(This is an old post done during the time when I considered that Tim Snell actually may have support for his Abuse of me. Here is a link to December 2009 proving that Tim Snell has NO SUPPORT for his claims about Modeling God: Tim Snell's Formal Support.)
(The most alarming claim by Tim Snell and the Christian Law Association (Dr. Gibbs) is that they don't believe that Jesus was fully man! They don't believe that Jesus could choose to do evil. This is stating Jesus was unable to bridge the gap for our Salvation. This is deception. Worse, this is a contradiction of the most famous Old Testament prophecy concerning Jesus:
"14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:14-15)
It ALL begins with understanding God's Nature. I don't understand HOW anyone can teach God's Word when they deny God's Being.)
This post is the effect of the last two posts and months of events. If you are new to this blog, please read your way into this post.
Here are the links to the previous two posts:
Four Causes
One Way Justice
To those of you familiar with this blog, this post is going to begin a new era on this blog. With the sequel to "Modeling God" being posted on a separate blog, this blog will become more personal. For those who are looking to grow in their understanding of God and the Bible, the sequel will keep you busy for some time. Especially since there will be an opportunity for much more discussion on the other blog and an encouragement to all to help write the story, so that ought to also keep you busy.
Also, this is by far the longest post I have ever presented...and that's okay because the only people who ought to read this are the ones who really want to read this. The new era on this blog is not going to be about extremely long posts.
I have spent the last two years teaching these principles to a group in Appleton, Wisconsin. One of the benefits they have is I have shared a lot about myself both personally and professionally. I appreciate those of you who are "regulars" to this blog. You have invested your time without knowing much about me personally and that says a lot about you. There are those who actually reach out to correct me, teach me, challenge me, etc...without actually knowing me. The people in that group always amaze me. I truly believe they are led of God and the fruit from their ability to obey God has blessed me and others tremendously. To that end, I believe God is telling me I'm the one holding up further profitability...whether I like it or not, I'm the hub of the exchanges on this blog and I haven't done a good job of encouraging sharing because I haven't shared very much about myself.
Those who know me have reinforced this point...I ought to share more. You will see in the sequel each chapter in Part I begins with a vignette from my professional background. It serves several purposes...the most important is for me to share more about myself. To that end, I'm going to spend the month of June sharing about my personal background on this blog. I plan on sharing from childhood all the way through the wild and soap opera like events that have occurred during the last two years. I have no doubt you will find the events of the last two years hard to believe because I have seen the looks of disbelief on the faces of friends when I share my story...but I have the proof. In fact, the culmination of an important chapter recently occurred on this blog...
In the previous post, I shared how I have been praying for over ten years for a pastor to take a stand (either accept or reject) the teaching in "Modeling God". With each pastor who effectively ducked a stance, I began to wonder if any pastor would ever take a stand. Then early this year, I heard from several sources there was a pastor in Appleton who was telling people he was writing a refutation of "Modeling God". I was actually excited...
First, I have actively invited criticism because when I am found to be wrong, it always leads to the right answer...and I'm all about finding out the right answer in the Long Term. Second, I want to practice dealing with criticism because I want to be able to handle criticism from experts in a public setting. Third, when the criticism isn't correct, it can lead to me understanding the why and flesh out the connection between other areas. The comments in the previous post are a great example of this.
The people who know me know this is truly my heart attitude. I have had several people say to others, "I know people say they want to be corrected, but this guy really means it." So I had several people telling this pastor to talk with me in person. That is when I realized this wasn't going to be pretty...
I have easily had over 100 instances of valid criticism...all of them have been incorporated in "Modeling God". In fact, over the years, I've noticed a pattern in valid criticism and unfounded criticism. The main difference is in three areas:
1. Willing to Meet With Me
Those who have valid criticism are very anxious to tell me in person or over the phone. People who have baseless criticism seem to be the most creative people on this planet, because they have several reasons for not meeting with me and the reasons constantly change.
2. Brevity and Clarity
Every valid criticism I have received has been able to be stated in three sentences or less. For example, one of the last criticisms I got before the manuscript was finalized had to do with faith. I had written that faith is based on knowledge and experience. Someone told me: "If faith is based on knowledge and experience then the devil has faith because he has knowledge and experience. He certainly has experience but it must be based on something else he doesn't have." No argument from me. The first words out of my mouth after a short chuckle was: "Awesome! Thank you! You are completely right! What would that be?" (It was "understanding" and led to revelation in several areas...some I have shared and most I haven't.) Unfounded criticism is a lot more than three sentences...usually it is a ten minute explanation...and, so far, it has led to me understanding why what was written is even more right than I realized.
3. Telephone Game
This is an effect of #2...every valid criticism has been able to be told to me by others who heard the person say it. There has been criticism that got to me through others that has been valid. The follow up is that people have encouraged the person to tell me either in person or over the phone...and they do. Unfounded criticism usually sounds like this:
Them: "Someone told me you are wrong about an area of your book"
Me: "What did they say?"
Them: "It had something to do with "faith" but I didn't really understand it"
Me: "Was it the "Faith" chapter or "Faith Examples"?"
Them: "I'm not sure"
With this pastor in Appleton, he refused to meet with me, changed his excuse each time: "John is too smart"..."He is not a brother"..."If his heresy was less extreme I would meet with him"..."The work should stand on its own"...
He had set the record with area #1...he also broke the record for area #2: his explanation was over 30 pages! I knew something was backwards. Then when people who talked with him about his explanation tried to explain it to others it got very disappointing. Several times when they would tell someone how I was wrong about a passage in "Modeling God", the listener would open "Modeling God" to the passage in question and then read the paragraph before or shortly after...only to have the messenger walk away mumbling.
It became obvious this pastor's objective wasn't creation...it was destruction. He didn't want to tell me in order to help me or check to see if his conclusions are valid Long Term...the objective was something else...and the explanation kept changing.
Around March 23rd he began sending the refutation to area pastors and leaders. He went on Amazon and wrote a "review". Days later he sent me a copy of the refutation. I read the refutation and was extremely disappointed in the factual inaccuracies (over 200) as well as the logical and theological inaccuracies.
I e-mailed him on March 27th to thank him for reading "Modeling God" and sharing his thoughts...my prayers had been answered! I asked him some questions to better understand his perspective. (At the end of this post, I will share how to go to these links to see this for yourself.)
We exchanged e-mails where he answered questions different than what I asked. I clarified the questions and how he hadn't answered them. He then stated he intentionally didn't answer the questions...this made me realize his goal was to be right, right now.
My goal was to be about his best interests...to help him understand as much as possible so he could make an intentional choice. My goal was to let God flow through me. To that end, I wrote several e-mails giving him as much information as possible about the people he was being influenced by and the actions he had done...one of which was his participating in gossip with his Amazon review. I also am more afraid of God than man, so I personally don't care if everyone reads all of my e-mails to Tim because God has already read them. To be afraid of sharing in public is to be more afraid of man than God.
(By the way, there were two huge responses on Amazon from people who knew me. One of them was from a guy who posted a negative "review" who had never read the book but wanted to displace pain on me for events that happened in Appleton. He even came to my defense because the pastor's "review" sickened him! The other review came from the wife of a former pastor who was ashamed at this type of behavior from a pastor. There were several other points she made that proved the pastor's "review" was gossip and inaccurate. She posted under the name "joojie".)
On April 1 he stated he didn't have to share where he got his information for the gossip...he also stated he was going to put the refutation on the web.
Also on April 1, I gave him the list of the 200+ factual inaccuracies. We had agreed I was going to give him a list of logical and theological inaccuracies before he put the refutation up on the web. He wrote back that he was going to look at the list...
On April 5 I met with Wayne Swokowski, one of the people I am in Fellowship with. There are a group of seven people I am in Fellowship with...they have permission to speak into my life for my benefit...this means I invite them to confront me in every area of my life...especially where I'm wrong. True to the pattern of criticism, Wayne told me in two sentences how one of the sentences I had written to this pastor was wrong. I agreed so quickly, Wayne thought I was making fun of him.
What I had stated was incorrect. There was a way to state what I wanted to say correctly, but God has dealt with me in this area years ago...I have learned not to defend myself when I am wrong. I wrote this pastor, referenced the sentence, and stated the following:
"I met with Wayne today.
He showed my how the above sentence that I had written to you is wrong.
I was wrong to write that sentence...no excuses.
I will work to not do that again."
That is the entirety of the e-mail. Try it sometime...it is a humbling experience and very rewarding spiritually. When you are wrong: confess (admit it) and repent (work to not do it again)...no excuses...no explanation. Trust me, it builds character that is sorely lacking especially in the "Christian" community.
HUGE POINT: If you don't have anyone who can reach you when you are wrong, get someone soon! The last two years has taught me the people who do the most damage are those who have no one who can talk sense into them when they are wrong...I call it "contrastive". I believe Tim thinks he has someone, but I don't see evidence of it. In fact, you may want to refresh your understanding on: What is a Cult?
This pastor's response was to e-mail me the next day to say he made some changes and posted his refutation on www.modelinggodheresy.com. Pastor Tim Snell had made this discussion available to the world. He wrote me later to say that he would be willing to trade links. He would post a link to my blog on his refutation if I would post a link to his refutation on my blog. The thing is I was putting a link to his website on my blog when he wrote to me...so, I agreed.
I still didn't want to make this discussion the focus so he could have the opportunity to back down once he realized what had really happened...he was telling the world he was a pastor participating in gossip and he was unable to interpret a 225 page book accurately without having about one factual inaccuracy per page in the book. After all, a big part of his job is his ability to interpret text (hermeneutics). And the Bible is much more difficult to interpret than my book. He was showing the world he is unable to interpret text...and I wanted to give him every opportunity to wake up and change his mind with the minimum damage to him. However, I had to give people who follow the blog the ability to get information.
I put the link on two often hit posts: Table of Contents and Experience. The next day, Tim Snell said he wanted the link to be "more accessible". I told him it is on the sublayer of my blog just like the link to my blog will be on the sublayer of his ministry. He wasn't going to put the link to my blog on his church's website (even though he used church stationery to spread the word). As far as I know he never put a link to my blog...
In the same e-mail he told me he wanted to see me deal with his refutation in a logical fashion...he wanted a rebuttal.
Weeks before, I felt God tell me to "sink" five posts. That is, I was to write five posts but not publish them. However, I was not supposed to delete them. The thing is, when I did decide to publish them, they would show up at the date they were first opened...which would not be on the front page. What was the point? I didn't know, but I did it anyway.
Now, Tim was asking for a rebuttal and I wanted to keep this as low key as possible for his sake. I wanted to publish but not take everyone's focus off of what was being written because it was a vital topic. In fact, one of the posts during that time is easily my most googled post: "Masculinity and Pornography". I constantly get hits directed by people searching for the Biblical definition of masculinity or how to deal with addiction to pornography. The posts during this period make up a key portion of the sequel...it would have been destructive to take the focus off of the revelation that was being presented.
The rebuttal had to be available but not on the front page. The sunken posts were the answer! I needed all five posts. I used one for the rebuttal. I needed two to list the factual inaccuracies from each half of the refutation. I used one to post the Amazon review and the last post to show the initial e-mails from me to Tim. I couldn't have planned this better...here are the links:
The Rebuttal
Refutation Inaccuracies (Part 1)
Refutation Inaccuracies (Part 2)
e-mails to Tim Snell
Tim's Amazon "Review"
One of the things Tim stated in his correspondence was that he was going to get a group of pastors together and meet with me to discuss the theology of "Modeling God". I wholeheartedly invited it. However, I'm still wondering why it was right for him to meet with me while he had a group of pastors and not right for him to meet with me without a group of pastors...
(This still hasn't happened to this day...)
The biggest thing that concerned me about his refutation was the number of factual inaccuracies. Some of them are mindboggling. He misquotes the book...he misinterprets passages...he makes wild projections for emotional effect. What's more...I spelled some of these out specifically to him in the e-mail. For example, point #3 was:
"3. There are some blatant misrepresentations of text EVEN when you give a reference. For instance, the definition of GRACE from "Modeling God" is NOT what you state. Check YOUR reference page stated. Is this an example of your ability to translate?"
He still left a blatant misrepresentation of grace (and other passages) in the refutation after it was blatantly pointed out. Something else is going on here...
My concern is for him...he is misleading people. He ought to tell people to read "Modeling God" before reading his refutation. When you go to my rebuttal, I say you ought to read "Modeling God", then the refutation before you read the rebuttal. The only way his refutation makes any sense is if you take his word on his representation of "Modeling God"...even then, there are parts of the refutation that are wrong without even reading "Modeling God". Later, Tim told me you can get to his website by going to www.lenharteatsrocks.com
The MAIN POINT is that Tim uses a process to prove my process is flawed. In order for him to be right, his process HAS TO BE BETTER than my process. Actually, his process is more flawed than my process...mostly because there appears to be no way to improve his process. Eventually I will post his refutation on this (or a separate) blog and go through it section by section because it is a great teaching aid to realize how today's pastors think. Before you get mad at me for projecting Tim's thought process on other pastors as a group, I would remind you that he is the only pastor who has been able to put his thoughts together and share them...it is most likely that other pastors' have an even more flawed thought process.
