A friend told me about these theses, and while I do not agree with all of them, I so fervently agree with so many that I am willing to provide them here.
From SermonIndex.net
95 Theses To The Evangelical Church
by Greg Gordon
I submit these to the evangelical church of our day and pray that God would allow anything of truth in these pages to bend and change men's hearts back to God." - Greg Gordon - http://www.sermonindex.net
**
“It is useless for large companies of believers to spend long hours begging God to send revival. Unless we intend to reform we may as well not pray. Unless praying men have the insight and faith to amend their whole way of life to conform to the New Testament pattern there can be no true revival.” - A.W. Tozer
**
Thesis 1 - The evangelical church at large has forgotten that the chief end of man is to glorify God.
(Romans 16:27, 1 Corinthians 6:20, Mathew 6:9).
Thesis 2 - Evangelicals ignore most of the methods, practices and principles found in Acts chapter 2.
(Acts 2:42,44, Acts 2:46, Acts 2:38).
Thesis 3 - We meet for one hour a week and consider that apostolic church. Many evangelicals treat church like any other social club or sports event that they attend.
(Acts 2:46, Hebrews 10:25, Acts 1:14).
Thesis 4 - We have made Christianity about the individual rather then a community of believers.
(1 John 2:19, 2 Timothy 4:16, Jude 19).
Thesis 5 - In evangelical churches the priesthood of all believers is not acknowledged and the role of pastor is abused. The biblical view of a plurality of elders is practiced by very few.
(1 Peter 2:9, 1 Corinthians 12:12, Ephesians 4:11-13).
Thesis 6 – The evangelical church as a whole has lost the concept of their being engrafted into the promises given to Israel.
(Romans 11:17-18,20, Romans 11:25, Romans 11:15).
Thesis 7 - There needs to be a recovery back to teaching through the whole counsel of God expositionally.
(Acts 20:27, 1 Timothy 4:6, 2 Timothy 2:15).
Thesis 8 - We take it too lightly, the blessing and honor of having God’s Scriptures in our possession.
(Psalm 119:16, Acts 13:44, Nehemiah 8:9).
Thesis 9 - There has never been more access to the word of God yet so little reading of it.
(1 Timothy 4:13, Nehemiah 8:1-3, Psalm 119:59).
Thesis 10 - Some read the Scriptures to attain knowledge and do not practice what they read.
(James 1:22, Matthew 7:21, 3 John 4).
Thesis 11 - Worship has become an idol in many churches. The music resembles the world more than anything else.
(Amos 5:23, Philippians 4:8, 1 John 5:21).
Thesis 12 - The world is shaping the views of the evangelical church more than the church shaping the views of the world.
(Romans 12:2, Matthew 5:13, 1 Corinthians 1:22-23).
Thesis 13 - The evangelical church spends more money on dog food then missions.
(2 Corinthians 9:6, Luke 21:2, Acts 4:34-35).
Thesis 14 - We take lightly the cost of discipleship laid out by Jesus Christ and consider following Him a sort of jovial thing rather then it truly costing us our actual entire lives.
(Luke 14:33, Luke 14:26-27, Matthew 8:19-20).
Thesis 15 - There is a lack of true discipleship and making others to be obedient disciples.
(Matthew 28:20, 2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Timothy 2:14).
Thesis 16 - The modern day evangelical believes the error that parts of life are to be spiritual while other parts are to be worldly and secular. Rather than our entire life’s being spiritual and our walk with God.
(1 Peter 4:2, Colossians 3:3, 1 John 2:6).
Thesis 17 - The modern day evangelical finds Jesus’ command to sacrifice and serve abhorrent.
(Philippians 2:21, James 3:16, Romans 12:1-2).
Thesis 18 - Self disciplines in the Christian life such as fasting, praying, suffering are considered legalistic.
(2 Timothy 2:21, 2 Timothy 1:8, Matthew 6:17).
Thesis 19 - Little thought and contemplation is put towards the lostness of men, the seriousness of the gospel, and the sacrifice of the call of Christ.
(Philippians 3:8, Galatians 2:20, Hebrews 10:34).
Thesis 20 - We are living with an epidemic of cheap grace in the Church. Flippant confession, shallow consecration, superficial surrender.
(Luke 14:28-30, Luke 14:26, James 4:8).
Thesis 21 - Since the inception of the Church, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was preached with the requirements of repentance and discipleship.
(Acts 2:38, Luke 14:26, John 8:31).
Thesis 22 - Presently, the “High-Calling in Christ Jesus,” has never been offered at such a low level. Forgiveness without repentance, discipleship without obedience, salvation without sanctity, confession without consecration.
(Hebrews 10:29, Hebrews 4:11, Luke 13:24).
Thesis 23 - Such terms as: Introspection, counting the cost, godly sorrow over sin, repentance from dead works, are all foreign to this church age of cheap grace.
(Acts 2:37, Psalm 119:9, Hebrews 6:1-2).
Thesis 24 - The modern evangelical church loves itself more than its neighbor.
(1 Corinthians 3:3, Galatians 5:13, Philippians 2:3).
Thesis 25 - The church must repent of its idolization of personality and business principles.
(2 Corinthians 2:17, 1 Corinthians 3:5, 1 Corinthians 12:23).
Thesis 26 - The elders and pastors of the church, as ministers of the gospel, are charged by Jesus to feed the sheep. But sadly many are fleecing the flock to supply their wants.
(John 10:12-13, 1 Peter 5:2-3, Revelation 2:15).
Thesis 27 - The qualities most in demand in today's pastorate are frequently foreign to the qualities which are made most important in Scripture.
(1 Timothy 3:2-3, 1 Timothy 3:5, 1 Timothy 1:5-7).
Thesis 28 - The professionalization of the pastorate is a sin and needs to be repented of.
