone believes something will happen? Their actions prove if they think it will happen or not. Notice, faith is proven by actions; not solely by what is said. In fact, true faith is demonstrated by actions and quiet confidence, not yelling and screaming in order to convince yourself or others.
For example, do you think the sun will rise tomorrow? Of course! If you didn’t believe it would, you would spend your time making other arrangements. Notice, the person’s answer to this question is a calm response. How silly would it be for someone to yell, “Oh, I believe the sun will come up tomorrow!” in response to this question?
Next Post
Actually, there are two possible reasons for the failure in communication. First, both parties are using different definitions for the same word. Or secondly, both parties are using different words for the same definition. The solution to these conflicts is for both parties to define the words they are using.
In this blog, we are going to use the words in the Bible, but we are going to determine the definitions according to their ability to be non-contradictory. This is going to cause you to rethink the definition of several words you use on a regular basis. Take time to think through what you mean when you use these words. This shouldn’t be a problem unless you believe the Bible intended to contradict itself.
Sometimes the Bible will give the definition, for example: faith. The Bible says, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) So there are actually two versions of faith.
1. Faith is the belief in something you can’t see (“the evidence of things not seen”).
Do you believe in gravity? Have you ever seen gravity? While you haven’t seen gravity (cause), you have seen the effects. Magnetism is another good example. Can you imagine what people thought when they first realized that some rocks attracted or repelled other rocks? How could they explain it?
One great scientist, as late as the 1600’s, tried to explain it by saying the one object actually sent out waves in the shape of a screw and the other object had holes in it like a nut. So that depending on the shape of the screw and the nut, the objects would either screw themselves closer or farther away.
We do not see magnetism, yet we believe it exists. Why do we believe magnetism exists? Because we see the results of magnetism. The objects being attracted and repelled aren’t themselves magnetism. They are not the causes. Electricity is another great example of a cause we believe in even though all we see are the effects.
Although you see the effects, you have faith as to the causes. We can’t prove the causes by seeing them, because the causes can’t be seen. The causes are eventually proven with the Scientific method, which consists of posing and testing theories with a contrastive perspective.
2. Faith believes something will happen that hasn’t happened yet (“substance of things hoped for”).
How do you know if someone believes something will happen? Their actions prove if they think it will happen or not. Notice, faith is proven by actions; not solely by what is said. In fact, true faith is demonstrated by actions and quiet confidence, not yelling and screaming in order to convince yourself or others.
For example, do you think the sun will rise tomorrow? Of course! If you didn’t believe it would, you would spend your time making other arrangements. Notice, the person’s answer to this question is a calm response. How silly would it be for someone to yell, “Oh, I believe the sun will come up tomorrow!” in response to this question?
Next Post
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Theology
Theology is the study of God. Currently, theologians give a small picture presentation of God. They can only explain how two or three of the "key words" are linked. After that, they must go to a completely different aspect of God because further discussion on the linked concepts will lead to contradictions. The true worldview would be able to link all of the "key words" at the bottom rung in a non-contradictory manner.
One would find that once they completed the explanation of the worldview and have addressed the last concepts, they would end up where they began. The proof this worldview is non-contradictory occurs when these last concepts mesh with the very first concepts. In effect, we have modeled "Theology".
Theology is the study of God. The study of the key concepts has a natural progression that has been recognized from the beginning. For example, every book on theology that discusses salvation must immediately address faith, grace, rewards, and free will.
I see the entire worldview as a series of ladders in a circle. Each ladder addresses a specific key word (e.g., grace). The rungs on each ladder correspond to a definition of each key word. Referring to the "Ladder of Abstraction", the rungs at the bottom are the non-contradictory definitions. The rungs above increase in abstraction as you go further from the bottom rung.
In addition, this circle of ladders is connected by "lines". Each concept is naturally connected to another concept. Like I mentioned previously, any discussion of salvation leads to a discussion of grace, faith, free will, and rewards.
The goal of the website is to define all the key words at the bottom rung. When this is done the contradictions will be removed. The proof is when we start at God and work our way to the Meaning of Life, we will end up back at God. At that point our definition of the Meaning of Life should coincide with our definition of God and all the other key words.
If the definition of the Meaning of Life was at a higher rung, then we'd need to continue to work out the contradictions. The reason there could be a disconnect between the Meaning of Life and God is when you go from one concept to one it is connected to, you will only be able to match the rung level or go higher on the next word's ladder of abstraction.
When a person gives a definition of a key word, there are two ways to expose his contradictions. The first and easiest way is to ask questions until he changes his definition (move down the ladder). Since you will know the definition at the lowest rung, it is pretty easy to ask the right questions to expose his contradictions. (In fact, once they have changed their definition twice, you can ask them how they could have had any opinion considering they didn't know what they were talking about.)
The second way is to ask questions about the ladder that is connected to the key word being discussed. As mentioned previously, in order to avoid contradictions, the person will have to stay at the same level or become more abstract. They cannot define the connecting concept in a less abstract manner. If you keep moving to the next ladder; they will eventually drift up to a definition that is ridiculous.
The history of theology is filled with people who gave a definition on a higher rung and eventually ran out of steam as they applied their definition to the next key word. Defining the connecting concept less abstractly exposes the contradictions in the first concept. Clearly, the only non-contradictory theology would be the one made solely of definitions from the bottom rung of each ladder.
For example, Martin Luther defined grace as "unmerited favor". The website shows this definition is several rungs up the ladder. When Martin Luther defines faith, he has to define it as something out of the individual's control in order not to contradict his definition of grace. As Martin Luther continues to define these terms, he ends up becoming more abstract and contradictory. When he comes to sex and marriage, he believes it is okay for husbands to have affairs because their desires are out of their control.
When you understand the non-contradictory definition for each of the key words, you can easily identify the contradictions that exist in the worldview of others, whether they are your parents, pastor, or professor. It doesn't matter what age or educational background you have. I have seen high school kids use Modeletics™ to successfully debate PhD theologians.
Next Post
One would find that once they completed the explanation of the worldview and have addressed the last concepts, they would end up where they began. The proof this worldview is non-contradictory occurs when these last concepts mesh with the very first concepts. In effect, we have modeled "Theology".
Theology is the study of God. The study of the key concepts has a natural progression that has been recognized from the beginning. For example, every book on theology that discusses salvation must immediately address faith, grace, rewards, and free will.
I see the entire worldview as a series of ladders in a circle. Each ladder addresses a specific key word (e.g., grace). The rungs on each ladder correspond to a definition of each key word. Referring to the "Ladder of Abstraction", the rungs at the bottom are the non-contradictory definitions. The rungs above increase in abstraction as you go further from the bottom rung.
In addition, this circle of ladders is connected by "lines". Each concept is naturally connected to another concept. Like I mentioned previously, any discussion of salvation leads to a discussion of grace, faith, free will, and rewards.
The goal of the website is to define all the key words at the bottom rung. When this is done the contradictions will be removed. The proof is when we start at God and work our way to the Meaning of Life, we will end up back at God. At that point our definition of the Meaning of Life should coincide with our definition of God and all the other key words.
