Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Peace on Earth?

Because from the least of them even to the greatest of them,
Everyone is given to covetousness;
And from the prophet even to the priest,
Everyone deals falsely.
They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly,
Saying, ‘Peace, peace!’
When there is no peace.
Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination?
No! They were not at all ashamed;
Nor did they know how to blush.
Therefore they shall fall among those who fall;
At the time I punish them,
They shall be cast down,” says the LORD.

Thus God spoke through Jeremiah to a rebellious Judah, what was left of the tribes of Israel. By this point in Judah’s history, they had experienced revival through Hezekiah and Josiah; however, the reforms did not penetrate the souls of the people. Instead, they covered the surface and ignored the deeper problem: a heart in rebellion against God.

But what was true then rings just as painfully true in these modern times. The Church, commanded by God to be a light in the world, has allowed itself to sink into darkness and chains. No more do they claim the victory over sin in their lives, though they may speak of it. No more do they blaze with the light of love and truth to a world lost to lies and self-centered indulgence. No more are they representatives of Christ in a dying world. Instead, they flaunt the cold ashes of defeat while living in a never-ending cycle of sin and despair. The love of the Church has faded into nothingness. It is not a powerful force to change the hearts of man, it is a petty institution derided by the world.

Instead of listening to the few who bleed to see the Church restored to God, they choose instructors who tickle their ears with comforting words of failure. Don’t be upset when you sin, they tell the prisoners who lap up their every word. Everyone does it, even me. All you have to do is tell God you’re sorry. He loves you and He wants to forgive you. And when you mess up again (because we all will), God will be waiting for you to run into His arms again. They proclaim peace and life, but the fruit is turmoil and eternal death.

This is the lie that has been fed to the Church, and the lie that the Church now widely accepts as the gospel truth. The lie is all the more insidious because it contains some elements of the truth. God does want mankind to repent, and He forgives all who come to Him with a contrite heart. But the lie propagates the false doctrine that a Christian can never hope to escape from the shackles of sin and failure in this life.

After an idea steeps for a while, its effects begin to show. After listening to a socially acceptable gospel that tells them they will sin for the rest of their lives, multitudes of professing believers will sin. And they will not be bothered. They are not ashamed. Why should they be, if the blood of Christ covers them, and God only sees Jesus and not the sins of His followers? They go to church on Sunday morning and commit idolatry on Monday, confident in their false hopes. Is God blind? For millions, the answer is a resounding, “Yes.” They have become like the harlot Israel. They have forgotten how to blush.

When you look at it too long, the picture could start to look hopeless. The world drowns in sin, and the Church called to proclaim the way out of it has instead joined the death march. Yes, we weep, we cry out to God. But we, the followers of Christ, must not give in to despair.

Two millennia ago, God Himself took the form of a man and came to dwell with His rebellious creation, wanting to rescue them and bring them into His family. He did this by humbling Himself, being born to the lowliest of estates in an unflattering location. He lived among His people and suffered and died at their hands, and three days later He resurrected Himself from the dead. All those who believe in Him will not perish.

We must proclaim this wonderful news. We must be a light in the darkness, showing the way to the lost. Let our lives glorify God every second of every day, and may our hearts burn with passion to reach the lost. Though the world opposes us and tries to shut us down, they will never be able to silence the truth that rings across the land.

Praise be to God.

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

1 John -- Alleged Contradiction

(I'm moving this blog entry from the Coyote for Christ page.)

A few weeks back, a friend asked me to write a post on the topic of 1 John 1:8 and 3:9.



There are two verses in 1 John that sometimes cause confusion. When taken out of context, the verses appear to contradict each other. Do they? Well, that is the purpose of this post. My claim is that they do not, and I will seek to show this.

The verses are as follows:

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8)

and

No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (1 John 3:9)

Probably the most important rule to remember when interpreting Scripture is context. It is entirely possible to rip just one verse out of a passage and make it mean the opposite of what it truly means – or at least misuse the verse to support one’s preconceived notions of what Scripture says. (Matthew 7:1 and 1 John 1:8 are frequent victims of out-of-context quoting.)
To get a better understanding of the two verses, let’s look at them in a broader context. I will still be limited in what verses I can include, but I will seek to be faithful to Scripture in all my efforts.

To better understand 1 John 1:8, we need to look at verses 5 to 10.

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.


Verse 8 is most commonly used to support the notion that Christians sin, indeed that they must sin. This interpretation is false.

Verses 5-10 are a condensed version of the Gospel message. While many would immediately object to this claim on the basis that John is speaking only to Christians, bear with me for a time and you will see the reasoning behind my statement.