Both of the next steps were his responsibility: get a group of pastors together to meet with me and show his step by step process on interpreting Ephesians 2:8-9 without using tradition.
Like I stated yesterday:
"Let me be clear...the Greek word "charis" has many meanings depending on usage. In some cases it is translated into English as "thank", "favor", and "gift". Where it has been translated into "grace" (except for James 1:11) by people who are the experts at language, etc., its definition is "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life"."
How does one get to "unmerited favor" from charis without bringing in man-made tradition? The "unmerited" is the issue...
Even if charis was interpreted as favor from a superior or favor for no reason other than the goodness of the heart of the giver...how do you get to "unmerited"? How do you go from the perspective of the giver to the need of the receiver?...and make a value judgment?
A billion dollar movie studio pays an actor 20 million to star in a movie. The movie makes over 100 million during its first weekend. The movie company gives the movie star a $300,000 car...the only reason they did it was because they felt great. Does this mean the movie star NEEDED the car? The first thing some people say is, "Oh...like they really needed that!"
If I give you a used pen out of the goodness of my heart, does this mean you needed it? Does this mean that you didn't deserve it?
We do need God's grace...we don't earn it...however, NOWHERE in the definition of CHARIS is there "unmerited"...man put that in. This is wrong and the sequel shows that we are currently paying for 500 year old traditions being in place of the Word of God in our most public and crucial doctrines.
I was willing to let the works stand on their own while Tim handled the two next steps...but he kept writing to people defending his work. "One Way Justice" was again rearing its ugly head. He didn't want people to talk to me (including members of his congregation), yet he wanted people to discuss his work with him...my published work was supposed to stand on its own, while he encouraged the same people to discuss his published work with him. He seemed to be focused on "grace"...he seemed to want attention.
On Friday, May 16th, I wrote about "Leadership: Community and Church". It was a long post dealing with profitability and exchanges with others. At the end was one paragraph about "grace".
On May 21st, the following comment was posted twice. The first post is below. The second post was minutes later with the link to the refutation at the end. The post was under the name "Anonymous".
Anonymous wrote:
J G Lenhart said:
Bonus Jesus Saying: Tradition has defined "grace" (charis) as "unmerited favor". The Greek word for "unmerited favor" is not "charis". Charis is "the divine influence on the heart and its reflection in the life".
Your work here seeking to get give definitions is sophmorish at best. While the definition you give above is accurate, it doesn't fit everywhere the word is used in scripture. Giving one-size-fits-all definitions rarely (if ever) do. That the word can and does mean "unmerited favor" in various usages of it is clearly seen. Check out just a few of the following Greek references.
1. [Note: #1 has sub-points as I am quoting from one source with many sub-points. All subpoints are from the same source under the same heading of “grace.” The following quotes represent some of the key things this source states.] “charis, grace, gracefulness, graciousness, favour, goodwill; …charizomai, show favour or kindness, give as a favour, to be gracious to some, to pardon; charitoo, endue with grace.”
a. “Words formed from the Gk. Root ‘char’ indicate things which produce wellbeing.”
b. [Outside the Bible]
i. “The vb. Charizomai…does not occur with God as its subject until Aelius Aristides (2nd cent. A.D.), when it means to give graciously. …In the context of ethics and law it means to grant, remit, forgive, or pardon… It is used particularly in the sense of granting someone’s life (to a third party), i.e. to set him free to please someone.”
c. [In the O.T]
i. [….charis = hen] “The use of the word hen clarifies the meaning of ‘grace’ in history and actions. It denotes the stronger coming to the help of the weaker who stands in need of help by reason of his circumstances or natural weakness. He acts by a voluntary decision, though he is moved by the dependence or the request of the weaker party. A typical expression used to describe such an event from the standpoint of the weak is the formula to find favour in someone’s eyes, i.e. to acquire his favor… The action itself is what makes the weaker party acceptable….”
d. [In the N.T.]
i. “In Jesus’ teaching the concept of grace in the sense of the undeserved gift of God evidently did not occur.”
ii. “In Acts grace is that power which flows from God or from the exalted Christ and accompanies the activity of the apostles giving success to their mission (Acts 6:8; 11:23; 14:26; 15:40; 18:27)…. It is that which enables men to believe (18:47).”
iii. “For Paul charis is the essence of God’s decisive saving act in Jesus Christ.”
1. “The apostle unfolds the reality and power of charis in stubborn conflict with Rab. Ideas of justification by works and synergism… This leads him to set up in contrast two antithetical, mutually exclusive series of ideas: grace, gift, the righteousness of God…on one side; and law, reward, sin, works accomplishment owed, one’s own righteousness… on the other side. The person and work of the Son made it possible for justice in the judge’s pardon not to conflict with grace (Rom 3:21ff.; 8:32; Gal. 2:20f.; Phil 2:8ff.)…. This also means that grace can never become a quality which an individual may possess in his own right, nor may it ever be placed at his disposal.”
2. “Romans 5:15-21 and 6:1: Rom. 5:15 declares that ‘the free gift [charisma] is not like the trespass [paraptoma]. Here chrisma is used in the sense of charis. Charisma is the gift of life, which as ‘the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded to many.’”
3. “Arising out of the basic act of pardon and legal acquittal (Rom. 8:31gg), Paul understands the whole movement of the Christian life from beginning to end as grace…. Human weakness, not self-determination, is its sphere of activity (2 Cor. 12:9)”
( This entire section is taken from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 2 p. 115 – 123.)
2. “Charis has various uses, (a) objective, that which bestows or occasions pleasure, delight, or causes favourable regard; it is applied, e.g., to beauty, or gracefulness of person, Luke 2:40, …’words of grace’…Col. 4:6; (b) subjective, (I) on the part of the bestower, the friendly disposition from which the kindly act proceeds, graciousness, lovingkindness, goodwill generally, e.g. Acts 7:10; especially with reference to the Divine faour or grace, e.g., Acts 14:26; in this respect there is stress on its freeness and universality, its spontaneous character, as in the case of God’s redemptive mercy and the pleasure or joy He designs for the recipient; thus it is set in contrast with debt, Rom. 4:4, 16, with works, Rom 11:6, and the law, John 1:17;…”
( Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. P. 509-510)
4. “Already in the ethical terminology of the Greek schools charis implied ever a favour freely done, without claim or expectation of return – the word thus being predisposed to receive its new emphasis, its religious, I may say its dogmatic, significance; to set forth the entire and absolute freeness of the lovingkindness of God to men. Thus Aristotle, defining charis, lays the whole stress on this very point, that it is conferred freely, with no expectation of return, and finding its only motive in the bounty and free-heartedness of the giver (Rhet. ii. 7)… Agreeing with this we have charis kai dorea, Polybuis i. 36. 6… Compare Romans xi. 6 where St. Paul sets charis and epga over against one another in directest antithesis, showing that they mutually exclude one another, it being of whatever is owed to charis that it is unearned and unmerited.”
( Synonyms of the New Testament by Richard Trench p 166.)
6. 5483 χαρίζομαι [charizomai /khar•id•zom•ahee/] v. Middle voice from 5485; TDNT 9:372; TDNTA 1298; GK 5919; 23 occurrences; AV translates as “forgive” 11 times, “give” six times, “freely give” twice, “deliver” twice, “grant” once, and “frankly forgive” once. 1 to do something pleasant or agreeable (to one), to do a favour to, gratify. 1a to show one’s self gracious, kind, benevolent. 1b to grant forgiveness, to pardon. 1c to give graciously, give freely, bestow. 1c1 to forgive. 1c2 graciously to restore one to another. 1c3 to preserve for one a person in peril.
( Strong, J. (1996). Enhanced Strong's Lexicon (G5483). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)
You evidently haven't done enough work in researching these things in the Greek to be aware of that.
Here are some questions: Have you ever taken Greek at College or Graduate School? If so, how many hours?
Have you ever taken a course in hermeneutics?
Relying on non-contradiction ALONE simply isn't sufficient to get to bottom rung definitions. These must be done employing the tools of hermeneutics and etymology. I'll be interested to see what your background is as you answer the above questions... And how you deal with a more thorough analysis of the Greek than you have evidently done before.
I find myself in agreement with pastor Snell's refutation of your work.
(End of Post)
First of all, this post has nothing to do with the topic that was posted. Second, it would fit with the rebuttal post. Third, this post confuses the issue and doesn't get to the heart of the matter...how do you get to "unmerited favor" from charis in Ephesians 2:8-9 without using tradition? Fourth, the fact that it was reposted minutes later with the address to the refutation shows the intent. Finally, sitemeter tracks the location of the hits to the blog. Sometime the location isn't determined, sometimes it is...this one was tracked right to Tim Snell's church!
Think about that...a post that gives an endorsement of Tim Snell is written anonymously from the computer(s) at Tim Snell's church. The post is eerily similar to Tim Snell's latest discussions on grace. Either the poster is Tim Snell, a leader at Tim's church, or someone who is not a leader but has access to the computers at Tim's church...which is actually the most alarming option.
The first case (Tim) would mean Tim is endorsing himself and trying not to appear like he is Tim.
The second case (leader) would mean someone who gets a paycheck from Tim is endorsing Tim and trying not to appear like they are affiliated with Tim.
The third case is that the computers at Tim's church are open for public use...
I pulled the posts and wrote the following two posts:
Post #1:
"If you are going to assert something as truth, have the guts to identify yourself. Tim Snell did..."
and
Post #2:
"For the rest of you...the first two posts were replicates posted by "Anonymous".
I have the post and will share it with everyone because it makes for a great teaching aid. However, in the meantime, I would ask "Anonymous" some questions (in case they come back):
1. Did you write this or get it from Tim Snell?
2. Are you affiliated with Tim Snell's church (Christ's Church of the Valley)?
3. Do you think this is Christian behavior?
Tim knows the next two steps are:
1. Get a group of pastors to meet with me
2. Give his hermeneutical process for interpreting Ephesians 2:8.
I am and have always been willing to meet with Tim Snell anytime..."
The next day, there was a post from an IP Address that tracked to Green Bay. The post was under "Anonymous" again and purports to be the same person.
I happened to be by the computer and we fired back and forth. I want you to read it for yourself, but notice the "One Way Justice"...I answer their questions and give them every opportunity to answer mine.
Here is the transcript of what followed after I removed the first two posts by Anonymous:
Anonymous said...
Why delete the comment? Are you afraid of the truth? Afraid to discuss things openingly on your blog?
BTW, isn't it true that you sometimes use pseudonyms to hide your identity when you post comments elsehwere?
7:00 AM
jg lenhart said...
I embrace the truth. The post was misleading and by people who are not interested in standing up for it publicly.
I don't post under "anonymous"...which is not a pseudonym.
I've answered your questions...as I always strive to do.
Now show us your heart and objectives by responding (or not responding) to my questions.
8:19 AM
jg lenhart said...
I have posted under screen names, etc.
I've never hidden my identity when asked.
By the way, my response to Tim's work is in the "Rebuttal" post on this blog. It is public and documents that Tim intentionally misrepresented and misquoted "Modeling God". Read that and make your comments over there.
8:25 AM
Anonymous said...
How was the original post misleading. 85% was either quoting you directly from this blog post...or quoting numerous Greek sources disagreeing with you.
And no - you haven't answered my questions. Have you ever taken any courses on Greek? If so, how many credit hours? What institutions? Any courses on Hermeneutics.
I think you are afraid to have that post up because multiple Greek sources refute what you claim.
9:04 AM
jg lenhart said...
The Devil quoted the Bible...so 100% of what was quoted was from God...yet it still wasn't truth.
What is your objective? Is it to create or destroy?
IF you are interested in creating, take this to the rebuttal post.
I haven't taken any credit hours of Greek, etc. I have spent 14 years studying the Bible and talking with "experts". My information is public on this blog.
You have yet to answer the questions.
I don't want to hide anything because God sees everything. We will all be judged. To think that Christians can get away with being un-Christian and destroying is a belief that God has lower expectations for us than for unbelievers.
Please use all your hermeneutical skills to explain how your actions are justified.
9:35 AM
Anonymous said...
If you don't want to hide anything, why don't you repost the post you deleted? There is nothing destructive in that post unless you are afraid of what the Greek actually says.
9:45 AM
jg lenhart said...
I will post it when I can go through it point by point for the public...otherwise it is misleading.
Some people can't tell the difference between what I write and what others write...then they quote the assertion of facts by others as if I wrote it. I have deleted posts before that have done this.