If the definition of the Meaning of Life was at a higher rung, then we'd need to continue to work out the contradictions. The reason there could be a disconnect between the Meaning of Life and God is when you go from one concept to one it is connected to, you will only be able to match the rung level or go higher on the next word's ladder of abstraction.
When a person gives a definition of a key word, there are two ways to expose his contradictions. The first and easiest way is to ask questions until he changes his definition (move down the ladder). Since you will know the definition at the lowest rung, it is pretty easy to ask the right questions to expose his contradictions. (In fact, once they have changed their definition twice, you can ask them how they could have had any opinion considering they didn't know what they were talking about.)
The second way is to ask questions about the ladder that is connected to the key word being discussed. As mentioned previously, in order to avoid contradictions, the person will have to stay at the same level or become more abstract. They cannot define the connecting concept in a less abstract manner. If you keep moving to the next ladder; they will eventually drift up to a definition that is ridiculous.
The history of theology is filled with people who gave a definition on a higher rung and eventually ran out of steam as they applied their definition to the next key word. Defining the connecting concept less abstractly exposes the contradictions in the first concept. Clearly, the only non-contradictory theology would be the one made solely of definitions from the bottom rung of each ladder.
For example, Martin Luther defined grace as "unmerited favor". The website shows this definition is several rungs up the ladder. When Martin Luther defines faith, he has to define it as something out of the individual's control in order not to contradict his definition of grace. As Martin Luther continues to define these terms, he ends up becoming more abstract and contradictory. When he comes to sex and marriage, he believes it is okay for husbands to have affairs because their desires are out of their control.
When you understand the non-contradictory definition for each of the key words, you can easily identify the contradictions that exist in the worldview of others, whether they are your parents, pastor, or professor. It doesn't matter what age or educational background you have. I have seen high school kids use Modeletics™ to successfully debate PhD theologians.
Next Post
Monday, August 14, 2006
The Henderson 4000
The Ladder of Abstraction illustrates how we don’t really seem to know the specific definitions of the words we use. In fact, last week I wrote about this on someone else’s blog. A fundamentalist tried to explain to me what he meant by grace, but his definition was abstract. I told him about the Ladder of Abstraction and challenged him to give me the bottom rung definition for life, truth, and love. His reply was that he didn’t think we could define “love”.
Think about that. Love is a pretty important concept. For instance, Jesus said they will know us by our love for one another. Yet, here is a person who is in ministry and they have decided we can’t know the specific definition of love. This happens for a lot of words and I have a number of ways to illustrate this.
For example, I love to tell people how much I love my new Henderson 4000. I relate to them how it makes my life easier, gives me more free time, and makes me happy. When an audience member asks, "What is a Henderson 4000?" I respond by relating more of the benefits: it is convenient, it comes in many colors, it doesn't need a lot of maintenance, etc.
This exchange will continue until someone tells me he doesn't think a Henderson 4000 exists. At this point, I will ask him why he doesn't believe in a Henderson 4000. The typical response is, "Because you can't explain what it is!"
At this point, I like to establish two facts. First, I get agreement that the more I talked about the Henderson 4000 in an abstract fashion, the less likely he believed in it. Secondly, I show the only way I could get someone to believe in the existence of the Henderson 4000 would be on a purely emotional basis.
It is at this point I ask the audience, "How is the Henderson 4000 any different from most people's traditional explanation of God and/or salvation?"
Currently, the majority of those who do believe in Christianity did so because they were emotionally drawn. This is because Christianity, along with every other religion, is presented in an emotional fashion. However, this is not righteous and just. God's true nature would stand apart from every other belief system because it could be understood and explained objectively.
There are plenty of leaders who believe they are giving an objective explanation of Christianity. However, their explanations are contradictory to other leaders who also believe they are giving an objective explanation. This would be analogous to two or more people explaining the Henderson 4000 to an audience simultaneously. However, each person's explanation would seem to contradict the other explanations. The result would be the same: audience members who don't believe the Henderson 4000 exists because no two people can agree on what it is.
Finally, traditional apologetics tries to prove Christianity by showing other religions are more emotional. They are really trying to show other religions have more contradictions than their version of Christianity. While other religions are more emotionally based, this presentation doesn't prove Christianity is the only explanation for God and salvation. It proves it is the best explanation to date.
Modeletics™ proves this worldview is non-contradictory by giving the true definitions for the key words that people use to explain their beliefs: God, salvation, holy, just, faith, grace, mercy, confession, repentance, sacrifice, good, evil, sin, life, love, prayer, marriage, sex, Bible, revival, ethics, morals, truth, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, suffering, Heaven, hell, rewards, sanctification, leadership, saved, works, evangelism, born again, art, witchcraft, forgiveness, perfect, church, fate, free will, torture, and the Meaning of Life.
Next Post
Think about that. Love is a pretty important concept. For instance, Jesus said they will know us by our love for one another. Yet, here is a person who is in ministry and they have decided we can’t know the specific definition of love. This happens for a lot of words and I have a number of ways to illustrate this.
For example, I love to tell people how much I love my new Henderson 4000. I relate to them how it makes my life easier, gives me more free time, and makes me happy. When an audience member asks, "What is a Henderson 4000?" I respond by relating more of the benefits: it is convenient, it comes in many colors, it doesn't need a lot of maintenance, etc.
This exchange will continue until someone tells me he doesn't think a Henderson 4000 exists. At this point, I will ask him why he doesn't believe in a Henderson 4000. The typical response is, "Because you can't explain what it is!"
At this point, I like to establish two facts. First, I get agreement that the more I talked about the Henderson 4000 in an abstract fashion, the less likely he believed in it. Secondly, I show the only way I could get someone to believe in the existence of the Henderson 4000 would be on a purely emotional basis.
It is at this point I ask the audience, "How is the Henderson 4000 any different from most people's traditional explanation of God and/or salvation?"
Currently, the majority of those who do believe in Christianity did so because they were emotionally drawn. This is because Christianity, along with every other religion, is presented in an emotional fashion. However, this is not righteous and just. God's true nature would stand apart from every other belief system because it could be understood and explained objectively.
There are plenty of leaders who believe they are giving an objective explanation of Christianity. However, their explanations are contradictory to other leaders who also believe they are giving an objective explanation. This would be analogous to two or more people explaining the Henderson 4000 to an audience simultaneously. However, each person's explanation would seem to contradict the other explanations. The result would be the same: audience members who don't believe the Henderson 4000 exists because no two people can agree on what it is.
Finally, traditional apologetics tries to prove Christianity by showing other religions are more emotional. They are really trying to show other religions have more contradictions than their version of Christianity. While other religions are more emotionally based, this presentation doesn't prove Christianity is the only explanation for God and salvation. It proves it is the best explanation to date.
Modeletics™ proves this worldview is non-contradictory by giving the true definitions for the key words that people use to explain their beliefs: God, salvation, holy, just, faith, grace, mercy, confession, repentance, sacrifice, good, evil, sin, life, love, prayer, marriage, sex, Bible, revival, ethics, morals, truth, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, suffering, Heaven, hell, rewards, sanctification, leadership, saved, works, evangelism, born again, art, witchcraft, forgiveness, perfect, church, fate, free will, torture, and the Meaning of Life.