John begins by saying that God is light and there is no darkness in Him. There should be no reason to further explain this statement. It should be evident to all who profess Christ that God is good and only good. Professing Christians claim to trust God, and it would be absurd for them to trust in a being that could act against them just because it felt like being cruel.

John then continues with a series of if-then statements. He uses “we” the entire time, but it will become evident that there are two distinct groups of people in “we.”

First, he says if “we” claim to have fellowship with God (that is, to be saved) and walk in the darkness, “we” lie. Since God is light, someone who walks in the darkness cannot be His.
What is the darkness? “Darkness” is often used in the Scriptures to refer to sin (See John 1 and 3:19-21). Men, it says, preferred the darkness to the light, because then their evil deeds could remain hidden. But the light God brings exposes their wickedness.

The next set of “we” walks in the light. This is the first clue that the same group of people is not being talked about. How can a person walk in the light and the darkness simultaneously? The answer is, they can’t. Furthermore, the person who walks in the light, as God is in the light, is cleansed of all sin by the blood of Jesus Christ.

This talk about “we” continues in verses 8-10:

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.


John just finished saying in verse 7 that believers have been cleansed of all sin. Shall we attempt to introduce another contradiction, in which John says that believers are cleansed of all sin, but if they claim to be cleansed of all sin, they are self-deceived and not having truth? Quite simply, that is absurd. If a person has been cleansed of all sin, as verse 7 states, it is natural and proper for him to proclaim that God has removed all sin from him, and that none remains.

In verse 8, he is referring to the other group of people within “we,” the ones who walk in the darkness. If they say they have no sin, they deceive themselves. They are not saved, so they are still sinning. In fact, by saying they do not sin, they make God a liar, because God says they do sin (see Romans 3:23).

But for those who insist upon the sinning Christian doctrine, a question. What if a time frame were introduced, say, five seconds? Does the statement “I can go five seconds without sin” violate the principle they claim in 1:8? If so, what about a smaller increment. A second? A millisecond? If these don’t, then why assume that longer time periods such as weeks, years, or even decades violate the verse? And if the small increments do, what then? Shall we state that there is not a single moment in time in which the Christian does not sin? This would come into conflict with their “continued sin” idea in chapter three.

However, if these sinners confess their sin, then God is faithful and just to forgive their sins and to cleanse them of all unrighteousness. This cleansing of all unrighteousness and all sin is a one-time act. Yes, it was written in the present tense. No, that does not denote a continued action. John was providing us with a series of hypothetical statements.

Now, how is this the Gospel message? Simple. Those who walk in darkness, who sin, do not have the truth, and they need to be saved. The way to do this is to believe (which is implied) and confess their sins, after which God will forgive them and cleanse them of all sin. Then they become those who walk in the light.

The next verse is 1 John 3:9. Just as with 1:8, the verse makes sense when viewed alongside the verses around it, beginning with verse 4:

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.


(It is unfortunate that the NASB decided to use the word “practice” instead of “does,” since that creates a loophole.)

The situation here is similar to that of the 1 John 1 passage. In chapter 1, we were presented with two groups of people: one walks in the light and the other walks in darkness. Once again John is contrasting two different types of individuals, this time to set up a test.

The two types are evident: one practices (does) sin, and the other practices (does) righteousness. Because these are presented as opposites, we are shown that sin is the opposite of righteousness (or of righteous behavior). This indicates that sinlessness and righteousness are synonyms of each other. More on this in a moment.

In this passage, John states without reservation that true believers do not sin. Believers abide in God, and there is no sin in God. Also, John makes it simpler by saying that those who abide in God do not sin. In fact, those who do sin are of the devil. He even says that those who sin do not know God, nor have they known God.

Why is this important? John is establishing a test so that the readers can know whether or not they (or anyone else) are saved. He does this by contrasting children of the devil and children of God. One sins and the other does not.

A common interpretation of this passage forces the words “continue to” do sin, claiming the tense denotes a continuous present. This is wrong on at least two counts (only two will be mentioned here). The first is that the tense is not continuous present, it is gnomic present. It serves to state a truth for all time.

How do I know it is gnomic? Let’s illustrate with an example:

“Fish don’t say English words.”

This is gnomic. This is a principle, something that most people would agree to without need of proof. However, you might come across someone who says that the sentence means that fish don’t often say English words, or they do not continually say them. In order to understand what is meant, we need to look at the rest of the paragraph:

“If a creature says English words, it is not a fish.”

This proves the first sentence was gnomic, because the author was establishing a test based on a principle. This is exactly what John did. He said that those who are born of God do not do sin, and those who do sin are not born of God. If John was not using gnomic present, and if he were not assuming a universal truth, then he would not be able to establish the test. It would make no sense. The test would have too many exceptions to be valid.