(2 Corinthians 11:13, Galatians 3:1, Galatians 2:6).
Thesis 29 - There must be repentance for the ambitious desire and idolization of the celebrity pastorate.
(3 John 9, Jeremiah 17:5, 1 Corinthians 12:22).
Thesis 30 - The evangelical pastor must trust the Spirit, not statistics.
(2 Samuel 24:1, 1 Corinthians 1:25, Romans 8:14).
Thesis 31 - Modern day prophets are being stoned by criticism and neglect.
(2 Timothy 4:3-4, Galatians 1:10, Jeremiah 1:7-8).
Thesis 32 - God’s prophets are ill treated and shunned by most evangelicals and considered too extreme or harsh.
(Jeremiah 6:10, Isaiah 6:9-10, Galatians 4:16).
Thesis 33 - An astonishing and horrible thing has been committed in the land: The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule by their own power; And my people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?
(Matthew 24:4,11-12, 1 Corinthians 1:19, Jude 8).
Thesis 34 - There are many false gospels being preached from pulpits. God has no interest and is not required to honor a gospel that is false.
(2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:8-9, Jude 16).
Thesis 35 - There is an epidemic of a sort of “mock” salvation being preached from many pulpits today. It is a gospel message that is not authentic. It is correct in doctrine but false in reality.
(2 Corinthians 3:6, 1 John 5:11-12, Romans 8:9).
Thesis 36 - What is this “mock” salvation that is being spoken of? Simply defined it is a salvation that does not make men holy.
(Jude 4, Romans 8:1, Romans 6:17-18).
Thesis 37 - No other evangelical phraseology has caused more damage to true gospel preaching then this simple coined phrase: “we are all just sinners saved by grace.”
(Ephesians 1:1, Hebrews 6:11-12, Hebrews 10:26-27).
Thesis 38 - There is a gospel message that keeps men sinners and never allows them to change and become saints in actual experience.
(1 John 2:29, Colossians 3:5-8, Titus 3:8).
Thesis 39 - The warning of Christ is against this gospel where professors of religion are forbidding people to be a part of the holy body of Christ.
(Matthew 23:13, Psalm 119:1-2, 2 Peter 1:3-4).
Thesis 40 - Preaching has become all about the happiness of man and not the glory of God.
(John 6:26, Romans 4:20, 1 Peter 4:11).
Thesis 41 - Preachers give smooth words to entice men, yet very few give any words of correction or rebuke.
(Jeremiah 6:14, Proverbs 1:23, 1 Timothy 5:20).
Thesis 42 - Run from gospels that focus on your success and prosperity. From those that use the name of Jesus Christ only for personal gain.
(John 2:16, Acts 20:33, Jeremiah 6:13).
Thesis 43 - Run from gospels that focus only on self-improvement.
(1 Timothy 6:5, Hebrews 12:14, James 4:14).
Thesis 44 - Run from churches where men and not Christ are glorified.
(Colossians 1:18, Jude 25, John 16:14).
Thesis 45 - Run from churches where there is no Bible, no cross, no searching Word, no repentance from sin, no mention of the blood of Christ.
(1 Peter 1:18-19, Ephesians 3:13, Revelation 1:5).
Thesis 46 - Run from churches where the worship leaves you cold, where there’s no sense of God’s presence.
(1 Corinthians 5:4, Psalm 80:14-15, Jeremiah 12:11).
Thesis 47 - Run from churches where you’re comfortable in your sin.
(1 Corinthians 14:25, Hebrews 10:30-31, Hebrews 4:13).
Thesis 48 - Run from churches that use the pulpit of God for a personal agenda.
(Jude 10-11, Jude 19, 3 John 9).
Thesis 49 - Run from those who preach division between races and cultures.
(James 2:4, Galatians 3:28, Revelation 5:9).
Thesis 50 - Run from ungodly, spasmodic movements and endless empty prophesying.
(Jeremiah 5:13, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 1 John 2:16).
Thesis 51 - Run from preachers who tell only stories and jokes.
(Ephesians 5:4, Titus 1:8, Titus 2:12).
Thesis 52 - Run from those that are only after money and they use one gimmick after another to get your money.
(2 Peter 2:3, 2 Corinthians 12:14, 1 Corinthians 9:18).
Thesis 53 - The phrase “accept Jesus as your personal Saviour.” Is not found in the Scriptures.
(Romans 10:9-10, Colossians 1:13, Acts 26:20).
Thesis 54 - Evidence of true conversion is something that does not seem important to modern day evangelicals.
(1 John 2:6, 1 John 4:17, Matthew 7:20).
Thesis 55 - In result thousands of sinners think of God having only one attribute, love! which has allowed multitudes to sit at ease with their sins.
(Romans 1:18, Acts 5:11, Psalm 2:12).
Thesis 56 - God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life has caused much confusion in evangelism to the lost.
(Romans 3:19, Acts 26:18, Philippians 3:18-21).
Thesis 57 - A Gospel of love and grace only without the law of God is being preached. Martin Luther called this gospel a doctrine of Satan.
(2 Timothy 4:3-4, Romans 2:4-5, Romans 3:19).
Thesis 58 - We have inherited a system of evangelistic preaching which is unbiblical. This has clearly arisen from the careless mixture of 20th century reasoning with God’s revelation.
(Colossians 2:8, Romans 1:25, Galatians 1:6).
Thesis 59 - Decisionism and the sinners prayer has been the major cause of false conversions in the evangelical church.
(2 Peter 2:1-2, Ephesians 2:4-5, 2 Corinthians 5:17-18).
Thesis 60 - Evangelicals are swelling the ranks of the deluded with a perverted gospel! Many who have made decisions in churches have been told in the inquiry rooms their sins have been forgiven will be surprised to hear “I never knew you depart from me.”
(Matthew 7:22-23, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21).