Next Post
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Ladder of Abstraction
Every belief system is made up of a set of “key words” (eg, faith, holy). If the definitions of these words are abstract, the worldview will fall apart upon further inspection. The true worldview would be able to define these words in a non-contradictory manner. In fact, knowing this definition would allow you to intentionally have more faith or be more holy in the next five minutes. Modeletics ™ identifies these definitions.
It seems to be impossible for anyone to describe their beliefs without using one of these key words. The confusion we experience in communicating our beliefs is due to the contradictory definitions of these key words.
These key words are the "puzzle pieces" in the wall. Consequently, the worldview depends on defining these key words in a non-contradictory fashion. In order to identify specific definitions we need to apply S.I. Hayakawa's "Ladder of Abstraction" to these key words.
The classic explanation involves Bessie the Cow. The most specific word to describe her is "Bessie". The word "Bessie" can be seen as appearing on the lowest rung of the ladder. The next rung up could be "Cow". This word does refer to "Bessie", but it can refer to "Elsie" as well. Continuing up the ladder, the next rung could be labeled "Livestock". The subsequent rung could be labeled "Farm Assets." Finally, for our example, the last rung could be labeled "Wealth". All of these words apply to Bessie.
When we want to be inclusive, we move up the ladder. For instance, if I want to talk about Bessie and you want to talk about Elsie, it is easier for us to talk about "Cows". The farmer could have a discussion with the CEO of a multi-national corporation if he discussed "Wealth". Moving up the ladder makes us more comfortable with others.
However, if we want to solve a problem, we need to become more specific. We need to move down the ladder. In fact, one could say we need to become more intentional. Failures to communicate occur when people operate on different rungs of the ladder. If someone talked to me about Bessie and spoke of a Farm Asset, I may ask whether he was going to use unleaded or diesel in his Farm Assets.
When he says he is talking about Livestock, he has moved down the ladder. However, I may then ask him what kind of saddle he has for his livestock. At this point he would talk about Cows. We would be unable to have a non-contradictory discussion until he moved to the bottom rung.
You will notice other examples of people speaking on different rungs. For instance, this is what occurred when Jesus spoke of "eating his flesh" or "living waters". We will see Jesus did this to determine who wanted to be intentional. On the other hand, some politicians do this to create confusion. Unfortunately, most clergy also do this when they give sermons.
Actually, all people refer to the key words with definitions that are 3-4 rungs up the ladder. This is because the current Christian worldview is at this level of abstraction. In order to identify a non-contradictory model, we have to get all of these words defined at their bottom rung.
When I had these definitions I discussed the worldview with theologians, clergy, professors, Christians, and non-believers. For the last four years, no one has been able to find a contradiction. In fact, the proof of the accuracy of the model has been the ability to show others how they can intentionally increase their faith or holiness in the next 5 minutes. After all, if you understand the bottom-rung definitions of the key words (e.g., "faith" and "holy" and “grace”), you will know how to intentionally increase each attribute.
Next Post
It seems to be impossible for anyone to describe their beliefs without using one of these key words. The confusion we experience in communicating our beliefs is due to the contradictory definitions of these key words.
These key words are the "puzzle pieces" in the wall. Consequently, the worldview depends on defining these key words in a non-contradictory fashion. In order to identify specific definitions we need to apply S.I. Hayakawa's "Ladder of Abstraction" to these key words.
The classic explanation involves Bessie the Cow. The most specific word to describe her is "Bessie". The word "Bessie" can be seen as appearing on the lowest rung of the ladder. The next rung up could be "Cow". This word does refer to "Bessie", but it can refer to "Elsie" as well. Continuing up the ladder, the next rung could be labeled "Livestock". The subsequent rung could be labeled "Farm Assets." Finally, for our example, the last rung could be labeled "Wealth". All of these words apply to Bessie.
When we want to be inclusive, we move up the ladder. For instance, if I want to talk about Bessie and you want to talk about Elsie, it is easier for us to talk about "Cows". The farmer could have a discussion with the CEO of a multi-national corporation if he discussed "Wealth". Moving up the ladder makes us more comfortable with others.
However, if we want to solve a problem, we need to become more specific. We need to move down the ladder. In fact, one could say we need to become more intentional. Failures to communicate occur when people operate on different rungs of the ladder. If someone talked to me about Bessie and spoke of a Farm Asset, I may ask whether he was going to use unleaded or diesel in his Farm Assets.
When he says he is talking about Livestock, he has moved down the ladder. However, I may then ask him what kind of saddle he has for his livestock. At this point he would talk about Cows. We would be unable to have a non-contradictory discussion until he moved to the bottom rung.
You will notice other examples of people speaking on different rungs. For instance, this is what occurred when Jesus spoke of "eating his flesh" or "living waters". We will see Jesus did this to determine who wanted to be intentional. On the other hand, some politicians do this to create confusion. Unfortunately, most clergy also do this when they give sermons.
Actually, all people refer to the key words with definitions that are 3-4 rungs up the ladder. This is because the current Christian worldview is at this level of abstraction. In order to identify a non-contradictory model, we have to get all of these words defined at their bottom rung.
When I had these definitions I discussed the worldview with theologians, clergy, professors, Christians, and non-believers. For the last four years, no one has been able to find a contradiction. In fact, the proof of the accuracy of the model has been the ability to show others how they can intentionally increase their faith or holiness in the next 5 minutes. After all, if you understand the bottom-rung definitions of the key words (e.g., "faith" and "holy" and “grace”), you will know how to intentionally increase each attribute.
Next Post
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Worldview & Apologetics
We’ve seen there are four immutable principles that instantly identify the flaw in a belief system: non-contradiction, contrastive thinking, growth, and causality. If you understand these four principles and use them as tools, not only can you instantly identify the flaws in other people’s beliefs, you can determine the true worldview. Unfortunately, today’s Christian leaders focus on the method of presentation instead of the content of the belief. The result is often contradictory.
Recently, numerous books have been written on the importance of getting the Christian community to present themselves in terms of a worldview. Currently, Christianity is presenting itself in piecemeal fashion, that is, we are treating each issue (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc) as a separate challenge to our moral structure. Once the issues have been compartmentalized, it is relatively easy for opponents of Christianity to show the general public the contradictions between the issues. The result is Christianity is represented as not having real world, practical applications to the individual, as well as our culture.
Rather than allowing outside forces to divide and conquer the Christian influence on our country and world, we need to educate people how each issue is actually a part of a non-contradictory, superstructure belief.
The reason this hasn't been done is that a non-contradictory model that non-Christians can understand hasn't been identified. This is the crucial challenge. Currently, Christians don't extend their explanation of their worldview past Creation ("God created the Heavens and the Earth"), Fall ("Man is sinful"), and Redemption ("Jesus died for our sins"). This traditional explanation has been good enough to differentiate Christianity from the other well-known worldviews, because this simple model shows the contradictions in these blatant worldviews.
However, today our model needs to reach out to real world topics. These real world topics are subtle and opinion is derived from the worldviews of common, everyday people. Since we are addressing subtle worldviews, our model needs to be more detailed and objective. This will require a significantly more complex model that makes sense to non-Christians. This blog begins the presentation of this long awaited model.