So I will post it and I will show how the thought process is contradictory...
Now there is the issue of you answering the questions. It is time to show your morality...
Will you answer the questions or not?
9:52 AM
Anonymous said...
I didn't think you had taken any Greek.
As I thought, you wouldn't allow the direct quote from Vine's, Strong's Exhaustive, or other sources...or really anything that might refute your claims. That is a sign of a very weak argument.
9:57 AM
jg lenhart said...
I didn't take any Greek courses for credit. Your interpretation skills are lacking.
The sign of a weak argument is avoidance and contradiction...
Tim Snell told people to buy a CS Lewis book instead of my book. What was CS Lewis' background? How much Greek did he take? Where did he get his theology degree? Tim Snell publicly declared CS Lewis the "expert"...
CS Lewis wasn't a Greek "expert", yet Tim considers him to be a source. Likewise, taking courses in Greek doesn't PROVE understanding.
As for avoidance, apparently, you are choosing not to answer the question after being given several chances. If you don't answer with your next post, I'm taking that as a sign you are either unable or unwilling...
10:04 AM
Anonymous said...
Take it as you will. Your unwillingness to repost the first post shows your fear of people actually knowing the truth and deciding for themselves. It is when TRUTH contradicts you that you have the problem...not when you do not contradict yourself (even though what you are saying has no basis in truth.)
BTW, I'm not writing about Tim's work...I'm writing about the last paragraph of YOUR blog from last Friday. Sounds like you are too afraid to discuss that.
10:21 AM
Anonymous said...
Speaking of avoidance...look who is avoiding posting and discussing the first post. You violate your own rules.
10:24 AM
jg lenhart said...
Yesterday, sitemeter recorded two hits between 10 AM and 1 PM.
There was a hit that began at 10:23 AM from an unknown location that had two page views.
There was a hit that began at 11:31AM that had three page views and went for fifteen minutes.
There wasn't another post for well over 90 minutes.
The original two posts on this thread that ended with "I find myself in agreement with pastor Snell's refutation of your work." occurred during the session that began at 11:31 AM.
The location?
"66.202.72.# (christ church of the valley)"
It ACTUALLY NAMED Tim's church!!!!
Someone on a computer located at Pastor Tim's church wrote that post. Who has access to computers at Christ Church of the Valley? What is the real reason they find themself in agreement with Pastor Snell?
Numbers 32:23:
"But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out."
I'm still going to post the original comment and go through it for the public, but I will also include this thread because it demonstrates a heart attitude held by our current "Christian leaders".
10:24 AM
Anonymous said...
Where in the Bible is it a sin to post anonymously or under a pseudonym. You yourself acknowledge you do it. Can you give me the book, chapter and verse on that one?
10:28 AM
Anonymous said...
Come on John,
Deal with the Post...not who is writing something or where it is written from. That is a red herring - a form of illogical argumentation and debate. Deal with the arguments in an open discussion. Or can you?
I wish I was making this all up, but if you see where I'm wrong, please tell me how to deal with this better. These posts finally confirmed that Tim Snell wants to publicly stick to his position (whether it is through an associate or himself) and I can put the sequel out. Also, if you think this has been crazy, the explanation of the last two years makes this look almost sane.
I also wish this was the end of the story, but the previous post elicited a comment:
joojie said...
200 years prior to Christ Aristotle used the word charis to mean unmerited favor. It didn't originate with Luther. Your statement is factually inaccurate.
8:48 AM
jg lenhart said...
Thank you for the correction...I've adjusted the blog to account for this information.
I'm always appreciative of people who take the time to correct me...in fact, I invite it.
Again, thank you.
First of all, I truly appreciated the comment. It lead to me learning a ton about Aristotle and WHY we get off track with "unmerited favor". (Read the two paragraphs in parentheses in the previous post). Second, sitemeter tracked the post to the same IP Address as the source of the second day of comments from "Anonymous". Third, they use the term "factually inaccurate" which I used in the rebuttal. Fourth, look at the name they used..."joojie"...the same name as the wife of the former pastor who replied to Tim Snell on Amazon. The real "joojie" wrote to me to let me know it wasn't her...but I think anyone with an average IQ would have realized that...
The ironic thing is that the poster also ended up being wrong. In a post about "One Way Justice", is this poster going to admit their error...or are they going to cling to "One Way Justice"?
The world is watching...
Next Post
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
One Way Justice
NOTE: This is a long and crucial post. I have put a notice at the "halfway point" in case you want to save the rest for tomorrow.
Yesterday's post was revelatory. If you haven't read it, please take the time to do so: Four Causes
Summary of Yesterday's Post:
The First Commandment is faith.
The Second Commandment is grace.
All of it is made perfect because of love.
This is an extremely tight model...
"Loving the Lord thy God with all you heart, mind, soul, and strength" is faith because it requires a belief in something you can't see (God) and something that hasn't happened yet (giving BEFORE receiving). Actually, it is more even more than this "minimum faith requirement" because "love" means "giving without expecting to receive back from the one you are giving to".
The effect is that we love our neighbors...the Second Commandment. We've seen the only way to do this is for God to do it through us...which is grace (the divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life). The second half of that definition is the focus...it is God doing it through us via the Holy Spirit...it is "reflected" off of us, so it is not OF us and we can't take credit.
The proof and profitability of the Second Commandment is dependent on the second half of the definition of grace.
When a person doesn't understand this second half or doesn't think it needs to be mentioned, they are clearly missing the proof and profitability of being a believer...which is love.
GRACE REVIEW
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:8-10)
The apostles' doctrine of GRACE can be attained through the definition of the Greek word "charis". With the exception of one verse (James 1:11), every time the word "grace" occurs in the King James version of the New Testament, the word is "charis"...with one exception: James 1:11 which actually comes from "2143 euprepeia".
CHARIS, 5485 "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" (Strong's Concordance)
Let me be clear...the Greek word "charis" has many meanings depending on usage. In some cases it is translated into English as "thank", "favor", and "gift". Where it has been translated into "grace" (except for James 1:11) by people who are the experts at language, etc., its definition is "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life".
This is the ONLY non-contradictory definition that fits all the verses containing "charis" translated as "grace"!
God works through us and our ONLY responsibility is to humble ourselves and choose to allow God to work through us!
I've had someone explain it like medicine. The medicine cures us. However we are responsible for choosing to take the medicine. When we choose to take the medicine how ridiculous would it sound to claim, "I healed myself!" No, the medicine healed you. We can't take credit for the healing, but we are responsible for it.
However, the current definition of GRACE used by most pastors and teachers is "unmerited favor". This definition was given to the church by Martin Luther roughly 500 years ago. This definition was not a part of the apostles' doctrine. This doctrine of "unmerited favor" is NOT God's doctrine, it is man-made tradition...and therefore contradictory.
(Some people claim that Aristotle defined "charis" as "unmerited favor". However, this is Aristotle's actual definition: "that which is freely bestowed with no expectation of return; an act which finds its only motive in the good heartedness of the giver". Notice anything? This is actually "love". This definition doesn't fit the Apostles' doctrine of "grace", it would lead to contradictions in several other applications of "grace"...but it fits Jesus' and the Apostles' definition of "love". I wrote about this before that people take the definition of "love" and use it for "grace"...then they have a contradictory definition of "love". That's why the previous post was revelatory: it is the only explanation that combines faith, grace, love, and Jesus' First and Second Commandments. How many contradictory answers will it take before people pursue the truth?)
(Let me be clear about this: Aristotle's definition gives the CAUSE of the value as the good heartedness of the giver. Luther gives the CAUSE of the value as "our need". Luther changed the CAUSE of the giving of the value. It is a subtle point that has huge ramifications: I believe God loves everyone...God gives to everyone out of the kindness of His heart...whether we need it or not. I believe God influences everyone's heart and it is our choice to let it reflect in our life or not. Calvinism believes that God's love (can't define) and grace (unmerited favor) are ONLY given to those who will go to heaven BECAUSE they need it...and there is nothing the person going to heaven can do about it...the salvation of the individual is completely out of the control of the individual. THIS leads to "One Way Justice".)
Look at the Ephesians verses that opened this section and answer the following questions:
1. Do you deserve credit for your salvation? If your answer is "yes" then that is WORKS. The verse said salvation is NOT of WORKS, so you don't deserve credit for your salvation...it is a gift from God.
2. Are you responsible for your salvation? If your answer is "no" then this is "unmerited favor" (and sovereignty and predestination...man-made doctrines created by John Calvin!). This unsound doctrine results in God deciding completely against the will of the individual who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Currently, people who don't like that result are saying everyone has "unmerited favor" and no one can resist it...so no one goes to hell! Do you want to embrace THIS man-made doctrine (tradition) over God's doctrine?
The answer is that we don't get credit for our salvation but we are responsible for it. The only non-contradictory explanation is CHARIS!
ONE WAY JUSTICE
Besides, "unmerited favor" violates justice! It is actually "One Way Justice". God violates justice by giving to people who don't deserve it and there is nothing any of us can do for or against it. This can lead to a "One Way Justice" mentality in the life of the believer...
Why is it that some people are for One Way Justice? If something bad happens that the person didn't cause, everyone believes justice should be upheld...they deserve to be compensated. However when something good happens that the person didn't cause, "One Way Justice" people don't think they ought to pay...like "unmerited favor"...a man-made idea that completely violates justice and results in contradictory (unsound) doctrine.
One Way Justice in the life of the believer occurs when they believe they can sin against you as many times as they want without having to "compensate" you.
There are several rationalizations for this, but in order to believe this one would have to ignore much of what Jesus said. You have to combine the Salvation Model (God and us) with the Reward Model (us and others). One would have to think that Jesus encourages His followers to be less excellent than non-believers and not ACTUALLY show love.
"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35)
This verse is brutal. Jesus said that our love for one another proves to ALL men that we are His disciples. Again, love is the ultimate effect.
One Way Justice doesn't result in love. "Unmerited favor" doesn't result in love. "The divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life" (grace) results in love...by definition!
The other effect of One Way Justice is a belief the "ends" justify the "means". People believe they can sin against someone several times (One rationalization: "I'm not perfect, just forgiven.") until they catch the "unbeliever" ONE TIME. Then they don't forgive the ONE SIN...they glory in it thinking it justifies the MANY SINS they committed...and the world watches this and knows this person is not a Christian.
Look at the verse from John again. The world was the first one to call believers "Christians". The world KNOWS what a Christian is...they know the effects. They are the first ones to tell us when we are not being "Christian". One Way Justice drives people away. The "believer" who thinks they are helping the cause of the kingdom is actually hurting it...
Look at the Ephesians verses again...there are two sentences. The first sentence says it is not of works...and the second sentence talks about us doing good works. The first sentence is "salvation"...the second sentence is "reward". Justice is being upheld in these crucial verses. We don't brag about salvation because it is initiated by God to all (not works) and we have the responsibility to choose to respond and it is proven in our love (reflect in the life). The second sentence says God planned works for us to walk in (choose to do) and justice would give us reward. In fact, everything comes down to these verses.
If someone were going to disprove this interpretation, the first thing they would do is disprove that "divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life" doesn't work. Charis was interpreted into "grace"...not favor, not thank, not gift...the first step in interpretation is to write down the definitions of all the words in Ephesians 2:8-9.
The only way one can disprove this interpretation of "charis" in this verse is to go to man-made tradition...to jump steps ahead and declare their doctrine right and project it backwards to these verses. Interpretation of the Bible leads to doctrine...doctrine is not the first step in determining interpretation.
Even if a person could prove this interpretation of "charis" is wrong in this verse, the next step would be to show how they take this verse in the original language and reach the conclusion that "charis" means "unmerited favor" without resorting to man-made doctrine. Nothing in the definition of "charis" says UNMERITED favor. That would be like saying, "favor that violates justice".
The reality is, the person who practices One Way Justice is PROVING they don't believe in God. Guess who they are ACTUALLY worshipping?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote this in "Life Together":
"In confession a man breaks through to certainty. Why is it that it is often easier for us to confess our sins to God than to a brother? God is holy and sinless, He is a just judge of evil and the enemy of all disobedience. But a brother is sinful as we are. He knows from his experience the dark night of secret sin. Why should we not find it easier to go to a brother than to the holy God? But if we do, we must ask ourselves whether we have not often been deceiving ourselves with our confession of sin to God, whether we have not rather been confessing our sins to ourselves and also granting ourselves absolution."
Jonathan Fries wrote this in "The First Chapter of My Life Synopsis":
"If God is an opinion, then we make our own God."
People who believe in "One Way Justice", abuse others and avoid confessing and repenting to the people they abuse. They convince themselves they are confessing and repenting to God, however, if they did, God would tell them to confess and repent to the person they hurt. To bring the sin into the light coming through the believer they abused. Instead, their flesh convinces them they have repented...and the person who believes in "One Way Justice" is ACTUALLY worshipping themselves...as are every person who cannot explain God's Nature.