Thesis 61 - Men have taken the place of the Holy Spirit of God in confirming men in their supposed salvation.
(1 John 2:3-5, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, Galatians 6:12-15).
Thesis 62 - The doctrine of hell and eternal suffering is something little grasped by most evangelicals.
(Matthew 13:42, James 5:1, Psalms 9:17).
Thesis 63 - The judgment seat of Christ is perhaps one of the most neglected topics in the modern evangelical pulpit.
(2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 14:10, 1 Corinthians 3:13).
Thesis 64 - The second coming of Jesus Christ needs to be re-instated as the general thrust and burden of the church.
(1 John 3:2-3, Colossians 3:4-6, 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17).
Thesis 65 - The evangelical church has lost the fear of God and has over emphasized the love of God.
(Hebrews 12:28-29, Luke 12:5, Hebrews 10:31).
Thesis 66 - The church has left evangelism to a few trained professionals rather than simply obeying the Scriptures call to personally evangelize themselves.
(Acts 8:1,4, Acts 4:29, Romans 10:14).
Thesis 67 - Repentance is considered a one-time act in modern evangelism rather than a way of life.
(Revelation 3:19, Hebrews 12:17, 2 Peter 3:9).
Thesis 68 - The Lordship of Jesus Christ is something that is not imposed on sinners initially and creates half-saved people who have a Saviour but not a Lord.
(Acts 2:36, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Romans 6:18).
Thesis 69 - We are not open to correction, discipline or rebuke. And most would rather just move to another evangelical church somewhere down the road.
(1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 11:31-32, Hebrews 12:7-9).
Thesis 70 - There is a great deal of preaching that amounts to a mere believing of the different theories about salvation, instead of persuading men to come to Christ and be saved.
(John 5:40, Colossians 1:28, 2 Corinthians 4:5).
Thesis 71 - There has been a loss of the fullness and majesty of the gospel.
(1 Timothy 1:11, Jude 25, Romans 15:29).
Thesis 72 - There is little mention of sin or the depravity of man from evangelical pulpits.
(John 3:20, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5).
Thesis 73 - Covetousness, consumerism, and coddling the world’s goods is something that does not appear wrong to evangelicals.
(Jeremiah 22:17, 1 John 2:15-16, 1 Timothy 3:3).
Thesis 74 - Little is made of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in churches or in evangelism. Yet it was one of the major themes and glories of the apostolic church.
(1 Corinthians 15:14-15, Acts 4:10, Acts 4:33).
Thesis 75 - The evangelical church has relied more on technology then God.
(Zechariah 4:6, 1 Corinthians 1:21, 1 Corinthians 2:4).
Thesis 76 - The prayer meeting is considered in the evangelical church one of the least important meetings. The idea of meeting for an entire day together seems ridiculous and a waste of time.
(1 Timothy 2:1, Acts 4:31, Philippians 4:6).
Thesis 77 - Pastors have never prayed less than they do in the evangelical church in our day.
(Jeremiah 10:21, Philippians 2:21, Ephesians 6:18-19).
Thesis 78 - Very few are waiting on God for His direction and purpose for the church.
(Ephesians 1:11, Psalm 37:7, Isaiah 40:31).
Thesis 79 - The evangelical church has many organizers but few agonizers.
(Philippians 3:18-19, Romans 9:1-3, Jeremiah 9:1).
Thesis 80 - We need to have the gifts of the Spirit restored again to the Church. The one gift we need the most is the gift of prophecy.
(2 Timothy 4:2, 1 Corinthians 14:39, 1 Corinthians 12:31).
Thesis 81 - The evangelical church at large has never been more frivolous about the things of God. A serious, sober, self-controlled Christianity is very seldom found or preached.
(2 Peter 3: 11, 1 Peter 4:7, Jude 3).
Thesis 82 - The evangelical church at large has forgotten how to pray.
(1 John 3:22, Acts 6:4, 1 Thessalonians 5:17).
Thesis 83 - Churches are more dependent on tradition rather than on the leading of the Holy Spirit.
(Mark 7:13, Acts 16:6, Acts 13:2).
Thesis 84 - It might seem strange to say that ministers of religion are “pleading for impurity and sin.” Yet this is exactly what multitudes of professors preach and teach that you cannot be free from sin. That you must sin!
(Romans 16:18, Romans 6:1-2, 2 Peter 2:1).
Thesis 85 - The Apostles and Christ always preached from the vantage point of the possibility to walk holy and free from sin.
(Titus 2:11-12, 1 Peter 1:14-16, Romans 6:19).
Thesis 86 - Sinners are not saved to sin but rather saved to holiness and good works.
(Romans 6:13, Ephesians 2:10, 2 Peter 3:14).
Thesis 87 - Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of the church.
(2 Timothy 2:19, 1 Peter 4:17-18, 2 Timothy 3:12).
Thesis 88 - A baptism of holiness, a demonstration of godly living is the crying need of our day.
(1 Timothy 6:3, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:13).
Thesis 89 - Most in the Church are utterly confused about the practical godliness, obedience, and good works which the Scriptures readily mentions.
(Titus 3:8, John 10:32, Revelation 3:15).
Thesis 90 - Little or no emphasis is put in evangelical churches on the plan of God to make us like Jesus Christ, conforming us to His image.
(1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 2:6, 1 Peter 4:1).
Thesis 91 - Christ did not die on the cross to obtain a worldly Church or for worldly Saints but for a “glorious Church.”
(Ephesians 5:27, Titus 2:14, Colossians 4:12).
Thesis 92 - Christ does not come into our unregenerate, sickly, impure hearts as many contemporary theologians say. He gives us a new heart to dwell in wherein is found holiness and righteousness.
(2 Corinthians 5:17, Matthew 5:8, Ezekiel 18:31).