Currently, Christians defend their faith with a process called "apologetics". Basically, Christians try to bring every issue back to one of the three areas previously presented (Creation, Fall, or Redemption). When these areas don't adequately address the issue, the apologist continues to repeat their three pronged belief and hopes the Holy Spirit will work on the questioner's heart.
This fundamental technique is purely defensive. In fact, one of the acknowledged benefits of traditional apologetics is that it attempts to stop the believer from wavering in his faith by demanding that he continue to repeat his three pronged worldview when others make valid points.
Modeletics™ not only gives the believer modern apologetic tools to explain the entire worldview, it proves the worldview is non-contradictory by giving the reason why. Modeletics™ uses "modern" principles (causality, contrastive thinking, and removal of contradictions) to identify a worldview that makes sense to non-believers.
All of the tools currently used by apologetics (hermeneutics, reasoning, interpretation, etc.) are based on these four principles. Every time these apologetics tools don’t work, the flaw can be fixed with Modeletics™. Currently, the three pronged worldview literally relies on abstraction and emotion.
Next Post
Recently, numerous books have been written on the importance of getting the Christian community to present themselves in terms of a worldview. Currently, Christianity is presenting itself in piecemeal fashion, that is, we are treating each issue (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc) as a separate challenge to our moral structure. Once the issues have been compartmentalized, it is relatively easy for opponents of Christianity to show the general public the contradictions between the issues. The result is Christianity is represented as not having real world, practical applications to the individual, as well as our culture.
Rather than allowing outside forces to divide and conquer the Christian influence on our country and world, we need to educate people how each issue is actually a part of a non-contradictory, superstructure belief.
The reason this hasn't been done is that a non-contradictory model that non-Christians can understand hasn't been identified. This is the crucial challenge. Currently, Christians don't extend their explanation of their worldview past Creation ("God created the Heavens and the Earth"), Fall ("Man is sinful"), and Redemption ("Jesus died for our sins"). This traditional explanation has been good enough to differentiate Christianity from the other well-known worldviews, because this simple model shows the contradictions in these blatant worldviews.
However, today our model needs to reach out to real world topics. These real world topics are subtle and opinion is derived from the worldviews of common, everyday people. Since we are addressing subtle worldviews, our model needs to be more detailed and objective. This will require a significantly more complex model that makes sense to non-Christians. This blog begins the presentation of this long awaited model.
Currently, Christians defend their faith with a process called "apologetics". Basically, Christians try to bring every issue back to one of the three areas previously presented (Creation, Fall, or Redemption). When these areas don't adequately address the issue, the apologist continues to repeat their three pronged belief and hopes the Holy Spirit will work on the questioner's heart.
This fundamental technique is purely defensive. In fact, one of the acknowledged benefits of traditional apologetics is that it attempts to stop the believer from wavering in his faith by demanding that he continue to repeat his three pronged worldview when others make valid points.
Modeletics™ not only gives the believer modern apologetic tools to explain the entire worldview, it proves the worldview is non-contradictory by giving the reason why. Modeletics™ uses "modern" principles (causality, contrastive thinking, and removal of contradictions) to identify a worldview that makes sense to non-believers.
All of the tools currently used by apologetics (hermeneutics, reasoning, interpretation, etc.) are based on these four principles. Every time these apologetics tools don’t work, the flaw can be fixed with Modeletics™. Currently, the three pronged worldview literally relies on abstraction and emotion.
Next Post
Friday, August 11, 2006
Practical Examples from Blogs
I visited several blogs this week to look for practical examples of the four principles. The fundamentalist/traditionalist blogs are the most blatant violators of the four principles.
First of all, it seems like every person who posts starts with the belief: “I’m right”. This is comparative. It seems these people can’t comprehend the possibility they could be wrong. Yet, they don’t agree with the other people who post and believe they are right! This brings in the principle of non-contradiction.
Think about it. There are two or more people on the same post who say they are a Christian. They say they believe the Bible. They believe in truth. Yet, they can’t explain their beliefs to the satisfaction of the other people who say they believe the same things. Isn’t obvious that someone has to be wrong? Where’s the growth?
More to the point…when two people argue, why does the person who is proven right feel good? Why does the person who is proven wrong feel bad?
The person who is wrong actually learned something new and grew. They should be happy. The person who is proven right didn’t learn anything. Are they happy about not learning anything? Perhaps they weren’t sure they were right. Either way, the person who is right can only be happy for themselves if they are focused on the short-term.
One current example from this week concerns an abuse of causality. Billy Graham gave an interview that was printed in the August 14th issue of Newsweek. In this article, Billy Graham says he is sure and certain of his faith in Jesus as the way of salvation.
When he was asked about whether members of other religions will make it to heaven, he said only God knows who will be saved. He said God loves everybody regardless of what label they have. He also said people who may not even know the name of Jesus can make it to heaven.
What can be wrong with this?
God looks on the heart while we look on the outside. Salvation is a condition of the heart. So, God alone knows who will be saved.
God is love. God does love EVERYONE…sinners and saints alike. So, God does love everyone.
It seems the real issue is that people can go to heaven without knowing the name of Jesus. What is the argument against this?
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Romans 10:9)
The author’s interpretation of this verse is ONLY those who CALL upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. This is an abuse of causality.
Causality says that confessing with your mouth and believing in your heart is a cause and the effect is salvation. However, this verse does NOT say this is the ONLY way. This is an intentional way to make it to heaven. It is the same as thinking that everyone who hates me must be a scoffer when the Bible says that if you reprove a scoffer they will hate you.
The other blatant contradiction seen on the blogs occurs with definitions. Fundamentalists/traditionalists rail against post moderns for not being specific about their beliefs. Yet, when fundamentalists/traditionalists are pushed to give the definitions of the key words they use (life, love, grace, truth, etc.) they refuse. One author told me to pray to God…because he couldn’t give me the definition? Another person plainly wrote that he didn’t think we could define love.
Next week we will look at how the four principles can be used to determine the definitions of the key words that make up our beliefs.
For a practical explanation of the four principles, go to the website and click the link titled “The World’s Oldest Suduko Puzzle”.
Next Post
First of all, it seems like every person who posts starts with the belief: “I’m right”. This is comparative. It seems these people can’t comprehend the possibility they could be wrong. Yet, they don’t agree with the other people who post and believe they are right! This brings in the principle of non-contradiction.
Think about it. There are two or more people on the same post who say they are a Christian. They say they believe the Bible. They believe in truth. Yet, they can’t explain their beliefs to the satisfaction of the other people who say they believe the same things. Isn’t obvious that someone has to be wrong? Where’s the growth?
More to the point…when two people argue, why does the person who is proven right feel good? Why does the person who is proven wrong feel bad?
The person who is wrong actually learned something new and grew. They should be happy. The person who is proven right didn’t learn anything. Are they happy about not learning anything? Perhaps they weren’t sure they were right. Either way, the person who is right can only be happy for themselves if they are focused on the short-term.
One current example from this week concerns an abuse of causality. Billy Graham gave an interview that was printed in the August 14th issue of Newsweek. In this article, Billy Graham says he is sure and certain of his faith in Jesus as the way of salvation.
When he was asked about whether members of other religions will make it to heaven, he said only God knows who will be saved. He said God loves everybody regardless of what label they have. He also said people who may not even know the name of Jesus can make it to heaven.