NOTE: This is the halfway point. Take a break...let your mind digest...you deserve it!
EXPERTS
However, I have spent the last fourteen years with this revelation of grace. I have interacted with pastors, teachers, theologians, believers, and atheists...I've learned something revelatory about "experts".
"Experts" are people who have a lot of experience. They have attained their position because of their works...their own ability. Experts know the history of a subject...they know how we got to where we currently are. This was already recognized with the translation of "charis" into grace, favor, thank, gift, etc. When experts do this work, it is profitable. However, why do we think these people will be able to create something revelatory? Why do people discriminate sources of revelation based on experience? This is a denial of God's ability and shows a misunderstanding of theology.
It is God that creates through us. God can't create through a person who is relying on their own ability...their works...their experience.
History actually shows us that revelation DOESN'T come from experts. The majority of time, the "aha moment" comes from someone who is not an "expert". Why is that?
I have discussed this with people for over ten years and the conclusion is: the "aha moment" is a disconnnect...it is not a projection of the past...it is not based on experience.
Take the horse and buggy business...it was replaced by the automobile. What was the natural progression? The revelatory conclusion is that school doesn't teach us how to think...it teaches us what others thought and did. In some ways, our formal education is hindering our ability to make progress...people are "book damaged".
The first test of an idea for whether it is patentable is: Would someone skilled in the art (expert!) be able to arrive at the same conclusion? The answer has to be "no". A patentable idea, by definition, can't come from something that an expert could have created because they were an expert!!!!!!
It is an old joke, but at college commencement ceremonies, the saying goes: Congratulations to those of you who got A's, you will teach people how to design the buildings of tomorrow. Congratulations to those who got B's, you will design the buildings of tomorrow. Congratulations to those of you who got C's, you will build the buildings of tomorrow. And congratulations to those who got D's or failed out...you will own the buildings of tomorrow.
Appealing to experts and endorsements is man's way of replacing faith...it is an attempt to rely on APPEARANCE.
I believe the Bible is sufficient, but not exhaustive. I believe God intentionally held back information from the Bible and the only way we can get it is to go to Him. If the Bible was exhaustive, we wouldn't need to have fellowship with God. God intended for us to let Him flow through us...this is so vital He made sure it was mentioned: grace.
God's metric is profitability. Profitability requires us to exchange with others in their uniqueness. We exchange with God (for salvation) and people (for reward). Both are done in love which is the proof we are profitable and following God.
The enemy's goal is unprofitability...destruction. This is done by isolating people. Isolating us from God. Isolating us from each other. Teaching "unmerited favor" is an active attempt to isolate us from God. Not loving others (judging and abusing) is isolation from people.
My biggest metric for a sermon is "How revelatory was it?". If it was something no one knew before he preached it, this is proof the pastor is hearing from God...because God is the source of revelation. The revelation ought to be supported from the Bible...however, I'm talking about something that isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible. The second level is to take something from the Bible and help people get the greater meaning. This is also from God...but it is not as fresh. It had been available previously...even if we didn't understand it. The third level is to teach from a man's book or doctrine...this is the sign that God is not flowing through this pastor. I have seen pastors progress through these stages and been able to predict when the church was going to fail because the pastor had been spending months teaching from the books of others.
Yesterday, a reader had a revelation! He stated something I had never heard before...and no one had heard before. It isn't stated specifically in the Bible. It was God through him...ask him. He would be the first to state he is not an "expert". (It was "doubly-God" because God told me to write this post over a week ago and I have been asking for a fresh example...God is "just in time"!)
The disciples weren't experts.
CS Lewis wasn't an expert.
That last example is interesting because it points us to "theology" and "seminary"...
CS Lewis was recognized for decades as a theologian. However, in the latest edition of "Mere Christianity", the foreward states he is not a theologian. What is going on here? What did CS Lewis say about theology?
THEOLOGY
"Everyone has warned me not to tell you what I am going to tell you in this last book. They all say 'the ordinary reader does not want Theology; give him plain practical religion'. I have rejected their advice. I do not think the ordinary reader is such a fool. Theology means 'the science of God', and I think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available. You are not children; why should you be treated like children?"
"In other words, Theology is practical; especially now. In the old days, when there was less education and discussion, perhaps it was possible to get on with a very few simple ideas about God. But it is not so now. Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones - bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas. For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected. To believe in the popular religion of modern England is retrogression - like believing the earth is flat."
Theology is the science of God. When you take a theology course, you ought to end it knowing specifically who God is...you ought to know the causes.
However, every theology course that is currently being offered is actually a history course...the history of who other people thought God was. I love to ask people who have taken a theology course if they found out who God is...then tell them they should get their money back because it was false advertising.
Seminary has become a business. One way to keep the business going is to teach something people don't have access to without paying.
CS Lewis said theology is practical and everyone ought to know it. CS Lewis is pushing for a theology everyone can understand...seminary is pushing for a theology few can understand, if any.
When God took me through the four year process of determining the model for God, all of this became obvious.
The Revelation: Christians have contradictory beliefs everywhere they have embraced man-made tradition in place of the Word of God.
I can trace EVERY contradiction we are currently embracing to Calvin and Luther. During the ten years since this revelation, I have watched Calvinism's influence rise and become the central theme in today's seminaries...and it is so subtle some seminaries are unaware of it.
THE BOOK
Ten years ago I wanted to take out ads and warn everyone. However, God told me I had to use a contrastive process to prove this was the case. This process has been an education in and of itself that I believe exceeds any degree I could have received from any "institution of higher learning".
I was allowed to present all of this publicly when I could prove that pastors would reject it.
I actively talked to every pastor I could about this. Most wouldn't discuss this. When I did get two pastors to discuss it separately, they both told me that I was right, but they didn't want to share this with their congregation because they didn't want the congregation to ask why they had been wrong for more than 10 years. They told me they didn't have to take me seriously unless I had written a book...so I worked on writing a book.
Realize, I have gone through Ephesians 2:8-9 with some very brilliant people...experts even. None of them can deny this. I have no qualms listening to anyone try the two-fold Ephesians 2:8-9 challenge I presented earlier because I have ten years experience with experts telling me they can't do it.
The first draft of "Modeling God" was aggressive. In fact the first three drafts were confrontational. God quickly let me know I hadn't got His permission to be confrontational. It took three years and over a dozen drafts to get "Modeling God" published. There is nothing in "Modeling God" that is confrontational...however, that didn't stop people from getting defensive.
I asked ten pastors to read drafts of "Modeling God"...none of them would. What was going on here? I started to think there was something spiritual going on. Realize, these are ten pastors that I knew...that I was on speaking terms with! The book came out without any endorsements from pastors.
I asked other pastors to read the book. I even gave the pastors of ten large churches in Green Bay and Appleton a copy with a cover letter. None responded. Two pastors did read it but only as a condition of my wife (Stasia) taking a job at their church. Neither wanted to discuss it at length and once she took the job they were unwilling to discuss it ever again.
During this time I also wrote to many nationally recognized "Christian" authors and leaders. The response was also amazing in their lack of understanding and discussion. I sent the book to dozens of "Christian" magazines and newspapers for review. NONE of them reviewed the book.
My goal with publishing "Modeling God" was not to make money. My goal was to get the information out and wanted to post it on a website. However, I believed pastors had an excuse if the material didn't appear in book form or if the material was confrontational. Two years ago, I started blogging as a way of getting some of the material in the public domain for free. I was hoping there would be one pastor who would hear from God, recognize this material was revelatory, and want to know how to teach it...there were none.
CHANGE IS BRUTAL
People change for two basic reasons: 1)achieve gain and 2)fear of loss.
Achieve gain is "growth". It requires people to willingly choose to be uncomfortable in the short-term so that they can achieve Long Term growth. Very few people respond in this way. The Old Testament documents God always approaches people in this manner first...and that only the great people of the Bible responded.
Fear of loss is like a threat. People have already been made uncomfortable and the only way to get their attention is to make them at least as uncomfortable as they would have been if they had willfully chosen to pursue growth. Look at the Old Testament. God offers people a reason and a value in order to get them to grow. They reject it, so God makes their lives as uncomfortable (or more) as it would have been at first so that they finally choose to grow.
I was prevented by God to go to "fear of loss" with the public. I had to stay at offering people a reason and a value until a pastor stated his will: accepted or rejected the information.
Even when people attacked me and said I was teaching un-biblical and un-Christian principles, I had to take it and move on. A lot of people misread this as they must be right because I didn't attack back...I just forgave them and let God handle it.
Realize "Modeling God" is only about one third of the revelation God gave to me. There is objective proof that church today is a business and the opposite of what God wanted...but this has to wait. Also, I'm still willing to teach all of this to any pastor who wants to learn it. I have to say this because it may begin to look like I am no longer willing to be about achieve gain...
ANSWERED PRAYER
That's right. Finally, a pastor has read "Modeling God" and stated his will...he has rejected it and is encouraging others to reject it. This occurred months ago. I had to give him every chance to change his mind in order to make sure he wants to hold to the position of rejection. Personally, it didn't matter to me that he accepts or rejects, either way I could go forward. And either way, I still would have taken months to interact with him so he could make his decision with all the information. Last week, he made his final decision.
This will now allow me to make the next third of the revelation available. Beginning next week, I will be posting on a separate blog, the next portion of the revelation. It is confrontational.
I realize there are people teaching "unmerited favor" who don't realize it is a man-made doctrine. My first step is to tell people that doctrine is not from God. Then I will leave them to God...their decision to continue teaching it is now conscious. This has serious repercussions:
"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin." (John 15:22)
Jesus is saying that people who don't follow the Word of God and don't know it have a cloak for their sin. However, Jesus' speaking removed the cloak for their sin. I am now allowed to remove the cloak for peoples' sins when it comes to "grace" and other doctrine. (Actually, this shouldn't come as a surprise. People who say that I'm teaching un-biblical principles because I disagree with them had to know that if I can show these principles are biblical, then they are the ones teaching un-biblical principles. I wasn't allowed to say this before now.)
This next portion will show with specific examples how we have embraced tradition in place of the Word of God when it comes to four very public doctrines. It will show how each of these man-made doctrines did not exist prior to Luther and Calvin. It will show why those who have left the church and believe God told them to do it could have been hearing from God and were right to leave the church. It will show how our current "Christian" leaders and authors are modern-day Pharisees. It will show how most of the "Bibles" in use today are printed to make money and actually show Jesus is not the Son of God. It will cause people to make the same conscious decision the Pharisees had to make:
Man's tradition or God's Word?
The "cloak" will be removed...
Before we get there, I want to give you more background on my "favorite" pastor. I write "favorite" because God has repeatedly reminded me this pastor is an answer to a prayer I've been praying for over ten years. Without him, I'd be unable to share the next part of this revelation.
I will post background on that part of the story on Saturday along with the pastor's final decision...
Next Post: Tim Snell Gets His Wish
Yesterday's post was revelatory. If you haven't read it, please take the time to do so: Four Causes
Summary of Yesterday's Post:
The First Commandment is faith.
The Second Commandment is grace.
All of it is made perfect because of love.
This is an extremely tight model...
"Loving the Lord thy God with all you heart, mind, soul, and strength" is faith because it requires a belief in something you can't see (God) and something that hasn't happened yet (giving BEFORE receiving). Actually, it is more even more than this "minimum faith requirement" because "love" means "giving without expecting to receive back from the one you are giving to".
The effect is that we love our neighbors...the Second Commandment. We've seen the only way to do this is for God to do it through us...which is grace (the divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life). The second half of that definition is the focus...it is God doing it through us via the Holy Spirit...it is "reflected" off of us, so it is not OF us and we can't take credit.
The proof and profitability of the Second Commandment is dependent on the second half of the definition of grace.
When a person doesn't understand this second half or doesn't think it needs to be mentioned, they are clearly missing the proof and profitability of being a believer...which is love.
GRACE REVIEW
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:8-10)
The apostles' doctrine of GRACE can be attained through the definition of the Greek word "charis". With the exception of one verse (James 1:11), every time the word "grace" occurs in the King James version of the New Testament, the word is "charis"...with one exception: James 1:11 which actually comes from "2143 euprepeia".
CHARIS, 5485 "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" (Strong's Concordance)
Let me be clear...the Greek word "charis" has many meanings depending on usage. In some cases it is translated into English as "thank", "favor", and "gift". Where it has been translated into "grace" (except for James 1:11) by people who are the experts at language, etc., its definition is "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life".
This is the ONLY non-contradictory definition that fits all the verses containing "charis" translated as "grace"!
God works through us and our ONLY responsibility is to humble ourselves and choose to allow God to work through us!
I've had someone explain it like medicine. The medicine cures us. However we are responsible for choosing to take the medicine. When we choose to take the medicine how ridiculous would it sound to claim, "I healed myself!" No, the medicine healed you. We can't take credit for the healing, but we are responsible for it.