And besides, even if “continue to do sin” or “do sin continually” were correct, what should we make of it? How many sins does it take for “continue to do sin” to describe someone? Ten a day? One hundred? Once? Even here, the interpretation destroys itself. If a person sinned even once after supposedly surrendering to Christ, then they “continue[d] to do sin.”

Secondly, John says that the children of the devil and children of God are obvious. If sin is permitted, the “obvious” qualifier becomes meaningless. Will we allow for the occasional sin? I touched on this above, but it is worth asking again. What is the sin:righteousness ratio that distinguishes a sinner from a saint? More than half? Three-quarters? To draw the line anywhere using this line of thinking, the distinction becomes purely arbitrary.

But no, the difference must be obvious. The only line that makes any sense in relationship to that verse is obedience one hundred percent of the time. With even one sin, the “saint” is acting like the sinner.

1 John 1:8 is a portion of the condensed gospel message. It is a warning to sinners, telling them that if they claim they are not sinners, they are liars and not of the truth. Verse 3:9 is a condition of a test to determine whether or not someone is a true believer. So we can see that 1 John 1:8 and 3:9 in no way contradict each other. Both affirm true Christians won’t sin.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Christians and Sin

A while back, there was some disagreement in a chat room regarding whether or not Christians could be fully obedient to God. It is my stance that they can be, and in fact are. Nevertheless, one person wrote something attempting to show how my beliefs were in error. This is a reply:

But what about the other type of failure? What about the failures of sin? First of all, I want to address a heresy that was recently brought up and hotly discussed. It is the belief of some that Christians do not sin. This is bunk.


I want to admit that I cut out the first half of the sermon, since it wasn’t relevant to what I was hoping to discuss. My opponent was quick to use the term “heresy,” though. And he has already placed his opinion out in the open. That makes it easier to address. Needless to say I disagree with his claim.

Some will even go so far as to say that it is the body which sins, but the spirit remains innocent. This is the belief of the Cathars, who are among the worst heretics of all time, claiming that the God of the Old Testament is evil.


I agree that these claims are ridiculous.

The bible is full of proof that God's people sin, whether adherents of Judaism in the Old Testament or Christians in the new.

First John reminds us that we do sin, and that we need to daily confess our sin to God to maintain our relationship with Him. It also says that if we calim NOT to have any sin, we are lying and calling God a liar. This is NOT written to unbeievers, it is written to Christians. John says in chapter 2 that "And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous". Does Jesus represent those who are not His? No. Jesus is OUR advocate, standing by our side as OUR advocate when WE sin. He then goes on to talk about how those he is speaking to know the truth, how they have overcome the evil one, and that they know God. If Christians cannot sin, why is John talking to Christians about the need to confess? God's people can sin, and some of them have committed doozies.


I will get to this in a moment, but first, "sin" needs to be defined. I have often seen the definition "to miss the mark." While this is what the word translated "sin" does literally mean, it's not useful until the mark is known. What the mark is can be discussed another time, but for now let it be sufficient to say that sin is the willful violation of God's commands. (God's commands can be summed up in this verse: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." Also, to love our neighbor.)

It may take some time to unravel the incorrect, but common, interpretation presented here. My opponent is first referencing 1 John 1:5-10. All of this must be viewed as one thought, beginning with the first verse.

“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
“This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” (1 John 1:1-10)

Beginning in verse 5, John is trying to explain how one can have eternal life (or fellowship with God). He starts out by saying that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. In the following verses he goes on to say that those who claim to have eternal life but walk in darkness are lying, but those who do walk in the Light have eternal life and have been cleansed from all sin. This is an important distinction to make. Without it, we are left with the conclusion that those who walk in darkness are also cleansed from sin, which is supported by no Scripture.

My opponent’s main issue lies with verse 8: “If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.” My opponent claims that this verse proves Christians do sin.

One is immediately struck by two important clauses in verses 7 and 9. Verse 7 tells us that “if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” Verse 9 says, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” These clauses cannot be ignored in understanding verse 8.

If we are to take my opponent’s interpretation of 1 John 1:8 as valid, then John contradicted himself. If he is correct, in the middle of two phrases declaring that Jesus has cleansed believers of all unrighteousness (sin), we are told that believers sin. Put yet again, people who have been cleansed from all sin still sin. But how is it possible for someone who has been cleansed from all unrighteousness to sin? Perhaps Jesus didn’t do a good job? Because it is an indisputable fact that those who sin are not righteous. Yet believers are righteous.