Thesis 93 - A holy Church is God’s blessing to the world; an unholy Church is God’s judgment upon the world.
(Matthew 5:14,16, Ephesians 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:12).
Thesis 94 - If Christianity is to make any headway in the present time, it must be proved to be more then a theory.
(2 Thessalonians 3:6-7, 1 Thessalonians 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12).
Thesis 95 - Unbelief has us captive; the evangelical church is gagged and bound as risen Lazarus, it needs release in this final hour!
(Hebrews 3:12-14, 1 Corinthians 3:21-23, Hebrews 11:6).
Saturday, February 27, 2010
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.
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:
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:
(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.
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:
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.
I agree that these claims are ridiculous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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:
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Review--Do Hard Things
Do Hard Things is a component of Brett and Alex Harris’ “Rebelution,” challenges its teen audience to rebel against the low expectations our society at large has for this age group and to “reach higher, dream bigger, grow stronger, love and honor God, live with more joy—and quit wasting their lives.”
This is excellent. The book discusses the “Myth of Adolescence” and comes out on top. Our society’s invention of the teenage years has discouraged teenagers from pursuing excellence and offered a different route: settle for less. Just do the best you can. Don’t push yourself. So a distressing number of teenagers swallow the lie and accomplish little of value in what the Harris brothers term the most crucial years.
The Harris brothers, on the other hand, promote a better way. They encourage the readers to engage in five different types of “hard things”: acting outside one’s comfort zone, going beyond what is required, organizing and accomplishing projects that are too big to do alone, things that don’t have immediate payoff, and making choices at odds with the current culture. Scattered throughout the book are literally dozens of examples of teenagers doing big things. These testimonies are exciting examples of what teenagers can do to glorify God, and they are all great to read.
But there are two brief but major errors which make me unable to recommend the book.
On page 101, in the midst of their talk about exceeding expectations and pursuing excellence, they correctly identify that God has called us to be holy as He is holy. “God’s standard is not for us to be our teacher’s best helper, but to be a ‘servant of all.’”
Wonderful.
Then they say this: “God set His standards this high so that we won’t make the mistake of aiming low. He made them unreachable so that we would never have an excuse to stop growing.”
Wait. Weren’t they just talking about exceeding expectations? Aiming for excellence and being holy? So why throw that in there?
Yes, I think I know what they mean. God’s standards are very high, and we can’t make the mistake of aiming low. But unreachable? Never!
Did God not say through Moses, "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.” (Deut. 30:11-14, NASB)
God told the nation of Israel that all the law He commanded was not unreachable. He said it was not too difficult for them. It was, in fact, so close that they could observe it.
So why do the Harris brothers contradict the Bible and say that it’s impossible? That in itself is enough to keep me from recommending the book.
Then, on page 126, they say, “Even good, solid, sincere Christians are sinful and imperfect.”
Troubling. 1 John says the opposite: “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.” (1 John 3:7-9, NASB)
In all their challenges to the reader, the most important one -- living a holy life -- is not just ignored. It is flatly denied. And it's baffling, too. Did they not quote 1 Peter 1:16, where we are told to be holy as God is holy? They acknowledge His command but turn around and state that no one can obey Him. How many will be led astray by this?
So, while I would love to promote this book as a much-needed response to the problem of apathy in my generation, I can’t. As much as they encourage their readers to make a difference in the world, they fail in the most important areas. Readers could do amazing things but remain trapped in sin, not knowing they could be set free. They would remain condemned.
Remove the two offending sections, and I will readily promote it.
This is excellent. The book discusses the “Myth of Adolescence” and comes out on top. Our society’s invention of the teenage years has discouraged teenagers from pursuing excellence and offered a different route: settle for less. Just do the best you can. Don’t push yourself. So a distressing number of teenagers swallow the lie and accomplish little of value in what the Harris brothers term the most crucial years.
The Harris brothers, on the other hand, promote a better way. They encourage the readers to engage in five different types of “hard things”: acting outside one’s comfort zone, going beyond what is required, organizing and accomplishing projects that are too big to do alone, things that don’t have immediate payoff, and making choices at odds with the current culture. Scattered throughout the book are literally dozens of examples of teenagers doing big things. These testimonies are exciting examples of what teenagers can do to glorify God, and they are all great to read.
But there are two brief but major errors which make me unable to recommend the book.
On page 101, in the midst of their talk about exceeding expectations and pursuing excellence, they correctly identify that God has called us to be holy as He is holy. “God’s standard is not for us to be our teacher’s best helper, but to be a ‘servant of all.’”
Wonderful.
Then they say this: “God set His standards this high so that we won’t make the mistake of aiming low. He made them unreachable so that we would never have an excuse to stop growing.”
Wait. Weren’t they just talking about exceeding expectations? Aiming for excellence and being holy? So why throw that in there?
Yes, I think I know what they mean. God’s standards are very high, and we can’t make the mistake of aiming low. But unreachable? Never!
Did God not say through Moses, "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.” (Deut. 30:11-14, NASB)
God told the nation of Israel that all the law He commanded was not unreachable. He said it was not too difficult for them. It was, in fact, so close that they could observe it.
So why do the Harris brothers contradict the Bible and say that it’s impossible? That in itself is enough to keep me from recommending the book.
Then, on page 126, they say, “Even good, solid, sincere Christians are sinful and imperfect.”
Troubling. 1 John says the opposite: “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.” (1 John 3:7-9, NASB)
In all their challenges to the reader, the most important one -- living a holy life -- is not just ignored. It is flatly denied. And it's baffling, too. Did they not quote 1 Peter 1:16, where we are told to be holy as God is holy? They acknowledge His command but turn around and state that no one can obey Him. How many will be led astray by this?
So, while I would love to promote this book as a much-needed response to the problem of apathy in my generation, I can’t. As much as they encourage their readers to make a difference in the world, they fail in the most important areas. Readers could do amazing things but remain trapped in sin, not knowing they could be set free. They would remain condemned.