However, the current definition of GRACE used by most pastors and teachers is "unmerited favor". This definition was given to the church by Martin Luther roughly 500 years ago. This definition was not a part of the apostles' doctrine. This doctrine of "unmerited favor" is NOT God's doctrine, it is man-made tradition...and therefore contradictory.
(Some people claim that Aristotle defined "charis" as "unmerited favor". However, this is Aristotle's actual definition: "that which is freely bestowed with no expectation of return; an act which finds its only motive in the good heartedness of the giver". Notice anything? This is actually "love". This definition doesn't fit the Apostles' doctrine of "grace", it would lead to contradictions in several other applications of "grace"...but it fits Jesus' and the Apostles' definition of "love". I wrote about this before that people take the definition of "love" and use it for "grace"...then they have a contradictory definition of "love". That's why the previous post was revelatory: it is the only explanation that combines faith, grace, love, and Jesus' First and Second Commandments. How many contradictory answers will it take before people pursue the truth?)
(Let me be clear about this: Aristotle's definition gives the CAUSE of the value as the good heartedness of the giver. Luther gives the CAUSE of the value as "our need". Luther changed the CAUSE of the giving of the value. It is a subtle point that has huge ramifications: I believe God loves everyone...God gives to everyone out of the kindness of His heart...whether we need it or not. I believe God influences everyone's heart and it is our choice to let it reflect in our life or not. Calvinism believes that God's love (can't define) and grace (unmerited favor) are ONLY given to those who will go to heaven BECAUSE they need it...and there is nothing the person going to heaven can do about it...the salvation of the individual is completely out of the control of the individual. THIS leads to "One Way Justice".)
Look at the Ephesians verses that opened this section and answer the following questions:
1. Do you deserve credit for your salvation? If your answer is "yes" then that is WORKS. The verse said salvation is NOT of WORKS, so you don't deserve credit for your salvation...it is a gift from God.
2. Are you responsible for your salvation? If your answer is "no" then this is "unmerited favor" (and sovereignty and predestination...man-made doctrines created by John Calvin!). This unsound doctrine results in God deciding completely against the will of the individual who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Currently, people who don't like that result are saying everyone has "unmerited favor" and no one can resist it...so no one goes to hell! Do you want to embrace THIS man-made doctrine (tradition) over God's doctrine?
The answer is that we don't get credit for our salvation but we are responsible for it. The only non-contradictory explanation is CHARIS!
ONE WAY JUSTICE
Besides, "unmerited favor" violates justice! It is actually "One Way Justice". God violates justice by giving to people who don't deserve it and there is nothing any of us can do for or against it. This can lead to a "One Way Justice" mentality in the life of the believer...
Why is it that some people are for One Way Justice? If something bad happens that the person didn't cause, everyone believes justice should be upheld...they deserve to be compensated. However when something good happens that the person didn't cause, "One Way Justice" people don't think they ought to pay...like "unmerited favor"...a man-made idea that completely violates justice and results in contradictory (unsound) doctrine.
One Way Justice in the life of the believer occurs when they believe they can sin against you as many times as they want without having to "compensate" you.
There are several rationalizations for this, but in order to believe this one would have to ignore much of what Jesus said. You have to combine the Salvation Model (God and us) with the Reward Model (us and others). One would have to think that Jesus encourages His followers to be less excellent than non-believers and not ACTUALLY show love.
"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35)
This verse is brutal. Jesus said that our love for one another proves to ALL men that we are His disciples. Again, love is the ultimate effect.
One Way Justice doesn't result in love. "Unmerited favor" doesn't result in love. "The divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life" (grace) results in love...by definition!
The other effect of One Way Justice is a belief the "ends" justify the "means". People believe they can sin against someone several times (One rationalization: "I'm not perfect, just forgiven.") until they catch the "unbeliever" ONE TIME. Then they don't forgive the ONE SIN...they glory in it thinking it justifies the MANY SINS they committed...and the world watches this and knows this person is not a Christian.
Look at the verse from John again. The world was the first one to call believers "Christians". The world KNOWS what a Christian is...they know the effects. They are the first ones to tell us when we are not being "Christian". One Way Justice drives people away. The "believer" who thinks they are helping the cause of the kingdom is actually hurting it...
Look at the Ephesians verses again...there are two sentences. The first sentence says it is not of works...and the second sentence talks about us doing good works. The first sentence is "salvation"...the second sentence is "reward". Justice is being upheld in these crucial verses. We don't brag about salvation because it is initiated by God to all (not works) and we have the responsibility to choose to respond and it is proven in our love (reflect in the life). The second sentence says God planned works for us to walk in (choose to do) and justice would give us reward. In fact, everything comes down to these verses.
If someone were going to disprove this interpretation, the first thing they would do is disprove that "divine influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life" doesn't work. Charis was interpreted into "grace"...not favor, not thank, not gift...the first step in interpretation is to write down the definitions of all the words in Ephesians 2:8-9.
The only way one can disprove this interpretation of "charis" in this verse is to go to man-made tradition...to jump steps ahead and declare their doctrine right and project it backwards to these verses. Interpretation of the Bible leads to doctrine...doctrine is not the first step in determining interpretation.
Even if a person could prove this interpretation of "charis" is wrong in this verse, the next step would be to show how they take this verse in the original language and reach the conclusion that "charis" means "unmerited favor" without resorting to man-made doctrine. Nothing in the definition of "charis" says UNMERITED favor. That would be like saying, "favor that violates justice".
The reality is, the person who practices One Way Justice is PROVING they don't believe in God. Guess who they are ACTUALLY worshipping?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote this in "Life Together":
"In confession a man breaks through to certainty. Why is it that it is often easier for us to confess our sins to God than to a brother? God is holy and sinless, He is a just judge of evil and the enemy of all disobedience. But a brother is sinful as we are. He knows from his experience the dark night of secret sin. Why should we not find it easier to go to a brother than to the holy God? But if we do, we must ask ourselves whether we have not often been deceiving ourselves with our confession of sin to God, whether we have not rather been confessing our sins to ourselves and also granting ourselves absolution."
Jonathan Fries wrote this in "The First Chapter of My Life Synopsis":
"If God is an opinion, then we make our own God."
People who believe in "One Way Justice", abuse others and avoid confessing and repenting to the people they abuse. They convince themselves they are confessing and repenting to God, however, if they did, God would tell them to confess and repent to the person they hurt. To bring the sin into the light coming through the believer they abused. Instead, their flesh convinces them they have repented...and the person who believes in "One Way Justice" is ACTUALLY worshipping themselves...as are every person who cannot explain God's Nature.
NOTE: This is the halfway point. Take a break...let your mind digest...you deserve it!
EXPERTS
However, I have spent the last fourteen years with this revelation of grace. I have interacted with pastors, teachers, theologians, believers, and atheists...I've learned something revelatory about "experts".
"Experts" are people who have a lot of experience. They have attained their position because of their works...their own ability. Experts know the history of a subject...they know how we got to where we currently are. This was already recognized with the translation of "charis" into grace, favor, thank, gift, etc. When experts do this work, it is profitable. However, why do we think these people will be able to create something revelatory? Why do people discriminate sources of revelation based on experience? This is a denial of God's ability and shows a misunderstanding of theology.
It is God that creates through us. God can't create through a person who is relying on their own ability...their works...their experience.
History actually shows us that revelation DOESN'T come from experts. The majority of time, the "aha moment" comes from someone who is not an "expert". Why is that?
I have discussed this with people for over ten years and the conclusion is: the "aha moment" is a disconnnect...it is not a projection of the past...it is not based on experience.
Take the horse and buggy business...it was replaced by the automobile. What was the natural progression? The revelatory conclusion is that school doesn't teach us how to think...it teaches us what others thought and did. In some ways, our formal education is hindering our ability to make progress...people are "book damaged".
The first test of an idea for whether it is patentable is: Would someone skilled in the art (expert!) be able to arrive at the same conclusion? The answer has to be "no". A patentable idea, by definition, can't come from something that an expert could have created because they were an expert!!!!!!
It is an old joke, but at college commencement ceremonies, the saying goes: Congratulations to those of you who got A's, you will teach people how to design the buildings of tomorrow. Congratulations to those who got B's, you will design the buildings of tomorrow. Congratulations to those of you who got C's, you will build the buildings of tomorrow. And congratulations to those who got D's or failed out...you will own the buildings of tomorrow.
Appealing to experts and endorsements is man's way of replacing faith...it is an attempt to rely on APPEARANCE.
I believe the Bible is sufficient, but not exhaustive. I believe God intentionally held back information from the Bible and the only way we can get it is to go to Him. If the Bible was exhaustive, we wouldn't need to have fellowship with God. God intended for us to let Him flow through us...this is so vital He made sure it was mentioned: grace.
God's metric is profitability. Profitability requires us to exchange with others in their uniqueness. We exchange with God (for salvation) and people (for reward). Both are done in love which is the proof we are profitable and following God.
The enemy's goal is unprofitability...destruction. This is done by isolating people. Isolating us from God. Isolating us from each other. Teaching "unmerited favor" is an active attempt to isolate us from God. Not loving others (judging and abusing) is isolation from people.
My biggest metric for a sermon is "How revelatory was it?". If it was something no one knew before he preached it, this is proof the pastor is hearing from God...because God is the source of revelation. The revelation ought to be supported from the Bible...however, I'm talking about something that isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible. The second level is to take something from the Bible and help people get the greater meaning. This is also from God...but it is not as fresh. It had been available previously...even if we didn't understand it. The third level is to teach from a man's book or doctrine...this is the sign that God is not flowing through this pastor. I have seen pastors progress through these stages and been able to predict when the church was going to fail because the pastor had been spending months teaching from the books of others.
Yesterday, a reader had a revelation! He stated something I had never heard before...and no one had heard before. It isn't stated specifically in the Bible. It was God through him...ask him. He would be the first to state he is not an "expert". (It was "doubly-God" because God told me to write this post over a week ago and I have been asking for a fresh example...God is "just in time"!)
The disciples weren't experts.
CS Lewis wasn't an expert.
That last example is interesting because it points us to "theology" and "seminary"...
CS Lewis was recognized for decades as a theologian. However, in the latest edition of "Mere Christianity", the foreward states he is not a theologian. What is going on here? What did CS Lewis say about theology?
THEOLOGY
"Everyone has warned me not to tell you what I am going to tell you in this last book. They all say 'the ordinary reader does not want Theology; give him plain practical religion'. I have rejected their advice. I do not think the ordinary reader is such a fool. Theology means 'the science of God', and I think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available. You are not children; why should you be treated like children?"
"In other words, Theology is practical; especially now. In the old days, when there was less education and discussion, perhaps it was possible to get on with a very few simple ideas about God. But it is not so now. Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones - bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas. For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected. To believe in the popular religion of modern England is retrogression - like believing the earth is flat."
Theology is the science of God. When you take a theology course, you ought to end it knowing specifically who God is...you ought to know the causes.
However, every theology course that is currently being offered is actually a history course...the history of who other people thought God was. I love to ask people who have taken a theology course if they found out who God is...then tell them they should get their money back because it was false advertising.
Seminary has become a business. One way to keep the business going is to teach something people don't have access to without paying.
CS Lewis said theology is practical and everyone ought to know it. CS Lewis is pushing for a theology everyone can understand...seminary is pushing for a theology few can understand, if any.
When God took me through the four year process of determining the model for God, all of this became obvious.
The Revelation: Christians have contradictory beliefs everywhere they have embraced man-made tradition in place of the Word of God.
I can trace EVERY contradiction we are currently embracing to Calvin and Luther. During the ten years since this revelation, I have watched Calvinism's influence rise and become the central theme in today's seminaries...and it is so subtle some seminaries are unaware of it.
THE BOOK
Ten years ago I wanted to take out ads and warn everyone. However, God told me I had to use a contrastive process to prove this was the case. This process has been an education in and of itself that I believe exceeds any degree I could have received from any "institution of higher learning".
I was allowed to present all of this publicly when I could prove that pastors would reject it.
I actively talked to every pastor I could about this. Most wouldn't discuss this. When I did get two pastors to discuss it separately, they both told me that I was right, but they didn't want to share this with their congregation because they didn't want the congregation to ask why they had been wrong for more than 10 years. They told me they didn't have to take me seriously unless I had written a book...so I worked on writing a book.
Realize, I have gone through Ephesians 2:8-9 with some very brilliant people...experts even. None of them can deny this. I have no qualms listening to anyone try the two-fold Ephesians 2:8-9 challenge I presented earlier because I have ten years experience with experts telling me they can't do it.
The first draft of "Modeling God" was aggressive. In fact the first three drafts were confrontational. God quickly let me know I hadn't got His permission to be confrontational. It took three years and over a dozen drafts to get "Modeling God" published. There is nothing in "Modeling God" that is confrontational...however, that didn't stop people from getting defensive.