This insistence on verse 8 declaring sinful Christians also runs into a problem in regards to time frame. If I may be permitted to speak from experience, I have been called a liar by claiming to have not sinned in several months, using verse 8 as a defense. Let’s adjust the claim slightly: “I have not sinned in five seconds.” Everything in the claim is identical except for the time frame. Most will permit a sinless five seconds, and the few that don’t will not be addressed here. (These are the ones who are not satisfied with one microsecond.) Now, if one instance is permitted, what makes the other a lie? They are the exact same condition, only with a different time frame.

Looking at verse 10 aids the understanding of this passage. It says, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” In light of the clear promise that believers are cleansed from all unrighteousness and all sin, it is most reasonable to conclude that the ones who claim to have not sinned are unbelievers. If they claim to have not sinned, they do not consider themselves to be in need of salvation. This is what makes God out to be a liar, because He says they have sinned.

It should be clear by now that the “we” in 1 John 1 does not mean “we Christians.” There are two groups of people in “we”: those who walk in the darkness and those who walk in the light. Those who walk in the darkness are not saved, and they must confess their sins. Those who walk in the light are believers and have been cleansed from sin.

My opponent continues his incorrect assumption when reading 1 John 2. He automatically assumes that it is a Christian who is sinning in the first verses. A closer look at the pronouns used will reveal this is not the case. In verse 1, John states that he writes these things to his readers so that “you” may not sin. In the next sentence he immediately switches gears, saying “if anyone sins.” That is a flag that John is not talking about the same group of people anymore. Otherwise, he would have said, “if you sin.” But he didn’t.

He does correctly state that unbelievers do not have our Advocate, but he errs after this by forcing the notion that Christians sin on the verse. Here is a better interpretation: Sinners do not have an Advocate; Christians do. The Christian’s duty is to share our Advocate by proclaiming the message of the Gospel, so that the sinners may become believers.

But that alone is not enough to provide evidence for my claim. It comes from the next four verses:

“By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.”

In this passage John tells the audience how to know if someone knows God. It should be obvious that, in light of chapter one, to know God is to be a believer. Therefore, we see that those who keep God’s commandments are the true believers, and those who do not keep His commandments are not believers at all. The Christian, then, is recognized by his obedience.

If, as John says, the true believers are the ones who keep God’s commandments, then the statement that Jesus stands as our Advocate when we sin has no scriptural basis.

I find it interesting that Oren admits John’s audience has overcome the evil one, then falls back on this and says that the overcomers need to know God. Nowhere in the text can this assumption (that the overcomers need to know God) be made. In fact, it is because they know God that they have overcome the wicked one.

Adam and Eve were the first. Their sin had an almost unfathomable cost. It broke their communion with nature, with the animals, and most importantly, with God. All people forever afterward would be cursed because of what they did. Cain was the first murderer, and was cursed to wander the Earth for his crime. Moses failed to glorify God when he struck the rock to make it produce water, and for that, he was cursed to never enter the promised land. David had an affair and covered it up by having her husband murdered. He was cursed with the promise that trouble would never leave his house. Peter publicly renounced Jesus three times. His curse was self-imposed. He never forgave himself for the rest of his life.


And all the examples given are of unregenerate men (and before the giving of the Holy Spirit), so it neither helps nor hinders either argument.

Have you ever broken your favorite cup? You know that if you try to repair it, it's never going to be the same. Sometimes it breaks in such a way that it can still be used as a cup. It just doesn't look as good. More often, though, it is no longer good for holding liquids, and is retired to life as a pencil can. But you know what? Even if it becomes useless as a drinking vessel, it does not cease to be a cup. And the fact that you took the time to glue it back together testifies to the fact that you still treasure it.
Adam's days of walking with God in the garden of Eden were over, but He still loved God. He and Eve thanked God for giving them Seth, and they taught him about God. Cain was placed under God's protection. God placed his mark on Cain and vowed vengance upon anyone who would dare to kill him. Moses was taken to paradise after viewing the promised land, and he DID in fact set foot there when he spoke to Jesus during the transfiguration. David was commended as being a man after God's own heart, save in the matter of Uriah, and was promised that his dynasty would endure forever. Peter was restored to fellowship by Jesus who confirmed his love three times. Peter is now one of Heaven's 24 elders. Now Peter did sin later in his life, as Paul attests when he chews Peter out in Acts for snubbing the gentile brothers. This didn't make him any less of a Christian. All of these people broke when they sinned. Some were still useful for their original purpose. Some were not. And while I can't say for sure about Adam, Eve or Cain, I know that David, Moses and Peter are among God's most precious friends to this day.