Remove the two offending sections, and I will readily promote it.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Mixed Messages
This has been flitting through my head the past couple weeks, but I have not been able to write my thoughts on the matter all that well. Nevertheless, I think it's time to try. As most of you know, I adhere to the holiness doctrine. I believe it is not only possible for a Christian to no longer sin, this sinless behavior is expected.
I will focus on one example.
I attended a Bible study for a short while during the summer session at Clemson. I was delighted one evening to hear the speaker say that Christians did not have to sin. She (we won't discuss appropriateness of this) said that, when those who called themselves Christians did not have lives that were changed-- that is, they kept on doing the sinful things they used to do-- there was something terribly wrong. At one point she said she was holy.
But then, only a week later, the same person said that repentance was a daily thing. Every day she had to repent of sinful thoughts and actions.
Problem: If one repents, he does not return to the former way of living. Repentance involves changing one's mind. It is more than feeling sorry for what one has done.
Another problem: How can one be holy and yet sin? The two don't go together. Is it possible to be holy? Of course. In fact, it's expected. John said that he who has been born of God does not sin. (1 John 5:18) Paul said that believers are not slaves to sin. Jesus said that those who love Him will keep His commandments. (John 14:15)
Does anyone else see the problem? These people were being told one thing one day and the opposite the next. How would anyone know what to believe in this situation? And does the same thing happen in other groups, other churches?
Consistency would be nice.
I will focus on one example.
I attended a Bible study for a short while during the summer session at Clemson. I was delighted one evening to hear the speaker say that Christians did not have to sin. She (we won't discuss appropriateness of this) said that, when those who called themselves Christians did not have lives that were changed-- that is, they kept on doing the sinful things they used to do-- there was something terribly wrong. At one point she said she was holy.
But then, only a week later, the same person said that repentance was a daily thing. Every day she had to repent of sinful thoughts and actions.
Problem: If one repents, he does not return to the former way of living. Repentance involves changing one's mind. It is more than feeling sorry for what one has done.
Another problem: How can one be holy and yet sin? The two don't go together. Is it possible to be holy? Of course. In fact, it's expected. John said that he who has been born of God does not sin. (1 John 5:18) Paul said that believers are not slaves to sin. Jesus said that those who love Him will keep His commandments. (John 14:15)
Does anyone else see the problem? These people were being told one thing one day and the opposite the next. How would anyone know what to believe in this situation? And does the same thing happen in other groups, other churches?
Consistency would be nice.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Groundbreaking Ceremony
Friday morning I attended the groundbreaking ceremony for the Academic Success Center's (ASC)new building. The ASC is the campus organization that hires tutors and Supplemental Instruction leaders to help students in their work. SI is primarily for the freshman classes, but you'll find tutors for any subject as soon as three people request it.
A few years ago, the Class of 1956 was deciding on a project that would benefit the campus in some way. I found out that they had been considering 19 other projects, but they ultimately chose to help the ASC. In a matter of a few years, the twenty-two leaders selected by the class managed to raise nearly $3 million.
And Friday made it official.
Of course, the ceremony is merely symbolic. But I'm sure the class members could not help but feel a thrill when their spades pierced the earth. I do not know how many will be alive when the building is complete. I don't even know how long it will take. But I do hope that at least some of them can see the finished product.
Later in the day, Michael McLeod, my supervisor, told me that he wishes the new building to be to academics what the football stadium is to athletics. Who was I to disagree? I also want to see a campus focused more on academics.
The Clemson Tiger Cub listens to the speaker...I think.
President Barker gave a few remarks.
Breaking ground.
A few years ago, the Class of 1956 was deciding on a project that would benefit the campus in some way. I found out that they had been considering 19 other projects, but they ultimately chose to help the ASC. In a matter of a few years, the twenty-two leaders selected by the class managed to raise nearly $3 million.
And Friday made it official.
Of course, the ceremony is merely symbolic. But I'm sure the class members could not help but feel a thrill when their spades pierced the earth. I do not know how many will be alive when the building is complete. I don't even know how long it will take. But I do hope that at least some of them can see the finished product.
Later in the day, Michael McLeod, my supervisor, told me that he wishes the new building to be to academics what the football stadium is to athletics. Who was I to disagree? I also want to see a campus focused more on academics.
The Clemson Tiger Cub listens to the speaker...I think.
President Barker gave a few remarks.
Breaking ground.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Stories
Today I finished Resolutions, which was the follow-up to Repercussions. Combined (since they tell one story), it's just over 100,000 words long! That makes it my largest project to date, easily. Of course, DC and its storyline will surpass even that.
Here's a list of my projects so far. Complete works are in italics, bold works are future projects, and current ones have no special designation. :P
The Dragon Conspirators
Dragon's Return
Unnamed Book Three (?)
Repercussions
Resolutions
Footsteps of the Prophet (possible title)
Special Project (March/April 2008)
And a few other ideas that I'm thinking about. This should be enough to last me for a while, though.
Here's a list of my projects so far. Complete works are in italics, bold works are future projects, and current ones have no special designation. :P
The Dragon Conspirators
Dragon's Return
Unnamed Book Three (?)
Repercussions
Resolutions
Footsteps of the Prophet (possible title)
Special Project (March/April 2008)
And a few other ideas that I'm thinking about. This should be enough to last me for a while, though.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Untitled Story
I started this story around Christmas and put it down, only to finish it around 1:00 last night. (You'd have to be a writer to understand that last bit.) It's on DIOM, but I'll post it here for easier access.
Timothy wiped the rim of his earthen mug and wished he hadn’t. Thick brown grime coated his index finger. Sighing, he brushed his finger on his faded brown pants and brought the mug to his lips.