What can be wrong with this?
God looks on the heart while we look on the outside. Salvation is a condition of the heart. So, God alone knows who will be saved.
God is love. God does love EVERYONE…sinners and saints alike. So, God does love everyone.
It seems the real issue is that people can go to heaven without knowing the name of Jesus. What is the argument against this?
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Romans 10:9)
The author’s interpretation of this verse is ONLY those who CALL upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. This is an abuse of causality.
Causality says that confessing with your mouth and believing in your heart is a cause and the effect is salvation. However, this verse does NOT say this is the ONLY way. This is an intentional way to make it to heaven. It is the same as thinking that everyone who hates me must be a scoffer when the Bible says that if you reprove a scoffer they will hate you.
The other blatant contradiction seen on the blogs occurs with definitions. Fundamentalists/traditionalists rail against post moderns for not being specific about their beliefs. Yet, when fundamentalists/traditionalists are pushed to give the definitions of the key words they use (life, love, grace, truth, etc.) they refuse. One author told me to pray to God…because he couldn’t give me the definition? Another person plainly wrote that he didn’t think we could define love.
Next week we will look at how the four principles can be used to determine the definitions of the key words that make up our beliefs.
For a practical explanation of the four principles, go to the website and click the link titled “The World’s Oldest Suduko Puzzle”.
Next Post
Thursday, August 10, 2006
God-Given Principle #2: Causality
The next God-given principle that will lead to errors if it is ignored is causality.
Causality: For every effect there is a specific cause.
The opposite of this is randomness...there are no causes, things are random.
People don't REALLY believe things are random. They'd never let me smack them in the head and let me off when I said, "Hey, that was totally random." They'd never let me support my flawed point with "there is no cause".
More often than not, this effect comes out as "well, since we don't immediately know the cause we must not be able to know it or we aren't supposed to know it...so there is no reason to try to determine the cause."
Or my favorite: "Since we can't know ALL the causes, we shouldn't try to understand ANY of the causes." People think this leads to freedom...it doesn't.
(If you haven't seen this, we also have a video that illustrates all four principles using a sudoku puzzle. If the link doesn't work for you, copy and paste this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyJbPeLIsr8#GU5U2spHI_4)
Another abuse of causality can occur when people state “Everything happens for a reason”. What this does mean is the effects you see came from a specific cause. What this doesn’t mean is that God is the specific cause for everything that has happened.
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7)
Sowing and Reaping are both HALVES of the same whole. They are the CAUSE and the EFFECT! This verse ties this principle DIRECTLY to God and those who fight it are deceived and attempting to mock God!!!!
The entire Bible is written in cause and effect fashion and is misinterpreted when people believe an effect can only come from one cause. Said another way, specific causes lead to specific effects, but the same effects don’t necessarily come from the same causes.
For instance, if I close my eyes for 60 seconds and drive my car 100 mph, the result will likely be an accident. The accident (effect) comes from a person closing his eyes (cause) and driving fast. However, every accident is not necessarily caused by a driver closing his eyes for 60 seconds and driving 100 mph.
One of the reasons people view the Bible as contradictory is because they believe effects have only one possible cause. For instance, the Bible clearly states what is on the inside of people is the cause and their actions are the effect. However, the Bible doesn’t say that all people who display similar actions (effects) have the same internal motivation (cause).
Yet, we are very quick to judge people’s intentions based on their actions. The Bible tells us (1 Samuel 16:7) that we judge the outside (effects) but God looks on the heart (cause). That is one of the reasons we make mistakes.
Let me be clear. I’m not saying you can’t know the causes by looking at the effects. We are supposed to do that. However, immediately assuming the effect has only one possible cause can lead to wrong conclusions. We may need to get more information.
For those who don’t believe in cause and effect, there’s really no reason for them to continue reading this blog. If you don’t believe in cause and effect, you can’t believe in intentional living. You simply need to wait for things to randomly happen to you.
Let's look at an example from the Bible:
"Don't reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you. Reprove a wise man, and he will love you." (Proverbs 9:8)
First of all, the structure for both sentences is cause and effect. However, notice this doesn’t mean that everyone who hates you is a scoffer and everyone who loves you is a wise man.
Next, when you reprove someone, you are being contrastive and making the person uncomfortable. If they hate you, they are proving they don’t want to think like God…and the Bible calls them a “scoffer”.
Finally, the person who appreciates the reproof is someone who wants to remove contradictions. They know your contrastive thinking will cause them to grow in the Long Term. The Bible calls this person “wise”.
I believe a lot of unhappiness people have is because they treat causes as effects and effects as causes...like reason and feelings.
If I was terrified, the first questions you would ask is "Why?" (This proves we all think feelings are/should be an effect...a result of something.) If I said, "I don't know", I would be saying its just random...and if you responded with, "Okay" and walked away, people would say you are unfeeling.
Also, if I said I was happy and couldn't tell you why, most people would walk away feeling THAT was okay. Why? Because no one is getting hurt? What if my happiness is over the fact that you are experiencing misfortune? Is THAT okay for either of us?
When people make feelings pre-eminent, they are making feelings the cause...the result is lack of control and problems. If people don't want control, that is fine...but why do they want help, sympathy, etc? When feelings are the cause, the result is the person doesn't experience the feelings...the feelings experience the person. The feelings take the person for a ride and drop them off far from where they want to be.
When feelings are an effect, the person can FULLY experience the feelings. THAT is the life I want to live. This is true freedom. The key word is FULLY...and other way results in something less than FULLY because part of the person is preoccupied trying to determine the cause.
When I'm happy, I want to let go and FULLy experience it. And yes, when I'm sad, I want to let go and FULLY experience the sadness...and I can only do that when I know the cause.
A traditionalist will reverse causality. They will say that everyone with the same effect MUST have the same cause. That would be the same as saying every person who falls off a bridge did so because of the same cause. The post modern believes in randomness. A modern applies the first three principles in order to understand the “why” behind their circumstances.
When we deal with others, we won’t settle for anything less from them than these four principles. Traditionalists and post moderns actively try to avoid the personal application of these principles…and the cycle continues. I believe this traditionalists to post modern to traditionalist cycle can be broken if both sides would embrace their modern tendencies (instead of fighting them) and use these four principles to guide them.
One of the biggest abuses of causality today is that people preach the effects instead of the causes. People tell you to just have the effect or act like you have the effect...because they don't have a specific explanation of the cause. Here is a blog entry explaining this issue in depth. "Preaching the Effects"
(This post is two years old. In the summer of 2008, I gave a perspective on this principle as it relates to what physiologically happens in the brain in this post.)
Next Principle
Causality: For every effect there is a specific cause.
The opposite of this is randomness...there are no causes, things are random.
People don't REALLY believe things are random. They'd never let me smack them in the head and let me off when I said, "Hey, that was totally random." They'd never let me support my flawed point with "there is no cause".
More often than not, this effect comes out as "well, since we don't immediately know the cause we must not be able to know it or we aren't supposed to know it...so there is no reason to try to determine the cause."
Or my favorite: "Since we can't know ALL the causes, we shouldn't try to understand ANY of the causes." People think this leads to freedom...it doesn't.