Interesting illustration, but I have no idea where he is going with it so I will ignore it until it can be clarified. All but Peter were not regenerate, so that does not help him. Now for Peter.

My opponent is pointing to Paul’s rebuke of Peter in the book of Galatians. Admittedly this is a more difficult passage, but I will attempt to show that the accusation being made here is not valid.

It would be wrong to try to force an interpretation in which Peter in the right in this passage, so that will not be done. We need to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

In order to say that Peter sinned, my objector must actually prove that Peter sinned. Most likely this will come from the use of the word “hypocrisy” in the passage, so we will focus on that.

The word “hypocrisy” is transliterated from the Greek, but it does not follow that we must translate the word used as “hypocrisy.” That is fallacious. Literally, the word used means “to play or act out a part,” and it can be good or bad. In light of the fact that the word has come to mean a bad acting that is always a sin, it is best to remove that term until we know what kind of acting Paul was talking about. We know that Peter would act as a Gentile around the Gentiles and as a Jew around Jews. So did Paul:

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.” (1 Corinthians 9:20-23)

Peter was doing what Paul had taught, so that was not the problem. What Paul needed to do, though, is tell Peter that his method was wrong. By acting like the Jews and withdrawing from the Gentiles, he was preaching an inconsistency.

But one cannot immediately call that a sin, unless one can prove that Peter knew better. There is, however, no evidence for that claim.

What we are left with is Paul showing the Gentiles that adherence to the Law is not a requirement of salvation. Paul does not accuse Peter of sin, and he definitely doesn’t say all Christians sin.

But since this passage is unclear, it is best to not struggle with it and interpret the passage in the light of one that is clear, namely the passages from 1 John. Since 1 John is adamant that Christians do not sin, it is best to conclude that Peter did not in fact sin.

If you sin, and make no mistake, you will, You do not cease to be a Christian. You are forgiven. You were already forgiven back in 33 AD. That doesn't make it acceptable, but it does make it survivable. You may have done something extremely wicked. You may even have to serve an extremely severe punishment here on Earth. You may go so far as to do irreperable damage to your testimony. Many have. There are far too many people who were once bright lights for God but through sin and scandal have made themselves practically useless. These unfortunately self-destructive saints have brought shame to the name of Christ. But they are still saints. God is a father who loves His children. A good father loves his children even when they are bad. He hates the bad things they do, but he does not hate his children. He punishes them because he loves them. The bible says that God chastens us because He loves us, and if He did not do so, we would be as illegitimate offspring.


In the first sentence, he negates the promise of God (1 Corinthians 10:13). He also makes a blunder about forgiveness, but that is a topic for another day (No one is forgiven until he or she repents.) And I must say that his “don’t be afraid when you sin” attitude is dangerous. Hebrews 10:26-29 says,

“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?”

That alone should give pause to those who say that sinning Christians are still saved (if they ever were).

It appears he thinks that chastening and sinning go hand-in-hand, but he doesn’t provide his reasons for that. So I will withhold my opinion on that subject until a later date, should he choose to engage in a discussion on the topic.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Nightmare's Edge

Nightmare's Edge, the third and final book in the Echoes from the Edge trilogy, will be released in May 2009. A trailer for the series has been made to help promote the book:



Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Untitled Poem

This poem was written a few weeks ago, but it wasn't until another poem was written and the two were consolidated that it was presentable. It's not titled yet, so I'll welcome any suggestions.


They dwell in shadow, gloom and dusk,
Find shelter in the night,
And burrow in the deepest pits,
Embracing darkness, shunning light.

While dressed in soiled robes they sing,
Ignoring scarlet stains.
Deceived by demons’ soothing words
They do not see their iron chains.

These squatters in the house of God
Have learned the phrase to sell.
With poisoned words they tickle ears
And coax the seekers into hell.

“God will forgive,” the oft-used cry
Recited by each man.
“I know I stumble, but I try!
God loves me just the way I am.”

“I’m covered by His blood,” they say,
But will God hide His face
From wicked deeds of faithless men?
Will He spare “sinners saved by grace”?

The Lord in Heaven sends His saints
To walk upon the earth
Instructing them to light the way
Escaping darkness, a new birth.

Declaring holiness they come,
“Repent!” is their decree.
The sinners screech, prepare to fight
A battle ‘twixt the slave and free.

“You heretic!” The rally cry.
“Liar! Fraud! Apostate!”
The saints stand firm, their Lord protects
From cornered sinners’ deeds of hate.

We will press on; the time is short,
Unless the Lord delay
And choose to rescue one last soul
Before that blessed eternal Day.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Last of the Nephilim

The most powerful of all the Nephilim rises from the dead, but whose side will he be on?