Warm, oily liquid filled his mouth. A bitter taste coated his tongue, but he swallowed, willing his stomach to hold its contents. Timothy licked the film from his teeth and set the vessel on the worn wooden table, shoving it away. A wave of water heaved over the top and spattered onto the table, filling in the many zigzagging cracks on the surface.
The tavern door opened, sending a gust of wind into the room. Timothy wrapped his shawl more tightly about himself and studied the newcomer.
Tall, an impressive build. Muscles bulged underneath a too-tight leather vest. The man’s chiseled torso left no doubt; the man knew how to show off. Thick arms swayed at his side, brown hair just beginning to bristle. A man in the prime of youth. Timothy frowned at the man’s face. Bright eyes hid under bushy eyebrows, and his thin lips stretched tight. He carried himself with authority. Timothy squinted. False, he assumed.
“Bartender, give me the strongest drink you got!” The youth’s rich baritone drowned out the myriad bawdy conversations being carried out in the room. Two score voices hushed and almost twice as many eyes (some patrons didn’t have a pair) turned his way. He strutted to a table occupied by three middle-aged men and winked. “Can I sit here?”
The one nearest him, who wore a hooded cape, shrugged and scratched his graying goatee. “Sure.” He kicked out a chair. “Sit.” The newcomer thanked him and settled in. “So what brings you out here?” the man asked. “Don’t get a lot of strangers in these parts, just you and that old man there tonight.” Timothy scowled and took another sip. Water dripped onto his meager beard. “Guess you’re just passing through?”
The youth nodded. “Yeah.” A matronly woman plopped a mug down. “Thank you,” he said, bringing it to his mouth. Timothy watched with interest. The youth’s eyes bulged, but he downed it. He exhaled. “Ah! That’s good.” He propped his elbows on the table and looked around. “I slayed a dragon.”
Timothy choked. He reached down to the floor and picked up his old gray walking staff, then he stood it upright. The thud it made when it hit the floor could be heard, the tavern had grown so silent.
“Yew didn’t kill no dragon!” A gap-toothed farmer stood and pointed a shaky finger at the youth. Drunk. “Y’ain’t got no sword!”
The main grinned and dismissed the complaint. “Rest assured, I did. What, did you think I would bring my equipment with me?” The farmer didn’t move for a moment, then shook his head stupidly. “Old Drake? Yep, my best sword is stuck in his flank.”
“Ye’re joshin’ us. Ain’t no way ye killed Drake!”
Timothy’s staff pounded the floor with every step. “Slew a dragon, eh?” He put his weight on the rod and slouched. “Do tell. What did he say to you?”
“Aw, don’t encourage ‘im!” the first man said.
Timothy did not acknowledge him. “Well? He spoke to you, I am sure of it. They often do, even the corrupted ones—before they kill you.”
The youth smirked. “Drake didn’t even put up a fight. ‘Matt!’ he said. Surprising enough that he seemed excited to see me, doubly so when he spoke my name.”
A splinter dug into Timothy’s palm, but he did not flinch. “He gave your name?” He placed equal emphasis on each word. Someone sniggered. “What else did he say?”
Matt waved his hand. “Oh, some nonsense about being chosen for this-or-that task. Didn’t make sense.”
Timothy raised his staff and swung it. The rod hit Matt’s head with a mild crack! Not enough to hurt, but it got his attention.
Matt rubbed the point of impact. What was that for, old man? You itching for a fight or something?” He rose from his chair.
“You fool!” Timothy forced him down again. “You do not even realize what you have done!”
Matt crossed his arms over his chest. “Amuse me,” he said, a defiant glint in his eye. His cheek had begun to swell.
“Drake was never a threat to anyone. He is still pure!” Timothy stamped his foot in frustration. “He is a farmer!”
“Shut up, old timer!” A drunk in the corner sneered. “We didn’t come to hear no wives fables.”
Timothy pointed his index finger at Matt and ground his teeth. “You listen. My words may have passed from the popular scene, yet truth remains. He Chose you as his own. He likes you!”
Matt raised an eyebrow. “Drake likes me? What did I do to him?” Timothy knew the youth mocked him, but he said nothing.
Timothy’s voice lowered to a whisper. “Was he dead when you left?”
“Well, ye-yes, of course!’ Matt glanced at the quasi attentive men surrounding him. Timothy raised his staff in warning. Matt shook his head. “No. No, he wasn’t. Close, but not dead.”
“Then there’s still time.” Timothy scowled at the youth one last time, then he hurried out the door.
***
All the locals knew Drake made a temporary home in the cleft between two house-sized boulders. Timothy stumbled to the entrance and called out. “Drake!” A low, mournful note shook pebbles loose from their perch above Timothy’s head. “Are you well?” He rushed into the cave, confident the fire-breathing reptile would not attempt to harm him. “Drake, I heard what happened. Please, answer me!”
“Who speaks?” The sound of the dragon’s voice shook the man to his bones. Deep and powerful, yet sad, as well.
“A friend. I should be in the main chamber in a moment.” On cue, Timothy stepped into the dragon’s sanctuary. He gasped at the sight before him. “A sleek green dragon fully ten cubits in length gazed at him, eyes unblinking. Yellow irises shone, illuminating rounded pupils.
The dragon’s forked tongue sampled the air. “I do not know you.”
“I am Timothy, noble drake.” Timothy bowed as he spoke. “The sword, does it still...?” Drake lifted his head and looked to a corner. A blood-stained sword reflected the light emanating from the dragon. Timothy took a step closer. “Are you badly hurt?”
Drake sang the same mournful note that Timothy had heard only moments before. “I am well in body, though I fear my heart has suffered a mortal wound.” The dragon stood and limped to the human. “Why, Timothy?” the dragon asked. “What drove my beloved to act in wanton violence toward me?” When the dragon sighed, a flurry of wayward sparks drifted to the rocky floor.