(If you haven't seen this, we also have a video that illustrates all four principles using a sudoku puzzle. If the link doesn't work for you, copy and paste this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyJbPeLIsr8#GU5U2spHI_4)
Another abuse of causality can occur when people state “Everything happens for a reason”. What this does mean is the effects you see came from a specific cause. What this doesn’t mean is that God is the specific cause for everything that has happened.
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7)
Sowing and Reaping are both HALVES of the same whole. They are the CAUSE and the EFFECT! This verse ties this principle DIRECTLY to God and those who fight it are deceived and attempting to mock God!!!!
The entire Bible is written in cause and effect fashion and is misinterpreted when people believe an effect can only come from one cause. Said another way, specific causes lead to specific effects, but the same effects don’t necessarily come from the same causes.
For instance, if I close my eyes for 60 seconds and drive my car 100 mph, the result will likely be an accident. The accident (effect) comes from a person closing his eyes (cause) and driving fast. However, every accident is not necessarily caused by a driver closing his eyes for 60 seconds and driving 100 mph.
One of the reasons people view the Bible as contradictory is because they believe effects have only one possible cause. For instance, the Bible clearly states what is on the inside of people is the cause and their actions are the effect. However, the Bible doesn’t say that all people who display similar actions (effects) have the same internal motivation (cause).
Yet, we are very quick to judge people’s intentions based on their actions. The Bible tells us (1 Samuel 16:7) that we judge the outside (effects) but God looks on the heart (cause). That is one of the reasons we make mistakes.
Let me be clear. I’m not saying you can’t know the causes by looking at the effects. We are supposed to do that. However, immediately assuming the effect has only one possible cause can lead to wrong conclusions. We may need to get more information.
For those who don’t believe in cause and effect, there’s really no reason for them to continue reading this blog. If you don’t believe in cause and effect, you can’t believe in intentional living. You simply need to wait for things to randomly happen to you.
Let's look at an example from the Bible:
"Don't reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you. Reprove a wise man, and he will love you." (Proverbs 9:8)
First of all, the structure for both sentences is cause and effect. However, notice this doesn’t mean that everyone who hates you is a scoffer and everyone who loves you is a wise man.
Next, when you reprove someone, you are being contrastive and making the person uncomfortable. If they hate you, they are proving they don’t want to think like God…and the Bible calls them a “scoffer”.
Finally, the person who appreciates the reproof is someone who wants to remove contradictions. They know your contrastive thinking will cause them to grow in the Long Term. The Bible calls this person “wise”.
I believe a lot of unhappiness people have is because they treat causes as effects and effects as causes...like reason and feelings.
If I was terrified, the first questions you would ask is "Why?" (This proves we all think feelings are/should be an effect...a result of something.) If I said, "I don't know", I would be saying its just random...and if you responded with, "Okay" and walked away, people would say you are unfeeling.
Also, if I said I was happy and couldn't tell you why, most people would walk away feeling THAT was okay. Why? Because no one is getting hurt? What if my happiness is over the fact that you are experiencing misfortune? Is THAT okay for either of us?
When people make feelings pre-eminent, they are making feelings the cause...the result is lack of control and problems. If people don't want control, that is fine...but why do they want help, sympathy, etc? When feelings are the cause, the result is the person doesn't experience the feelings...the feelings experience the person. The feelings take the person for a ride and drop them off far from where they want to be.
When feelings are an effect, the person can FULLY experience the feelings. THAT is the life I want to live. This is true freedom. The key word is FULLY...and other way results in something less than FULLY because part of the person is preoccupied trying to determine the cause.
When I'm happy, I want to let go and FULLy experience it. And yes, when I'm sad, I want to let go and FULLY experience the sadness...and I can only do that when I know the cause.
A traditionalist will reverse causality. They will say that everyone with the same effect MUST have the same cause. That would be the same as saying every person who falls off a bridge did so because of the same cause. The post modern believes in randomness. A modern applies the first three principles in order to understand the “why” behind their circumstances.
When we deal with others, we won’t settle for anything less from them than these four principles. Traditionalists and post moderns actively try to avoid the personal application of these principles…and the cycle continues. I believe this traditionalists to post modern to traditionalist cycle can be broken if both sides would embrace their modern tendencies (instead of fighting them) and use these four principles to guide them.
One of the biggest abuses of causality today is that people preach the effects instead of the causes. People tell you to just have the effect or act like you have the effect...because they don't have a specific explanation of the cause. Here is a blog entry explaining this issue in depth. "Preaching the Effects"
(This post is two years old. In the summer of 2008, I gave a perspective on this principle as it relates to what physiologically happens in the brain in this post.)
Next Principle
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
God-Given Principle #4: Growth
The motivation for our actions ultimately comes down to the fourth God-given principle: Growth.
(If you haven't seen it, we also have a video that illustrates all four principles using a sudoku puzzle. It the link doesn't work for you, copy and paste this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyJbPeLIsr8#GU5U2spHI_4)
(For some reason, people who google life-changing concepts end up with this post from the blog. Please realize "growth" is just one of the four God-given principles. Actually, it is the weakest of the four. Please don't leave this blog without reading about: non-contradiction, contrastive thinking, and causality. Also, this post is more than two years old. At the end of each of these posts are updated explanations of each principles viewed from the perspective of the latest scientific brain research...that is, how each principle is actually hard-wired in your brain and how doing the opposite of each God-given principle leads to physiological damage to the brain!)
Either people are pursuing growth or they aren't...I happen to call the other option "Comfort".
People tend to look at the word "comfort" and abuse causality to "prove" they MUST be pursuing growth. For instance, someone could say, "I'm not comfortable, so I must be pursuing growth."
CS Lewis said it best when he said comfort is the one thing you can't get by pursuing it. If you pursue growth you end up with comfort. If you pursue comfort you get "soft soap" in the beginning and in the end despair.
Comfort believes people can go from BAD to GOOD. Growth realizes that the only way from BAD to GOOD goes through WORSE. The Bible constantly says that we have to go through WORSE to get to GOOD. John 12:24 tells us Jesus said a corn of wheat has to DIE before it bring forth fruit. Paul says we all need to admit we are sinners. The fruitful branch is cut back to bring more fruit. When Jesus did heal people, the "back story" tells us how the person went from BAD to WORSE before Jesus took them to GOOD. Beware of people who promise you BAD to GOOD without going through WORSE...they are unbiblical!
Basically, you will be uncomfortable...you get to choose when.
Do you want to be uncomfortable NOW (pursue growth) and be comfortable in the Long Term?
Do you want to be comfortable NOW (pursue comfort) and be uncomfortable in the Long Term?
The choice is completely up to you.
People change for two reasons: achieve gain or fear of loss.
Very few people change for "achieve gain"...these people are excellent.
These people are growth focused...GROWTH is the "achieve gain" principle.
Growth is uncomfortable, so our flesh wants to be content with what we currently have...it is good enough.
EVERYONE changes with "fear of loss".
The Bible is proof of this.
God ALWAYS approached people FIRST with an "achieve gain" mentality...with a principle...with a benefit.
When people chose not to respond, God went to "fear of loss"...with a law...with a penalty.
Either way, you will be uncomfortable, but you choose whether it is to achieve gain or prevent loss.