That is the question that is posed to the reader on the back of the book. (At least in the first edition. The recap was changed for the second printing, and perhaps this also changed.) What’s puzzling is that, once we meet this Naphil again, the question of his loyalty is never addressed.

Last of the Nephilim is one of those books that, on first read, appears to be weak. It struck me as a place-holder between the wonder that was Enoch’s Ghost and the sure-to-please finale, The Bones of Makaidos. Part of what irritated me in the first read-through was that I felt cheated. One of the major events in Tears of a Dragon, book four of Dragons in our Midst, was that the dragons and anthrozils had the opportunity to lose their dragon essence, and with the exception of at least two, all did so. In this book, several of the characters regain their dragon traits.

At least, I felt this way after the first reading. I have read it twice since then, and now I think I must not have been thinking straight. This book is far more than a place-holder; it is a fascinating adventure filled with conflicts between good and evil.

In my post on book two, Enoch’s Ghost, I focused on one particular theme of the book. With Last of the Nephilim I found this harder to do. There is so much packed into this novel that there is no way I can begin to address it.

I suppose I shall begin with one conversation from this book that caught my interest each time. Ashley, Walter, Abigail and Thigocia have arrived in the Bridgelands and are told by Glewlwyd that they must cross the bridge – the one Elam crossed in Enoch’s Ghost. (Eventually they arrive in Second Eden.) The bridge represents faith. When Elam trusted in the bridge, when he crawled and held as tightly to it as possible, the bridge did not let him fall. But when he counted on his own ability to cross the bridge, the planks were liable to give way. In the passage I quote below, Glewlwyd is the first speaker.

“The bridge, however, will never let you fall as long as you are a follower of Christ.”

“Even if you jump?” Ashley asked.

A sad frown wilted the old man’s face. “I have no answer for that. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to leap into the chasm.”

“Just asking. I’m an analyst, so it’s hard to imagine a bridge having a will of its own. It really can’t keep you on it if you don’t want to be there.”

“I will not argue the point, young lady, but again I warn you to beware of assumptions that arise from your earthly understandings. Perhaps the bridge would allow an insane fellow to leap from its grasp. I cannot say … But as long as you hold on with all your might, the bridge will never let you fall.”


It should be fairly obvious what doctrine has been addressed here. Mr. Davis has raised the question of whether or not it is possible for a Christian to lose his salvation (jumping to one’s death into a bottomless chasm), but he makes no attempt to answer it. He leaves it to the readers to think about and draw their own conclusions. Ultimately, though, the question of whether or not a person can jump is irrelevant. The point is that if a Christian has faith, then God will not let him go.

What appears to me to be the initial and most important conflict in Last of the Nephilim is something that is so commonplace in our reality that the average person would think nothing of it. Angel, one of the inhabitants of Second Eden, is trying to sort her thoughts together after losing the man she thought could be her Adam. A deceiver takes advantage of her and plants a seed of doubt in her mind. The deceiver tries (successfully) to persuade her to change a word in a song that Paili is supposed to sing, asking Angel to use the excuse that Enoch commanded it – an obvious lie.

This would not be Second Eden’s first rebellion. We learn in this book about a man known as Flint, one of Abraham’s students and someone who was very close to the Prophet. He grew prideful and rebellious, and when he openly went against Abraham’s authority, Abraham had no choice but to pronounce one of two sentences: either be exiled or be put to death by stoning. Flint had the option to choose either one, and he chose exile.

This rebellion introduced evil into Second Eden. While the proper human inhabitants did not lose their innocence because of this act, Flint’s rebellion catalyzed a change in the landscape. Some animals became fierce, and the altered tribes appeared.

Abraham knows that another act – a lie – would permit even more evil to enter his realm, and he does not want this to happen.

Angel’s lie creates the point of highest tension in the book. With this false word the Nephilim are able to swarm upon Second Eden, launching a memorable battle between good and evil that includes the regeneration of several dragons.

Then, in a moment which echoes a pivotal scene in Enoch’s Ghost, Abraham has to sentence Angel. That is all I wish to say on that matter.

By the end of the novel, the characters are being drawn to Second Eden. Billy and his father enter early on and are two of the regenerated dragons, and two other dragons join them. The rest are in hiding or gearing up for the ultimate battle which is sure to come in The Bones of Makaidos.

One thing in particular I liked about this book is that we are introduced to an “altered tribe” we can associate with. The shadow people were little more than shells of men, incapable of being understood. Greevelow, Mantika, and Windor are a family introduced in this book, and, while their kind appeared in Second Eden as a result of sin (I assume they are in fact "altered"), they should not be understood as the inhuman monsters that were the shadow people. This is a group that can interact with Abraham’s people, even to the point of raising orphaned children.