I asked ten pastors to read drafts of "Modeling God"...none of them would. What was going on here? I started to think there was something spiritual going on. Realize, these are ten pastors that I knew...that I was on speaking terms with! The book came out without any endorsements from pastors.
I asked other pastors to read the book. I even gave the pastors of ten large churches in Green Bay and Appleton a copy with a cover letter. None responded. Two pastors did read it but only as a condition of my wife (Stasia) taking a job at their church. Neither wanted to discuss it at length and once she took the job they were unwilling to discuss it ever again.
During this time I also wrote to many nationally recognized "Christian" authors and leaders. The response was also amazing in their lack of understanding and discussion. I sent the book to dozens of "Christian" magazines and newspapers for review. NONE of them reviewed the book.
My goal with publishing "Modeling God" was not to make money. My goal was to get the information out and wanted to post it on a website. However, I believed pastors had an excuse if the material didn't appear in book form or if the material was confrontational. Two years ago, I started blogging as a way of getting some of the material in the public domain for free. I was hoping there would be one pastor who would hear from God, recognize this material was revelatory, and want to know how to teach it...there were none.
CHANGE IS BRUTAL
People change for two basic reasons: 1)achieve gain and 2)fear of loss.
Achieve gain is "growth". It requires people to willingly choose to be uncomfortable in the short-term so that they can achieve Long Term growth. Very few people respond in this way. The Old Testament documents God always approaches people in this manner first...and that only the great people of the Bible responded.
Fear of loss is like a threat. People have already been made uncomfortable and the only way to get their attention is to make them at least as uncomfortable as they would have been if they had willfully chosen to pursue growth. Look at the Old Testament. God offers people a reason and a value in order to get them to grow. They reject it, so God makes their lives as uncomfortable (or more) as it would have been at first so that they finally choose to grow.
I was prevented by God to go to "fear of loss" with the public. I had to stay at offering people a reason and a value until a pastor stated his will: accepted or rejected the information.
Even when people attacked me and said I was teaching un-biblical and un-Christian principles, I had to take it and move on. A lot of people misread this as they must be right because I didn't attack back...I just forgave them and let God handle it.
Realize "Modeling God" is only about one third of the revelation God gave to me. There is objective proof that church today is a business and the opposite of what God wanted...but this has to wait. Also, I'm still willing to teach all of this to any pastor who wants to learn it. I have to say this because it may begin to look like I am no longer willing to be about achieve gain...
ANSWERED PRAYER
That's right. Finally, a pastor has read "Modeling God" and stated his will...he has rejected it and is encouraging others to reject it. This occurred months ago. I had to give him every chance to change his mind in order to make sure he wants to hold to the position of rejection. Personally, it didn't matter to me that he accepts or rejects, either way I could go forward. And either way, I still would have taken months to interact with him so he could make his decision with all the information. Last week, he made his final decision.
This will now allow me to make the next third of the revelation available. Beginning next week, I will be posting on a separate blog, the next portion of the revelation. It is confrontational.
I realize there are people teaching "unmerited favor" who don't realize it is a man-made doctrine. My first step is to tell people that doctrine is not from God. Then I will leave them to God...their decision to continue teaching it is now conscious. This has serious repercussions:
"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin." (John 15:22)
Jesus is saying that people who don't follow the Word of God and don't know it have a cloak for their sin. However, Jesus' speaking removed the cloak for their sin. I am now allowed to remove the cloak for peoples' sins when it comes to "grace" and other doctrine. (Actually, this shouldn't come as a surprise. People who say that I'm teaching un-biblical principles because I disagree with them had to know that if I can show these principles are biblical, then they are the ones teaching un-biblical principles. I wasn't allowed to say this before now.)
This next portion will show with specific examples how we have embraced tradition in place of the Word of God when it comes to four very public doctrines. It will show how each of these man-made doctrines did not exist prior to Luther and Calvin. It will show why those who have left the church and believe God told them to do it could have been hearing from God and were right to leave the church. It will show how our current "Christian" leaders and authors are modern-day Pharisees. It will show how most of the "Bibles" in use today are printed to make money and actually show Jesus is not the Son of God. It will cause people to make the same conscious decision the Pharisees had to make:
Man's tradition or God's Word?
The "cloak" will be removed...
Before we get there, I want to give you more background on my "favorite" pastor. I write "favorite" because God has repeatedly reminded me this pastor is an answer to a prayer I've been praying for over ten years. Without him, I'd be unable to share the next part of this revelation.
I will post background on that part of the story on Saturday along with the pastor's final decision...
Next Post: Tim Snell Gets His Wish
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Solomon - The Four Causes
Recently in a comment to a post, Michael Thompson revisited the topic of how to do the First Commandment. With this post, we can finally finish the model for the First Commandment...
In a previous post, we saw that Jesus' First Commandment is a cause and the effect is the Second Commandment. Jesus' First and Second Commandments are ONE because they are both halves of causality (cause and effect) . Loving the Lord thy God is a cause and the effect is loving your neighbor as yourself.
Notice, in Mark 12:30, Jesus says the following when explaining the First Commandment:
“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.”
Jesus lists four parts. Actually, every person is made up of these four parts:
Heart – emotion
Soul – spirit
Mind – mental
Strength – physical
From The Lord's Prayer post:
We see that Jesus covered all four areas when He explained to us the perfect prayer...the prayer with maximum profitability.
Mental: Thy Will be done
Physical: daily bread
Emotional: forgive us as we forgive others
Spiritual: lead us not into temptation
Not only are these causes for the individual, these are also causes for the "other body"...
From the The Acts Church post:
Paul refers to the New Testament church as the body. Now look at the four causes of The Acts Church! Acts 2:42 address all four areas for the New Testament Church (body):
Mental - Apostles' Doctrine
Emotion - Fellowship
Physical - Breaking of bread
Spirit – Prayers
Is it surprising that the same principle would be true for the New Testament Church (body) as it is for the New Testament individual body?
Whether it is the individual doing the First Commandment or the New Testament Church: When the body is operating in all four areas, then the effects of a believing body are seen:
Acts 2:43-47
“And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily as should be saved.”
In the article "Is God Judging the U.S.?" we saw that the Bible says God's judgment of Sodom was for four causes:
“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49)
Notice, these four causes of judgment address the four areas:
Mental - idleness
Emotion - pride
Physical - fullness of bread
Spirit – not strengthen poor and needy
The same article shows how Jesus was the best at fulfilling the four causes and therefore was the best at the First Commandment. In fact, now we see why the post on Matthew 6 shows Jesus offering Spiritual Reward for helping the poor and needy.
If a person is doing these four causes of judgment, then God is not flowing through them. They are doing the opposite of the First Commandment and the proof is that the Second Commandment (love) won't show up in their actions. Can judgment be reversed?
In that same article on God judging the U.S., Nineveh is used as an example of how to overcome the judgment by addressing the four causes:
"After Jonah prophesied, the Bible says in Jonah 3:5-8, the king decreed people should humble themselves, fast, pray, and stop committing violence. Nineveh averted God’s proclamation to destroy their city by reversing at least three, and possibly all four, of the causes God gave for overthrowing Sodom."
If you look at Ecclesiastes, how many of the four causes did Solomon address? Here is a verse (or so) summary from Ecclesiastes in response to each of the four causes of judgment.
Mental - idleness
"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." (Ecclesiastes 1:18)
Solomon repeatedly states it is all pointless and unprofitable to try to understand.
Physical - fullness of bread
"There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God." (Ecclesiastes 2:24)
Solomon repeats this conclusion several times.
Spirit – not strengthen poor and needy
Solomon focuses on strengthening himself. Look at how each verse in Chapter 2 from verses 4 through 8 begin:
"I made me..."
"I made me..."
"I made me..."
"I got me..."
"I gathered me..."
Verse 9: "So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me."
Obviously this didn't make Solomon happy. So did he focus on giving to others? Notice what Solomon says when he recognizes there are poor and needy:
"So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter." (Ecclesiastes 4:1)
However, what is Solomon's solution?
"If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they. Moreover the profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field." (Ecclesiastes 5:8-9)
Solomon begins by speaking about the poor being oppressed and somehow transitions to seeing the role of the king is to be served by all...not to serve. Clearly, Solomon is not a leader.
Why were ALL of Solomon's works focused on facilitating his own purpose and progress, instead of the purpose and progress of others?...especially the poor and the needy? When one reads Ecclesiastes with this thought, it becomes obvious that Solomon had a "blind spot" when it came to helping the poor and needy...yet he repeatedly states that he has looked into everything.
Emotion - pride
"I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." (Ecclesiastes 1:14)
"Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 12:8)
Solomon repeatedly says he has considered ALL and EVERYTHING, yet we saw that he didn't consider strengthening the arm of the needy and poor...
(Bonus: read Ecclesiastes and look at Solomon with respect to the four God-given principles. You will notice he is not contrastive: he didn't consider he was wrong and look to strengthen the arm of the poor...he didn't have anyone who could tell him he was wrong. He celebrates contradiction and lack of causality because his focus is physical. The contradictions are removed and events are knowable if he would account for the spiritual. His solution is to focus on comfort and give up growing because profitability isn't possible...which is factual if you only focus on the physical.)
Solomon was judged even though God gave him wisdom and blessed him. We saw that Ecclesiastes ends with Solomon having "head knowledge" of what is right...but it doesn't come out in his actions. In reality, Solomon valued the physical and measured progress relative to how well he and others were doing physically.
Some people want to believe that "Christians" can't get judged regardless of their actions as long as they say they are a believer. They want to say that Jesus' death prevented believers from having to pay for their actions against others. In effect, these people are valuing "head knowledge" over Fellowship with God.
The point of the judgment article was to say that God is judging the U.S. even though we are a "Christian" nation because we are opposing God's four causes of judgment...which are the opposite of the four causes for the First Commandment. Why would Jesus tell us to do the First Commandment, yet let us off the hook if we do the opposite of the First Commandment? We've seen God's metric is profitability...not appearance. This measure is still true for everyone...regardless of belief.
If you look at "Christians" today, how many of the four causes do we address?
Are we spending our time thinking about the Apostles' Doctrine, discussing it, changing our beliefs, and considering we are wrong? Or are we idle (unprofitable) in our thoughts because we think on tradition, appearance, and the physical?
Are we spending our time in Fellowship, inviting people to tell us where we are wrong, and considering we are wrong? Or are we in pride, not able to consider we are wrong, and focused on requiring others to forgive us while not forgiving others?
Are we spending our time truly helping people improve their lives, creating, and being profitable? Or are we focused on judging others, destruction, and justifying ourselves by pointing to a minority of people we've "helped" while a majority of the people we know are lacking in progress?
Are we spending our time breaking bread with others to discuss all of this? Or are we gluttons and loners?
David Taube (a reader) contacted me and shared the following:
"Faith and grace are key to the salvation model.
All the law hang on the two greatest commandments.
I saw faith in the first commandment because it deals with God, who is the substance of things hoped for, and the Bible is evidence of things not seen.
I saw grace in the second because if you grow in faith (obey the 1st, cause) you will be divinely influenced and its reflection is love (effect)."
It ACTUALLY is the perfect conclusion to the topic initiated by another reader (Michael Thompson). I suppose it is only fitting for a reader to conclude this topic when it was a reader who initiated this topic.
The ultimate proof that we have lost our way is a belief in "One Way Justice"...which we will cover tomorrow.
Next Post: One Way Justice
In a previous post, we saw that Jesus' First Commandment is a cause and the effect is the Second Commandment. Jesus' First and Second Commandments are ONE because they are both halves of causality (cause and effect) . Loving the Lord thy God is a cause and the effect is loving your neighbor as yourself.
Notice, in Mark 12:30, Jesus says the following when explaining the First Commandment:
“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.”
Jesus lists four parts. Actually, every person is made up of these four parts:
Heart – emotion
Soul – spirit
Mind – mental
Strength – physical
From The Lord's Prayer post:
We see that Jesus covered all four areas when He explained to us the perfect prayer...the prayer with maximum profitability.
Mental: Thy Will be done
Physical: daily bread
Emotional: forgive us as we forgive others
Spiritual: lead us not into temptation
Not only are these causes for the individual, these are also causes for the "other body"...
From the The Acts Church post:
Paul refers to the New Testament church as the body. Now look at the four causes of The Acts Church! Acts 2:42 address all four areas for the New Testament Church (body):
Mental - Apostles' Doctrine
Emotion - Fellowship
Physical - Breaking of bread
Spirit – Prayers
Is it surprising that the same principle would be true for the New Testament Church (body) as it is for the New Testament individual body?
Whether it is the individual doing the First Commandment or the New Testament Church: When the body is operating in all four areas, then the effects of a believing body are seen:
Acts 2:43-47
“And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily as should be saved.”