So pursuit of comfort (CAUSE) does not RESULT in comfort in the Long Term. Pursuit of growth results in discomfort in the short term and comfort in the Long Term.
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth no fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (John 15:1-2)
The goal is growth...and even when we do grow, God is going to cut us back! God is going to make us uncomfortable! WHY? So we can GROW MORE!!! This is the opposite of the way man thinks!
Also, people are pursing growth or comfort simultaneously in many areas of their life. However, the more areas in which a person pursues comfort, the more despair they will have in their life. Personally, I try to narrow the discussion down to an area. I try to stay away from saying someone is ALL about comfort while someone else is ALL about growth...these people don't exist.
Each of us is pursuing comfort in at least one area of our life. How do we detect it?
It is the area where we look comparatively and try to prove our point.
It is the area where we try to live with contradictions.
It is the area where we want to believe things are random or unknowable.
There is nothing wrong with finding out you are pursuing comfort...the issue is the response. When a person discovers they are pursuing comfort in an area of their life:
Do they embrace causality and look contrastively in order to remove contradictions?
Or do they embrace randomness and come up with excuses why the issue is really unknowable in order to remain comparative and try to live with contradictions?
Here is an analogy:
When we look at one area of a person's life, I like to see the person on a path. One way is slightly downhill, but looks level. It slowly becomes increasingly more downhill until it reaches a severe drop like a slide. The other way is looking up at a slide that becomes less steep immediately after the slide.
So the path is made up of segments that get increasingly steep going downhill (or less steep going uphill), only to start all over again. Going downhill leads to a valley where the person has less of a view and experiences more darkness. Going uphill leads to a bigger view and more light.
First of all, let me state that it is possible to sit down on the path and just rest...recharge, heal. There is nothing wrong with this...but I wouldn't call this comfort. We all have a need to make progress...one way or the other.
It is easy to walk downhill...in fact, it gets easier over time until you reach the decision point where you slide all the way to the bottom of a segment. When this happens, almost everyone knows they are going the wrong way and need to go back up the steep face to get back to where they were. However, it is a real pain to climb up this steep face...and it's real easy to convince one's self that going down the path that now appears to be level could randomly result in them getting back to where they were...but it never does.
One of the things I've realized in the past two years is you can't force anyone to go uphill. You can't carry them uphill, it is too steep. If people don't want to go up the steep face, there is no way you can make them.
Actually, there are only three ways up the steep face.
First, you can do it all by yourself. You can try all sorts of things to find your own way up.
Second, you can work together with others to go up the face.
Third, you can get insight from others who have already made it up the face.
The goal is progress..making it up the hill. What is interesting to me is some people think there is NO value in making it up the hill UNLESS they do it completely by themselves. Actually, there is NOTHING wrong with this mentality in and of itself. HOWEVER, if this person tries to help ANYONE else make it up the hill, the "do it yourselfer" is a hypocrite. Why would they expect/require someone to take help when they themselves won't take help?
Finally, I have seen people who say, "You know, there will ALWAYS be another hill. Isn't it enough to stand in awe of this hill? Don't you want to sit and discuss this hill? I'm really all about appreciating this hill. Why do you need to go up it?"
The problem is they are looking at a mound. The next hill is MORE amazing...in fact, each hill is MORE rich, wonderful, deep, and worthy of discussion. If these peopel are really about appreciating the mystery of a hill, why don't they progress to a hill that is barely understood, instead of a mound stepped over by thousands of years of humanity?
Summary
You can’t gain in the short term and the long term. A lot of bad science occurs when people want a positive result without putting in the work. You either pay in the short term and gain in the long term or you gain in the short term and pay in the long term. The former situation is someone pursuing growth. The latter situation is someone pursuing comfort. A person pursuing comfort wants to be correct right now.
In reality, everyone is either pursuing growth or comfort. People who pursue comfort want to be right, right now. They want to avoid anything that doesn’t make them feel good immediately. In fact, they don’t want to have any conflict at all. In groups, their goal is for everyone to get along.
People who pursue growth want to be right in the future. Growth is painful. They are willing to go through short-term pain in return for more knowledge. They will even embrace conflict because they know this is the only way to prove truth. When we pursue comfort, we lose our objectivity. When we pursue growth, we gain it.
It’s very easy to determine whether a person is pursuing growth or comfort: watch how they handle a contradiction. The person pursuing comfort will fight for the contradiction to exist, even though it proves he is wrong. In fact, he almost craves the contradiction because it gives him a reason NOT to think. He may even say, “See, it doesn’t make sense. It can’t be understood so I don’t have to try.”
The person pursuing growth sees a contradiction as an opportunity to learn. It is an opportunity to become more right. This person will immediately focus on his assumptions and try to figure out which ones are incorrect. As we saw with the first principle (Contrastive), determining what isn’t true is something we can do and know for sure. Remember, as humans, all we know for sure is what isn’t right.
Pursuing growth and thinking contrastively are God’s way of thinking. However, we have our own way of thinking. Now we see why God’s ways are so much higher than our own. This is not easy to do. It doesn’t come naturally because it is not in our nature, so we have to do it intentionally.
I believe the "flesh" mentioned in the Bible refers to the opposite of these four principles. We express our will to God that we want to take direction from Him when we choose to act towards these four principles and against the flesh.
We need to look at the Big Picture and Long Term instead of the moment. For example, in Genesis when Joseph was in jail, was this a good thing or a bad thing? Those who confine themselves to the moment (short-term) believe this was a bad thing. Those who look at the Big Picture and Long Term realize this was a good thing because it led to Joseph’s elevation in Egypt and Israel’s salvation.
Traditionalists avoid changing their beliefs. Post moderns avoid stating their beliefs. Both of these philosophies are focused on the short term result. Moderns intentionally put themselves through this process on a continuous basis in order to be more correct in the long term.
(This post is two years old. In the summer of 2008, I gave a perspective on this principle as it relates to what physiologically happens in the brain in this post.)
Next Post
(If you haven't seen it, we also have a video that illustrates all four principles using a sudoku puzzle. It the link doesn't work for you, copy and paste this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyJbPeLIsr8#GU5U2spHI_4)
(For some reason, people who google life-changing concepts end up with this post from the blog. Please realize "growth" is just one of the four God-given principles. Actually, it is the weakest of the four. Please don't leave this blog without reading about: non-contradiction, contrastive thinking, and causality. Also, this post is more than two years old. At the end of each of these posts are updated explanations of each principles viewed from the perspective of the latest scientific brain research...that is, how each principle is actually hard-wired in your brain and how doing the opposite of each God-given principle leads to physiological damage to the brain!)
Either people are pursuing growth or they aren't...I happen to call the other option "Comfort".
People tend to look at the word "comfort" and abuse causality to "prove" they MUST be pursuing growth. For instance, someone could say, "I'm not comfortable, so I must be pursuing growth."
CS Lewis said it best when he said comfort is the one thing you can't get by pursuing it. If you pursue growth you end up with comfort. If you pursue comfort you get "soft soap" in the beginning and in the end despair.