Last of the Nephilim is one of those books that I will re-read many more times and not grow tired of it. I strongly recommend it.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Midterms are Nearing - Update

It seems as though the semester just started, but we're already halfway through it, give or take a week. Classes have been going well, for the most part. Mass Transfer/Separations and Biochem are the most challenging, for sure.

My World Religions project topic is the creation myths of three different religious traditions (Norse, Cherokee, Shinto). Not entirely sure what information is going to be presented, but I have an idea of what I want.

Also need to work on reviews for Last of the Nephilim, Beyond the Reflection's Edge, and Eternity's Edge. Probably the review for BtRE will be based on the short review I wrote over a year ago. We'll see. They might not be quite as detailed as the one for Enoch's Ghost, as well.

Furry Weekend Atlanta is in three weeks. It will be my first convention. Looking forward to that and meeting people I've talked to on various forums.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

To be an Oracle

Recently Mr. Davis posted a new blog entry about what it means to be an Oracle of Fire. The term “Oracle of Fire” comes from his book series by the same name, which is a spin-off of the Dragons in our Midst series. When he began the series, he did not know for certain what the term meant, although the dedication page of Eye of the Oracle suggests he may have had something in mind from the beginning.

He provides a newer definition from his to-be-released book The Bones of Makaidos, in which a character states that an Oracle is someone who will “Speak the truth. Live the truth. Be the truth.” I will not post any more on this blog, but those who are interested can go to his Issues Blog and read more about it.

So why do I post this?

It is because I cannot keep silent about the deception in this world. God has put a fire in my heart that cannot be quenched, and my efforts to not speak all fail. Even in the face of adversity from without the church and even from within, God has called me to be a light in the darkness.
This calling can take on more than one form. To the United States, I must plead with the people to return to the One whom they claim to serve. A people who at one second pray and proclaim, “God bless America!” or “In God we trust” when a second later they applaud debauchery and the murder of countless innocents.

And in the church, we face those who would say that God will look away from any sins we commit. We are forgiven, and when we sin God sees the imputed righteousness of Jesus. What slander! To think that God will excuse sin. Will God be deceived? Will he allow these pretenders dressed in filthy robes to enter His kingdom? Certainly not. Some have said that the obedient are bastard sons, because they have no sins to confess. At the same time, the ones who call on God’s name and simultaneously admit to sinning daily are the sons of God? The Lord Himself states that those who commit sin are slaves to sin, not sons of God. We must warn them and lead them to the truth.

God, let me take a stand against this deception. Give me Your message, and speak through my imperfect lips. Everything I have, everything I am is Yours. Let me be a light guiding the blind to You. In opposition, be my comfort. In times of trial, be my strength.

Let me be an Oracle of Fire.

Edit: I will probably not be accepting anonymous comments from this point on. If you would like to comment and don't have an account here, post some sort of identifier (real name, username, something like that) with your comment. Thank you.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The Song of the Saints

This came to mind mind yesterday. I'm still pondering some of the verses.

We warn you, but you do not listen.
We pray for you, that you may be free.
We cry to you, who grope in darkness.
We show you what is life, you slay us.

A call to live, a call to die,
Sends evil ones to flight.
A call to weep, a call to laugh,
Reflects God's holy light.

We shall serve Him, our Adonai
The Maker of all things,
While those who hide their rotten hearts
Deny the King of Kings.

The Lord declares, the saints repeat
The way that sets man free.
And one by one they come to Him,
These blind who now can see.

At last! Our Maker who reigns on high
Who brings the wandering children home
Calls out to us, bearers of His name,
And declares to us eternal joy!

Monday, January 19, 2009

Review--Enoch's Ghost

Enoch’s Ghost, the second book in the Oracles of Fire series, picks up the exciting Dragons in our Midst story where Tears of a Dragon and Eye of the Oracle ended.

It is a complex book, having at least three distinct plots. Ashley, Walter and Karen meet up with Sapphira in the combined Earth/Hades dimension, and they work together to stop the evil Mardon before he can merge Heaven with Earth with his version of the Tower of Babel. Elam navigates the Bridgelands, following Merlin’s request for him to find Heaven’s Altar; in the journey he is tested by the horse Dikaios. In a land called Second Eden, Timothy awakens and learns of a prophecy that will bring deliverance, but it will come at a high price.

Condensing the entire book into one paragraph does not do it justice, but I don’t think any of you actually want a full-length synopsis of the story.