In the article "Is God Judging the U.S.?" we saw that the Bible says God's judgment of Sodom was for four causes:
“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49)
Notice, these four causes of judgment address the four areas:
Mental - idleness
Emotion - pride
Physical - fullness of bread
Spirit – not strengthen poor and needy
The same article shows how Jesus was the best at fulfilling the four causes and therefore was the best at the First Commandment. In fact, now we see why the post on Matthew 6 shows Jesus offering Spiritual Reward for helping the poor and needy.
If a person is doing these four causes of judgment, then God is not flowing through them. They are doing the opposite of the First Commandment and the proof is that the Second Commandment (love) won't show up in their actions. Can judgment be reversed?
In that same article on God judging the U.S., Nineveh is used as an example of how to overcome the judgment by addressing the four causes:
"After Jonah prophesied, the Bible says in Jonah 3:5-8, the king decreed people should humble themselves, fast, pray, and stop committing violence. Nineveh averted God’s proclamation to destroy their city by reversing at least three, and possibly all four, of the causes God gave for overthrowing Sodom."
If you look at Ecclesiastes, how many of the four causes did Solomon address? Here is a verse (or so) summary from Ecclesiastes in response to each of the four causes of judgment.
Mental - idleness
"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." (Ecclesiastes 1:18)
Solomon repeatedly states it is all pointless and unprofitable to try to understand.
Physical - fullness of bread
"There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God." (Ecclesiastes 2:24)
Solomon repeats this conclusion several times.
Spirit – not strengthen poor and needy
Solomon focuses on strengthening himself. Look at how each verse in Chapter 2 from verses 4 through 8 begin:
"I made me..."
"I made me..."
"I made me..."
"I got me..."
"I gathered me..."
Verse 9: "So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me."
Obviously this didn't make Solomon happy. So did he focus on giving to others? Notice what Solomon says when he recognizes there are poor and needy:
"So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter." (Ecclesiastes 4:1)
However, what is Solomon's solution?
"If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they. Moreover the profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field." (Ecclesiastes 5:8-9)
Solomon begins by speaking about the poor being oppressed and somehow transitions to seeing the role of the king is to be served by all...not to serve. Clearly, Solomon is not a leader.
Why were ALL of Solomon's works focused on facilitating his own purpose and progress, instead of the purpose and progress of others?...especially the poor and the needy? When one reads Ecclesiastes with this thought, it becomes obvious that Solomon had a "blind spot" when it came to helping the poor and needy...yet he repeatedly states that he has looked into everything.
Emotion - pride
"I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." (Ecclesiastes 1:14)
"Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 12:8)
Solomon repeatedly says he has considered ALL and EVERYTHING, yet we saw that he didn't consider strengthening the arm of the needy and poor...
(Bonus: read Ecclesiastes and look at Solomon with respect to the four God-given principles. You will notice he is not contrastive: he didn't consider he was wrong and look to strengthen the arm of the poor...he didn't have anyone who could tell him he was wrong. He celebrates contradiction and lack of causality because his focus is physical. The contradictions are removed and events are knowable if he would account for the spiritual. His solution is to focus on comfort and give up growing because profitability isn't possible...which is factual if you only focus on the physical.)
Solomon was judged even though God gave him wisdom and blessed him. We saw that Ecclesiastes ends with Solomon having "head knowledge" of what is right...but it doesn't come out in his actions. In reality, Solomon valued the physical and measured progress relative to how well he and others were doing physically.
Some people want to believe that "Christians" can't get judged regardless of their actions as long as they say they are a believer. They want to say that Jesus' death prevented believers from having to pay for their actions against others. In effect, these people are valuing "head knowledge" over Fellowship with God.
The point of the judgment article was to say that God is judging the U.S. even though we are a "Christian" nation because we are opposing God's four causes of judgment...which are the opposite of the four causes for the First Commandment. Why would Jesus tell us to do the First Commandment, yet let us off the hook if we do the opposite of the First Commandment? We've seen God's metric is profitability...not appearance. This measure is still true for everyone...regardless of belief.
If you look at "Christians" today, how many of the four causes do we address?
Are we spending our time thinking about the Apostles' Doctrine, discussing it, changing our beliefs, and considering we are wrong? Or are we idle (unprofitable) in our thoughts because we think on tradition, appearance, and the physical?
Are we spending our time in Fellowship, inviting people to tell us where we are wrong, and considering we are wrong? Or are we in pride, not able to consider we are wrong, and focused on requiring others to forgive us while not forgiving others?
Are we spending our time truly helping people improve their lives, creating, and being profitable? Or are we focused on judging others, destruction, and justifying ourselves by pointing to a minority of people we've "helped" while a majority of the people we know are lacking in progress?
Are we spending our time breaking bread with others to discuss all of this? Or are we gluttons and loners?
David Taube (a reader) contacted me and shared the following:
"Faith and grace are key to the salvation model.
All the law hang on the two greatest commandments.
I saw faith in the first commandment because it deals with God, who is the substance of things hoped for, and the Bible is evidence of things not seen.
I saw grace in the second because if you grow in faith (obey the 1st, cause) you will be divinely influenced and its reflection is love (effect)."
It ACTUALLY is the perfect conclusion to the topic initiated by another reader (Michael Thompson). I suppose it is only fitting for a reader to conclude this topic when it was a reader who initiated this topic.
The ultimate proof that we have lost our way is a belief in "One Way Justice"...which we will cover tomorrow.
Next Post: One Way Justice
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Solomon Lacks Wisdom
Proverbs shows Solomon at his most optimistic. However, we know that it did not end well with Solomon. He ended up being led away from God by his many wives.
In an earlier post, we saw (1 Kings 11:4 says) when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods. In fact, verse 7 says Solomon built high places for the pagan gods, Chemosh and Molech.
We also saw (1 Kings 11:9-13) God says he commanded Solomon not to build these high places but Solomon didn’t obey. So God says he will take the kingdom from Solomon’s sons, letting Solomon keep the kingdom because of David. God even raises adversaries against Solomon, but these adversaries are in other countries. Notice, despite God’s judgment, Solomon still feels no discomfort.
There are no verses saying Solomon confessed and repented. There are no verses saying Solomon took down the high places. In fact, we saw (2 Kings 23:13) the Bible says hundreds of years later, the king (Josiah) defiles the high places that Solomon built for the previously mentioned gods. Solomon never obeyed God by taking down the high places. How could someone with Solomon’s God given wisdom, end up making an unholy decision and showing a lack of wisdom in his actions?
Ecclesiastes is often used to show that wisdom is bad. People say, “Solomon is seen as wise, yet he ended up a failure”. This causes some people to conclude that it is bad to focus on wisdom. If anything, it appears to be a lack of knowledge that created Solomon’s problems.
We see the beginnings of the effects in Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes shows Solomon has lost his optimism. Essentially, Solomon says, “It’s all pointless and unprofitable.” How did Solomon go from the optimism of Proverbs to the pessimism of Ecclesiastes?
In Proverbs, we saw the Bible (Solomon) says to get wisdom. This can be done two ways. First, we can build our knowledge and understanding. Essentially, we can choose to grow and think more, not less. Then we can base our actions on this knowledge and understanding.
Secondly, we can let God influence our decisions. We called this grace. The individual must refine their ability to hear God. The problem with operating on grace alone is that it still depends on the individual’s ability to discern if they are hearing God. Humans make errors. Consequently, the individual that lives solely by grace is eventually going to be wrong. They are going to be unrighteous.
Remember, we are saved by grace through faith. It is not grace alone. We have to pair grace with faith. We’ve seen that faith believes something that we can’t see or hasn’t happened yet through experience and/or knowledge. So we are back to knowledge. Ultimately, we get wisdom by growing in faith, which is knowledge and experience. What knowledge did Solomon lack?
We saw that in Deuteronomy 17, God outlines the duty of a king and gives warnings in verses 16 and 17.
“But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.”
“Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”
Solomon was warned not to take horses from Egypt, make silver and gold plentiful, and take many wives because they will lead him away from God. However, this is exactly what Solomon did.
“And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt…” (1 Kings 10:28)
“And the king (Solomon) made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones…” (1 Kings 10:27)
“And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” (1 Kings 11:3-4)
Solomon caused his own sufferings. The sad thing is that Solomon understood the concept of confession and repentance. In 1 Kings 8:47-50 he explains it. However, he went against God’s advice and didn’t recover.
This was not prophecy. The passages from Deuteronomy didn’t say it would happen. It said IF a king did this, it would happen. Solomon didn’t have to take horses, etc. Solomon had a free will. God tried to influence Solomon’s heart by giving him advice. Solomon didn’t let this influence come out in his actions.
Actually, there’s no way of knowing for sure whether it was a lack of knowledge, understanding, or wisdom that caused Solomon’s suffering. It would be a lack of knowledge if Solomon didn’t know or forgot about this warning. It would be a lack of understanding if Solomon didn’t understand the consequences of not regularly reading The Law. If Solomon knew this warning, but didn’t believe it applied to him, then it was a lack of wisdom.
Some people point to the end of Ecclesiastes and say that Solomon "got it".
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
Solomon may have understood the right answer, but he did not do it. Believing Solomon "got it" would be proof that one was valuing appearance and words over profitability and actions. Solomon understood...but his actions showed he lacked wisdom.
Actually, Ecclesiastes is Solomon's confession. However, we have seen he did not repent. He did not turn the other way from his sin. He did not repair the damage done and take down the high places. Over the years I have seen that the confession that is offered without repentance will eventually be retracted. Confession and repentance are two different acts. Both are necessary to remove guilt and overcome sin. The Bible says Solomon didn't repent. People who teach differently AREN'T teaching the Bible.
There is another reason for judgment being brought against Solomon. When most people read Ecclesiastes, they conclude Solomon covered every possible solution to his lack of happiness. Tomorrow, we will see that Ecclesiastes actually shows Solomon made four mistakes...
Next Post
In an earlier post, we saw (1 Kings 11:4 says) when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods. In fact, verse 7 says Solomon built high places for the pagan gods, Chemosh and Molech.
We also saw (1 Kings 11:9-13) God says he commanded Solomon not to build these high places but Solomon didn’t obey. So God says he will take the kingdom from Solomon’s sons, letting Solomon keep the kingdom because of David. God even raises adversaries against Solomon, but these adversaries are in other countries. Notice, despite God’s judgment, Solomon still feels no discomfort.
There are no verses saying Solomon confessed and repented. There are no verses saying Solomon took down the high places. In fact, we saw (2 Kings 23:13) the Bible says hundreds of years later, the king (Josiah) defiles the high places that Solomon built for the previously mentioned gods. Solomon never obeyed God by taking down the high places. How could someone with Solomon’s God given wisdom, end up making an unholy decision and showing a lack of wisdom in his actions?
Ecclesiastes is often used to show that wisdom is bad. People say, “Solomon is seen as wise, yet he ended up a failure”. This causes some people to conclude that it is bad to focus on wisdom. If anything, it appears to be a lack of knowledge that created Solomon’s problems.
We see the beginnings of the effects in Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes shows Solomon has lost his optimism. Essentially, Solomon says, “It’s all pointless and unprofitable.” How did Solomon go from the optimism of Proverbs to the pessimism of Ecclesiastes?
In Proverbs, we saw the Bible (Solomon) says to get wisdom. This can be done two ways. First, we can build our knowledge and understanding. Essentially, we can choose to grow and think more, not less. Then we can base our actions on this knowledge and understanding.
Secondly, we can let God influence our decisions. We called this grace. The individual must refine their ability to hear God. The problem with operating on grace alone is that it still depends on the individual’s ability to discern if they are hearing God. Humans make errors. Consequently, the individual that lives solely by grace is eventually going to be wrong. They are going to be unrighteous.
Remember, we are saved by grace through faith. It is not grace alone. We have to pair grace with faith. We’ve seen that faith believes something that we can’t see or hasn’t happened yet through experience and/or knowledge. So we are back to knowledge. Ultimately, we get wisdom by growing in faith, which is knowledge and experience. What knowledge did Solomon lack?
We saw that in Deuteronomy 17, God outlines the duty of a king and gives warnings in verses 16 and 17.
“But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.”
“Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”
Solomon was warned not to take horses from Egypt, make silver and gold plentiful, and take many wives because they will lead him away from God. However, this is exactly what Solomon did.
“And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt…” (1 Kings 10:28)
“And the king (Solomon) made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones…” (1 Kings 10:27)
“And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” (1 Kings 11:3-4)
Solomon caused his own sufferings. The sad thing is that Solomon understood the concept of confession and repentance. In 1 Kings 8:47-50 he explains it. However, he went against God’s advice and didn’t recover.