Comfort believes people can go from BAD to GOOD. Growth realizes that the only way from BAD to GOOD goes through WORSE. The Bible constantly says that we have to go through WORSE to get to GOOD. John 12:24 tells us Jesus said a corn of wheat has to DIE before it bring forth fruit. Paul says we all need to admit we are sinners. The fruitful branch is cut back to bring more fruit. When Jesus did heal people, the "back story" tells us how the person went from BAD to WORSE before Jesus took them to GOOD. Beware of people who promise you BAD to GOOD without going through WORSE...they are unbiblical!
Basically, you will be uncomfortable...you get to choose when.
Do you want to be uncomfortable NOW (pursue growth) and be comfortable in the Long Term?
Do you want to be comfortable NOW (pursue comfort) and be uncomfortable in the Long Term?
The choice is completely up to you.
People change for two reasons: achieve gain or fear of loss.
Very few people change for "achieve gain"...these people are excellent.
These people are growth focused...GROWTH is the "achieve gain" principle.
Growth is uncomfortable, so our flesh wants to be content with what we currently have...it is good enough.
EVERYONE changes with "fear of loss".
The Bible is proof of this.
God ALWAYS approached people FIRST with an "achieve gain" mentality...with a principle...with a benefit.
When people chose not to respond, God went to "fear of loss"...with a law...with a penalty.
Either way, you will be uncomfortable, but you choose whether it is to achieve gain or prevent loss.
So pursuit of comfort (CAUSE) does not RESULT in comfort in the Long Term. Pursuit of growth results in discomfort in the short term and comfort in the Long Term.
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth no fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (John 15:1-2)
The goal is growth...and even when we do grow, God is going to cut us back! God is going to make us uncomfortable! WHY? So we can GROW MORE!!! This is the opposite of the way man thinks!
Also, people are pursing growth or comfort simultaneously in many areas of their life. However, the more areas in which a person pursues comfort, the more despair they will have in their life. Personally, I try to narrow the discussion down to an area. I try to stay away from saying someone is ALL about comfort while someone else is ALL about growth...these people don't exist.
Each of us is pursuing comfort in at least one area of our life. How do we detect it?
It is the area where we look comparatively and try to prove our point.
It is the area where we try to live with contradictions.
It is the area where we want to believe things are random or unknowable.
There is nothing wrong with finding out you are pursuing comfort...the issue is the response. When a person discovers they are pursuing comfort in an area of their life:
Do they embrace causality and look contrastively in order to remove contradictions?
Or do they embrace randomness and come up with excuses why the issue is really unknowable in order to remain comparative and try to live with contradictions?
Here is an analogy:
When we look at one area of a person's life, I like to see the person on a path. One way is slightly downhill, but looks level. It slowly becomes increasingly more downhill until it reaches a severe drop like a slide. The other way is looking up at a slide that becomes less steep immediately after the slide.
So the path is made up of segments that get increasingly steep going downhill (or less steep going uphill), only to start all over again. Going downhill leads to a valley where the person has less of a view and experiences more darkness. Going uphill leads to a bigger view and more light.
First of all, let me state that it is possible to sit down on the path and just rest...recharge, heal. There is nothing wrong with this...but I wouldn't call this comfort. We all have a need to make progress...one way or the other.
It is easy to walk downhill...in fact, it gets easier over time until you reach the decision point where you slide all the way to the bottom of a segment. When this happens, almost everyone knows they are going the wrong way and need to go back up the steep face to get back to where they were. However, it is a real pain to climb up this steep face...and it's real easy to convince one's self that going down the path that now appears to be level could randomly result in them getting back to where they were...but it never does.
One of the things I've realized in the past two years is you can't force anyone to go uphill. You can't carry them uphill, it is too steep. If people don't want to go up the steep face, there is no way you can make them.
Actually, there are only three ways up the steep face.
First, you can do it all by yourself. You can try all sorts of things to find your own way up.
Second, you can work together with others to go up the face.
Third, you can get insight from others who have already made it up the face.
The goal is progress..making it up the hill. What is interesting to me is some people think there is NO value in making it up the hill UNLESS they do it completely by themselves. Actually, there is NOTHING wrong with this mentality in and of itself. HOWEVER, if this person tries to help ANYONE else make it up the hill, the "do it yourselfer" is a hypocrite. Why would they expect/require someone to take help when they themselves won't take help?
Finally, I have seen people who say, "You know, there will ALWAYS be another hill. Isn't it enough to stand in awe of this hill? Don't you want to sit and discuss this hill? I'm really all about appreciating this hill. Why do you need to go up it?"
The problem is they are looking at a mound. The next hill is MORE amazing...in fact, each hill is MORE rich, wonderful, deep, and worthy of discussion. If these peopel are really about appreciating the mystery of a hill, why don't they progress to a hill that is barely understood, instead of a mound stepped over by thousands of years of humanity?
Summary
You can’t gain in the short term and the long term. A lot of bad science occurs when people want a positive result without putting in the work. You either pay in the short term and gain in the long term or you gain in the short term and pay in the long term. The former situation is someone pursuing growth. The latter situation is someone pursuing comfort. A person pursuing comfort wants to be correct right now.
In reality, everyone is either pursuing growth or comfort. People who pursue comfort want to be right, right now. They want to avoid anything that doesn’t make them feel good immediately. In fact, they don’t want to have any conflict at all. In groups, their goal is for everyone to get along.
People who pursue growth want to be right in the future. Growth is painful. They are willing to go through short-term pain in return for more knowledge. They will even embrace conflict because they know this is the only way to prove truth. When we pursue comfort, we lose our objectivity. When we pursue growth, we gain it.
It’s very easy to determine whether a person is pursuing growth or comfort: watch how they handle a contradiction. The person pursuing comfort will fight for the contradiction to exist, even though it proves he is wrong. In fact, he almost craves the contradiction because it gives him a reason NOT to think. He may even say, “See, it doesn’t make sense. It can’t be understood so I don’t have to try.”
The person pursuing growth sees a contradiction as an opportunity to learn. It is an opportunity to become more right. This person will immediately focus on his assumptions and try to figure out which ones are incorrect. As we saw with the first principle (Contrastive), determining what isn’t true is something we can do and know for sure. Remember, as humans, all we know for sure is what isn’t right.
Pursuing growth and thinking contrastively are God’s way of thinking. However, we have our own way of thinking. Now we see why God’s ways are so much higher than our own. This is not easy to do. It doesn’t come naturally because it is not in our nature, so we have to do it intentionally.
I believe the "flesh" mentioned in the Bible refers to the opposite of these four principles. We express our will to God that we want to take direction from Him when we choose to act towards these four principles and against the flesh.
We need to look at the Big Picture and Long Term instead of the moment. For example, in Genesis when Joseph was in jail, was this a good thing or a bad thing? Those who confine themselves to the moment (short-term) believe this was a bad thing. Those who look at the Big Picture and Long Term realize this was a good thing because it led to Joseph’s elevation in Egypt and Israel’s salvation.
Traditionalists avoid changing their beliefs. Post moderns avoid stating their beliefs. Both of these philosophies are focused on the short term result. Moderns intentionally put themselves through this process on a continuous basis in order to be more correct in the long term.
(This post is two years old. In the summer of 2008, I gave a perspective on this principle as it relates to what physiologically happens in the brain in this post.)
Next Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)