Enoch’s Ghost is without a doubt my favorite of all the DIOM and OOF books written to date. Mr. Davis sends the reader on an emotional roller coaster ride reaching from the shores of the Lake of Fire to the altar of Heaven. And as expected from so talented a writer, he fills the pages with refreshing truths.

Walter’s visit to the Lake of Fire (chapter 11) is perhaps the most disturbing scene I have read in a long time. Mr. Davis makes it clear that the condemned souls deserve to be there, but he does not do so in such a way that there is any risk of a believer’s ego being inflated. When Walter realizes what he is seeing, he very nearly has a breakdown. As the angel present states, “…[A]ll men of compassion become [ill] when they consider the destiny of the unrighteous.” In this chapter, Mr. Davis stresses the importance of evangelism, but he rightly states that the fear of hell should not be used as a means of persuasion. Such tactics may drive the sinner further from the love of God.

But on the other side, as far from the Lake of Fire as you can get, there is a moment of great joy. Naamah, Morgan’s accomplice in DIOM, encounters Elam in the Bridgelands. As it turns out, she never died even though she was stabbed by Jared in Tears of a Dragon. When we see her, she has been humiliated by a perverted wanderer of the Bridgelands. Elam covers her with his cloak and allows her to accompany him and Dikaios, but on the way Naamah very nearly takes Elam’s life. Dikaios tries to persuade Elam to kill Naamah, but when Naamah pleads for forgiveness he shows mercy. Naamah hesitates to continue the journey, but Elam stands and waits for her:

Not wanting to turn to look, Elam pictured Naamah behind him, standing pitifully in the distance, watching her hand, waiting. But waiting for what? Elam opened his own hand and stared at his palm. Blistered and bloodied from hanging on to the bridge, dirty and grass-smeared from lying in the fields, his hand was no more majestic than any other. It was human—strong, real, the ultimate symbol of reaching out from one wanderer to another. Finally, it all made sense.

Slowly turning, Elam stretched out his arm and extended his open hand toward Naamah. She leaped forward and sprinted toward him, her bare legs and feet kicking up the hem of his cloak. When she reached the hill, she dashed up the slope and dropped to her knees. She grabbed his hand and kissed his palm, crying, “You won’t regret this, Elam. I promise, you won’t regret your mercy.”

He raised her to her feet and looked into her teary eyes, speaking softly. “To be wanted and not lusted for. To be loved and not pitied. To be asked and not commanded.” After passing a hand over her bedraggled hair, he slipped it into hers, touching their palms together. “Is that right?”

As her cheeks flushed, a shy smile emerged. In contrast to her red face, her white teeth dazzled, but now her fangs were gone. “And to be believed, even after all my lies.”

This is a turning point in the story. If anyone deserves to be cast aside, Naamah does. She killed Billy and willingly worked with Morgan. But Elam does not forsake her. He sees a broken, repentant heart and is moved to show mercy. He serves as a perfect example of how the Christ-follower should behave. We should not see the sinner and let them rot in despair. No, we reach out to them, show them the love that burns within us, so they may see our Savior and be set free.

But it is when they reach Heaven’s Shield that the celebration can begin:

Elam leaned toward the barrier. “So, how do we get in? I never found the scarlet key the gatekeeper told me I needed.”

Look at your hand. The key is already in your grasp.”

Elam opened his fingers and stared at his palm. “What do you mean? I’m not carrying anything.”

"Oh, but you are. You bear the marks of righteousness.”

Elam flexed his fingers. His hand ached, still oozing blood from the cuts and scrapes he earned on the bridge. “I think I see what you mean.”

Naamah reached forward and showed him her palm. “Mine is bloodstained, but the blood is not my own.”

“Nor does the blood on Elam’s palm belong to him” Dikaios bobbed his head at the horizon. “Touch the shield, both of you. The righteous may enter immediately, and the contrite may plead for a new heart.”


You can probably imagine why I like this scene so much. Naamah, the harlot who did her sister’s bidding, was the last person the reader would expect to see become a new creation. Yet she is forgiven, and set free! She sings a new song, which I will not quote here except for the last two lines. “Forever bound unto my Lord, I cast aside the devil’s chains!” I came close to jumping up and down in delight, but I’m a rather subdued individual and that did not happen. But how wonderful is that? All believers can make her claim, that they are now bound to God and have cast aside the chains that bind them in sin.

And there is something else Mr. Davis made sure to mention. It is not through our own efforts that we are saved, but only through the blood of Jesus. Could the blood on their palms have belonged to anyone else? I would say not.

There is so much more that could be said about this wonderful book, but no time to speak it all. I encourage each of you who reads this blog to purchase this or any of the other Dragons in our Midst or Oracles of Fire books.