This was not prophecy. The passages from Deuteronomy didn’t say it would happen. It said IF a king did this, it would happen. Solomon didn’t have to take horses, etc. Solomon had a free will. God tried to influence Solomon’s heart by giving him advice. Solomon didn’t let this influence come out in his actions.
Actually, there’s no way of knowing for sure whether it was a lack of knowledge, understanding, or wisdom that caused Solomon’s suffering. It would be a lack of knowledge if Solomon didn’t know or forgot about this warning. It would be a lack of understanding if Solomon didn’t understand the consequences of not regularly reading The Law. If Solomon knew this warning, but didn’t believe it applied to him, then it was a lack of wisdom.
Some people point to the end of Ecclesiastes and say that Solomon "got it".
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
Solomon may have understood the right answer, but he did not do it. Believing Solomon "got it" would be proof that one was valuing appearance and words over profitability and actions. Solomon understood...but his actions showed he lacked wisdom.
Actually, Ecclesiastes is Solomon's confession. However, we have seen he did not repent. He did not turn the other way from his sin. He did not repair the damage done and take down the high places. Over the years I have seen that the confession that is offered without repentance will eventually be retracted. Confession and repentance are two different acts. Both are necessary to remove guilt and overcome sin. The Bible says Solomon didn't repent. People who teach differently AREN'T teaching the Bible.
There is another reason for judgment being brought against Solomon. When most people read Ecclesiastes, they conclude Solomon covered every possible solution to his lack of happiness. Tomorrow, we will see that Ecclesiastes actually shows Solomon made four mistakes...
Next Post
Monday, May 26, 2008
Solomon: Proverbs
Last week, we saw that Solomon relied on God less over time. He seemed to have it all, yet he was not profitable in God's eyes. When we understand Solomon's thought process, we will find there is an important lesson for all of us. We will do this by looking at two of the books Solomon wrote that deal with our thought process: Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
The purpose of The Book of Proverbs is stated in the first four verses:
“The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; to give subtlety to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.” (Proverbs 1:1-4)
There are two big concepts that make up Proverbs: 1) Justice and 2) Causality. Justice plays a big role in Proverbs. Over and over again, Solomon invokes the Justice equation to show that it will all equal out. He shows how someone who thinks they are gaining in the short-term will eventually have to pay in the Long Term.
Proverbs is written in terms of cause and effect examples. Solomon seems to either be telling us what to do and give the benefit or tell us what not to do and then gives the punishment. For example, Proverbs 10:16-17 says:
“The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin. He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth.”
The most interesting examples relate to the use of our mind. It is mentioned several times that people who like correction (contrastive thinking) are wise because they grow. While people who don’t want correction are fools because they are pursuing comfort (and live with contradictions). Proverbs addresses all four God-given principles: contrastive thinking, non-contradiction, causality, and growth.
There are three measures that are constantly repeated in Proverbs: knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. These same three measures played a crucial role in the book of Job. Let’s look at each of these and how they relate.
KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING AND WISDOM
Knowledge is the ability to know facts. Someone who has a lot of knowledge knows a high number of facts. An example is to know how a car works.
Understanding is the ability to take facts (knowledge) from several areas and fit them together to create a higher knowledge. Understanding creates knowledge. Understanding is like modeling because it identifies the implications and the likelihood of possible occurrences.
For instance, if I have knowledge of friction and the physics of bodies in motion, and weather effects in addition to the knowledge of how a car works, I can make a prediction. For example, if I accelerated a car towards a brick wall, I could calculate the distance from the wall I would have to slam my brakes in order to get within six inches of the wall without hitting it.
Wisdom is shown in our decisions (actions). Wisdom is proven by profitability. Someone who has wisdom makes profitable choices in the Long Term. Someone who lacks wisdom makes unprofitable choices, even though they look profitable in the short-term. In the above example, wisdom says, “Why accelerate a car towards a brick wall?” Wisdom would be shown when we don’t do it.
Proverbs says wisdom is the principle thing (Proverbs 4:7). It also says we are supposed to get wisdom and understanding. Now we can see why wisdom is principle and understanding follows closely behind. We are supposed to be profitable and wisdom is what drives our profitability. In addition, it is hard to have wisdom when we don’t understand the implications.
In the above example, understanding would tell us that there are several things that could cause our calculations to be off. Understanding would even anticipate things that have nothing to do with our model. For instance, what if a child or a person on a bike happened to get between the wall and us? Understanding is necessary for us to make wise decisions.
DIAGNOSTICS
When someone makes a poor decision, I analyze the break down in his thought process by determining if it was a lack of knowledge, understanding, or wisdom. For example, the first question I might ask is “Did you know that act was against the law?” If he didn’t then he is in trouble because of a lack of knowledge. Beware. People in comfort mode won’t want to admit they didn’t know something, so they will quickly reply, “I knew that.”
My next question focuses on understanding. I’m trying to determine how well he understood all the implications of his decision. For instance, I would ask him if he understood that breaking the law may result in going to jail, getting shot at, or doing even worse crimes to cover up the initial crime. Remember, understanding identifies the implications. Again, comfort minded people might be quick to reply, “I understand all that.”
That only leaves wisdom. If he did have knowledge and understanding, then his decision was simply to risk it. That is where wisdom comes in. His lack of profitability proves he lacked wisdom.
Most likely, he lacked wisdom because he got a short-term view and listened to his flesh, that is, his emotions. In reality, this is a lack of understanding of Righteousness. If he understood profitability is measured in the Long Term, he wouldn’t have made a decision focused on the short-term. If we have wisdom, then we will be profitable in our actions.
Next Post
The purpose of The Book of Proverbs is stated in the first four verses:
“The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; to give subtlety to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.” (Proverbs 1:1-4)
There are two big concepts that make up Proverbs: 1) Justice and 2) Causality. Justice plays a big role in Proverbs. Over and over again, Solomon invokes the Justice equation to show that it will all equal out. He shows how someone who thinks they are gaining in the short-term will eventually have to pay in the Long Term.
Proverbs is written in terms of cause and effect examples. Solomon seems to either be telling us what to do and give the benefit or tell us what not to do and then gives the punishment. For example, Proverbs 10:16-17 says:
“The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin. He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth.”
The most interesting examples relate to the use of our mind. It is mentioned several times that people who like correction (contrastive thinking) are wise because they grow. While people who don’t want correction are fools because they are pursuing comfort (and live with contradictions). Proverbs addresses all four God-given principles: contrastive thinking, non-contradiction, causality, and growth.
There are three measures that are constantly repeated in Proverbs: knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. These same three measures played a crucial role in the book of Job. Let’s look at each of these and how they relate.
KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING AND WISDOM
Knowledge is the ability to know facts. Someone who has a lot of knowledge knows a high number of facts. An example is to know how a car works.
Understanding is the ability to take facts (knowledge) from several areas and fit them together to create a higher knowledge. Understanding creates knowledge. Understanding is like modeling because it identifies the implications and the likelihood of possible occurrences.
For instance, if I have knowledge of friction and the physics of bodies in motion, and weather effects in addition to the knowledge of how a car works, I can make a prediction. For example, if I accelerated a car towards a brick wall, I could calculate the distance from the wall I would have to slam my brakes in order to get within six inches of the wall without hitting it.
Wisdom is shown in our decisions (actions). Wisdom is proven by profitability. Someone who has wisdom makes profitable choices in the Long Term. Someone who lacks wisdom makes unprofitable choices, even though they look profitable in the short-term. In the above example, wisdom says, “Why accelerate a car towards a brick wall?” Wisdom would be shown when we don’t do it.
Proverbs says wisdom is the principle thing (Proverbs 4:7). It also says we are supposed to get wisdom and understanding. Now we can see why wisdom is principle and understanding follows closely behind. We are supposed to be profitable and wisdom is what drives our profitability. In addition, it is hard to have wisdom when we don’t understand the implications.
In the above example, understanding would tell us that there are several things that could cause our calculations to be off. Understanding would even anticipate things that have nothing to do with our model. For instance, what if a child or a person on a bike happened to get between the wall and us? Understanding is necessary for us to make wise decisions.
DIAGNOSTICS
When someone makes a poor decision, I analyze the break down in his thought process by determining if it was a lack of knowledge, understanding, or wisdom. For example, the first question I might ask is “Did you know that act was against the law?” If he didn’t then he is in trouble because of a lack of knowledge. Beware. People in comfort mode won’t want to admit they didn’t know something, so they will quickly reply, “I knew that.”
My next question focuses on understanding. I’m trying to determine how well he understood all the implications of his decision. For instance, I would ask him if he understood that breaking the law may result in going to jail, getting shot at, or doing even worse crimes to cover up the initial crime. Remember, understanding identifies the implications. Again, comfort minded people might be quick to reply, “I understand all that.”
That only leaves wisdom. If he did have knowledge and understanding, then his decision was simply to risk it. That is where wisdom comes in. His lack of profitability proves he lacked wisdom.
Most likely, he lacked wisdom because he got a short-term view and listened to his flesh, that is, his emotions. In reality, this is a lack of understanding of Righteousness. If he understood profitability is measured in the Long Term, he wouldn’t have made a decision focused on the short-term. If we have wisdom, then we will be profitable in our actions.
Next Post
Friday, May 23, 2008
Solomon Relies on God Less
The most educational example of someone trusting God less over time is Solomon.
During this series on LEADERSHIP, we saw how Solomon ignored the warning from the Law concerning many wives, horses from Egypt, and making silver plentiful. The Bible says that as he got older, he relied on God less...
"But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods." (I Kings 11:1-8)
Not only did Solomon rely less on God when he was old, but Solomon also built high places to the gods of his wives'. In a previous post, we saw that the greatest Old Testament king (Josiah) finally took down high places Solomon had built hundreds of years earlier. As you read the rest of this post, remember that Solomon doesn't take these high places down.
"And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant." (I Kings 11:9-11)
The LORD is angry with Solomon for going after other gods and building high places, so God begins to declare a punishment: God will take the kingdom from Solomon. While this sounds bad, God isn't finished explaining...
"Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen." (I Kings 11:12-13)
God won't take it away from Solomon while Solomon is alive...so He will take it from his son. Even then, Solomon's son will retain one tribe. So, Solomon isn't bearing the punishment...but God isn't finished punishing.
"And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom." (I Kings 11:14)
"And God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: And he gathered men unto him, and became captain over a band, when David slew them of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus. And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria." (I Kings 11:23-25)
God raises up two adversaries to Solomon, but they remain in their own country so as to not be able to take away Solomon's kingdom while Solomon is alive.
The rest of I Kings 11 covers God talking to Solomon's successor (Jeroboam). God begins the explanation by reinforcing the cause of Solomon losing the kingdom:
"And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes:" (I Kings 11:31-34)
I Kings 11 ends with Solomon dying:
"Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead." (I Kings 11:40-43)
We can see that Solomon did not rely on God more and even when God punished him, Solomon still didn't repent from his sin. Solomon didn't take down the high places. Did Solomon have a reason to rely on God more?
How did Solomon go from the wisest king to someone who was building high places to other gods?
Next week, we will look at the specific causes of Solomon's fall.
Next Post
During this series on LEADERSHIP, we saw how Solomon ignored the warning from the Law concerning many wives, horses from Egypt, and making silver plentiful. The Bible says that as he got older, he relied on God less...
"But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods." (I Kings 11:1-8)
Not only did Solomon rely less on God when he was old, but Solomon also built high places to the gods of his wives'. In a previous post, we saw that the greatest Old Testament king (Josiah) finally took down high places Solomon had built hundreds of years earlier. As you read the rest of this post, remember that Solomon doesn't take these high places down.
"And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant." (I Kings 11:9-11)
The LORD is angry with Solomon for going after other gods and building high places, so God begins to declare a punishment: God will take the kingdom from Solomon. While this sounds bad, God isn't finished explaining...
"Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen." (I Kings 11:12-13)
God won't take it away from Solomon while Solomon is alive...so He will take it from his son. Even then, Solomon's son will retain one tribe. So, Solomon isn't bearing the punishment...but God isn't finished punishing.
"And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom." (I Kings 11:14)
"And God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: And he gathered men unto him, and became captain over a band, when David slew them of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus. And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria." (I Kings 11:23-25)
God raises up two adversaries to Solomon, but they remain in their own country so as to not be able to take away Solomon's kingdom while Solomon is alive.
The rest of I Kings 11 covers God talking to Solomon's successor (Jeroboam). God begins the explanation by reinforcing the cause of Solomon losing the kingdom:
"And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes:" (I Kings 11:31-34)
I Kings 11 ends with Solomon dying:
"Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead." (I Kings 11:40-43)
We can see that Solomon did not rely on God more and even when God punished him, Solomon still didn't repent from his sin. Solomon didn't take down the high places. Did Solomon have a reason to rely on God more?
How did Solomon go from the wisest king to someone who was building high places to other gods?
Next week, we will look at the specific causes of Solomon's fall.
Next Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)