Drake was an arm’s length away, now. A tear trickled down Timothy’s cheek and nestled in his beard. “I cannot say. Matt does not know the legends. Or rather, he learned the wrong ones.”
Anger seeped into the dragon’s voice. “My corrupted brethren have destroyed the fair reputation once bestowed upon us. Their stories have tickled Matt’s ear, you say?” Drake bowed his head. “Then I mourn for him all the more.”
Timothy stroked the fine dragon’s smooth scales, running his fingers along the ridges between the armored plates. Pure dragons had always been this trusting of another, so spoke the old stories. Drake would not harm him; indeed, the thought would likely never cross his mind. “I am glad the stroke did not cause undue harm.”
Drake’s ears perked up. “Silence!” he commanded. “The lad comes.”
Timothy bowed to the dragon and moved to the wall of the cave, hoping to blend into the darkness. The sword continued to reflect the light, a beacon in the opposite corner.
"Matt!" Drake bowed his head low. "You have returned." Excitement seemed to radiate from the dragon's body. Drake took a step forward. "I want to apologize for whatever it was I may have done to you. What?"
Matt rested a hand on the hilt of his sword. "Why do you mock me, dragon?" The creature backed away. "I came to kill you, yet you remain alive! And you know my name." Matt drew his sword and held it before him. "Now I'll finish the job."
"But Matt, I..." Drake's gaze flickered to Timothy. "I do not understand. What have I done to you? I have wished you no harm." Timothy wanted to call out, to help, but he knew to do so would be wrong. It was rude enough to listen to the conversation.
"There was an old man at the tavern. Because of him I'll be a laughingstock if I do not return with your head." He glanced toward Timothy but saw nothing. "Tell me why you should live."
Drake had not heard. His thoughts were turned inward. "I Chose you," he mumbled. "I swore on that day to ensure your happiness." Sparks littered the floor, and Matt jumped back. "Does this mean I have failed?" Drake lowered himself to the ground. "Then kill me, for I have abandoned my oath."
Timothy blinked. He had not expected this!
Neither, apparently, had Matt. "This is trickery, I know it!" Matt breathed heavily but did not attack. Second thoughts?
The dragon moaned. "You are not happy, Matt? There is nothing I can do to restore some of the joy I sensed in you that day?"
Matt's sword arm lowered, as though the instrument had become heavier. Hope sparked in Timothy's heart. Perhaps he would leave! Then Matt's troubled expression changed to one of fierce determination. His arm found strength once more. Drake glanced at the youth for a moment before returning his gaze to the floor.
Timothy's jaw trembled. It was not his place to interfere, yet he could not bear to see the destruction of an innocent creature! Soul overcame mind. "Enough!" he shouted. Matt's sword clattered to the ground; he had dropped it in shock. Timothy's voice reverberated through the chamber, giving the impression of a giant speaking. The old man stepped from his hiding place. "Keep your hands where I can see them!" he barked. His staff tapped against the stone for each step he took. "I will not have you lay a hand on Drake."
The dragon sighed, his hot breath buffeting Matt. "Timothy, what is this you have done?"
Timothy bowed. "My apologies. I could not watch in silence while a fool slew you." He shook with rage. "And you, I hope, will not be foolish enough to die due to one child's ignorance!" He glared at Matt. "Should you kill this creature, I will hold you responsible for driving the most noble race to grace this earth to extinction!" He set his foot next to the sword and slid it away.
"What's it to you? I don't see what you have to lose."
Timothy swatted at Matt's leg. The youth jumped just in time. "Do you truly know nothing, boy? You owe your very existence to creatures such as he!" he said, jabbing his finger toward Drake. "What is more, he Chose you. Do you know what that means?" Matt shook his head. "I thought not. That is as close to a statement of servitude as one of his stature can get!"
Matt laughed. "You mean he would do whatever I told him? You are a lunatic."
"I said servitude, not slavery. And do not speak!" he snapped at Drake. "This is no longer your concern." Timothy stooped and picked up the sword. "A nice blade," he said as he tested it. He presented it to Matt. "Take it. Good. Now I want you to do something for him."
Matt rolled his eyes. "Will it make you leave?"
"Yes. Now. I want you to look Drake in the eye and say, 'I am honored that you Chose me, yet I humbly ask that you seek someone of greater worth than I.'"
"Like you."
"Just do it."
Matt sighed, shook his head, and spoke: "I am honored that you Chose me, yet I humbly ask that you seek someone of greater worth than I."
Timothy nodded once. "Good. Drake, you are no longer bound by oath to this buffoon." He pointed with his staff. "And you, young man, should leave. Drake now is under no obligation to keep you alive."
"But--!"
Timothy arched his eyebrows. "You want to risk it? You are a fool."
Matt sheathed his sword. "Fine. You win." He pointed at the dragon. "But I will get you one day!" Timothy watched him leave the chamber and listened until the echoes ceased.
"There we are. And look, he left his sword. I am sure you can pawn it, Drake." The dragon stared at the entryway. "Drake. He is gone. And by his own words, he is no longer chosen by you."
"I suppose. Timothy, will I find someone else?"
Timothy shrugged. "Perhaps. But you may want to educate the next one first. Speaking of, I take it he was your first?"
Drake's ears pinned back in embarrassment. "It was. I will know better next time."
"There will be a next time, good. Do not be intimidated by this one mistake. And now I should be going. You are certain you will not suffer further physical injury?"
"Yes. Thank you." Timothy hobbled to the exit. "And Timothy, when will you clothe yourself in scales once more?"
Timothy pondered this for a moment. "In time. It is easier to spread the truth about us in this form." He snapped his fingers. "Oh, and one more thing. You should probably consider leaving soon in case Matt returns. Humans are predictable that way."
"Yes, Timothy, I will." The dragon bowed. "Thank you."
Timothy wiped the rim of his earthen mug and wished he hadn’t. Thick brown grime coated his index finger. Sighing, he brushed his finger on his faded brown pants and brought the mug to his lips.
Warm, oily liquid filled his mouth. A bitter taste coated his tongue, but he swallowed, willing his stomach to hold its contents. Timothy licked the film from his teeth and set the vessel on the worn wooden table, shoving it away. A wave of water heaved over the top and spattered onto the table, filling in the many zigzagging cracks on the surface.
The tavern door opened, sending a gust of wind into the room. Timothy wrapped his shawl more tightly about himself and studied the newcomer.
Tall, an impressive build. Muscles bulged underneath a too-tight leather vest. The man’s chiseled torso left no doubt; the man knew how to show off. Thick arms swayed at his side, brown hair just beginning to bristle. A man in the prime of youth. Timothy frowned at the man’s face. Bright eyes hid under bushy eyebrows, and his thin lips stretched tight. He carried himself with authority. Timothy squinted. False, he assumed.
“Bartender, give me the strongest drink you got!” The youth’s rich baritone drowned out the myriad bawdy conversations being carried out in the room. Two score voices hushed and almost twice as many eyes (some patrons didn’t have a pair) turned his way. He strutted to a table occupied by three middle-aged men and winked. “Can I sit here?”
The one nearest him, who wore a hooded cape, shrugged and scratched his graying goatee. “Sure.” He kicked out a chair. “Sit.” The newcomer thanked him and settled in. “So what brings you out here?” the man asked. “Don’t get a lot of strangers in these parts, just you and that old man there tonight.” Timothy scowled and took another sip. Water dripped onto his meager beard. “Guess you’re just passing through?”
The youth nodded. “Yeah.” A matronly woman plopped a mug down. “Thank you,” he said, bringing it to his mouth. Timothy watched with interest. The youth’s eyes bulged, but he downed it. He exhaled. “Ah! That’s good.” He propped his elbows on the table and looked around. “I slayed a dragon.”
Timothy choked. He reached down to the floor and picked up his old gray walking staff, then he stood it upright. The thud it made when it hit the floor could be heard, the tavern had grown so silent.
“Yew didn’t kill no dragon!” A gap-toothed farmer stood and pointed a shaky finger at the youth. Drunk. “Y’ain’t got no sword!”
The main grinned and dismissed the complaint. “Rest assured, I did. What, did you think I would bring my equipment with me?” The farmer didn’t move for a moment, then shook his head stupidly. “Old Drake? Yep, my best sword is stuck in his flank.”
“Ye’re joshin’ us. Ain’t no way ye killed Drake!”
Timothy’s staff pounded the floor with every step. “Slew a dragon, eh?” He put his weight on the rod and slouched. “Do tell. What did he say to you?”
“Aw, don’t encourage ‘im!” the first man said.
Timothy did not acknowledge him. “Well? He spoke to you, I am sure of it. They often do, even the corrupted ones—before they kill you.”
The youth smirked. “Drake didn’t even put up a fight. ‘Matt!’ he said. Surprising enough that he seemed excited to see me, doubly so when he spoke my name.”
A splinter dug into Timothy’s palm, but he did not flinch. “He gave your name?” He placed equal emphasis on each word. Someone sniggered. “What else did he say?”
Matt waved his hand. “Oh, some nonsense about being chosen for this-or-that task. Didn’t make sense.”
Timothy raised his staff and swung it. The rod hit Matt’s head with a mild crack! Not enough to hurt, but it got his attention.
Matt rubbed the point of impact. What was that for, old man? You itching for a fight or something?” He rose from his chair.
“You fool!” Timothy forced him down again. “You do not even realize what you have done!”
Matt crossed his arms over his chest. “Amuse me,” he said, a defiant glint in his eye. His cheek had begun to swell.
“Drake was never a threat to anyone. He is still pure!” Timothy stamped his foot in frustration. “He is a farmer!”
“Shut up, old timer!” A drunk in the corner sneered. “We didn’t come to hear no wives fables.”
Timothy pointed his index finger at Matt and ground his teeth. “You listen. My words may have passed from the popular scene, yet truth remains. He Chose you as his own. He likes you!”
Matt raised an eyebrow. “Drake likes me? What did I do to him?” Timothy knew the youth mocked him, but he said nothing.
Timothy’s voice lowered to a whisper. “Was he dead when you left?”
“Well, ye-yes, of course!’ Matt glanced at the quasi attentive men surrounding him. Timothy raised his staff in warning. Matt shook his head. “No. No, he wasn’t. Close, but not dead.”
“Then there’s still time.” Timothy scowled at the youth one last time, then he hurried out the door.
***
All the locals knew Drake made a temporary home in the cleft between two house-sized boulders. Timothy stumbled to the entrance and called out. “Drake!” A low, mournful note shook pebbles loose from their perch above Timothy’s head. “Are you well?” He rushed into the cave, confident the fire-breathing reptile would not attempt to harm him. “Drake, I heard what happened. Please, answer me!”
“Who speaks?” The sound of the dragon’s voice shook the man to his bones. Deep and powerful, yet sad, as well.
“A friend. I should be in the main chamber in a moment.” On cue, Timothy stepped into the dragon’s sanctuary. He gasped at the sight before him. “A sleek green dragon fully ten cubits in length gazed at him, eyes unblinking. Yellow irises shone, illuminating rounded pupils.
The dragon’s forked tongue sampled the air. “I do not know you.”
“I am Timothy, noble drake.” Timothy bowed as he spoke. “The sword, does it still...?” Drake lifted his head and looked to a corner. A blood-stained sword reflected the light emanating from the dragon. Timothy took a step closer. “Are you badly hurt?”
Drake sang the same mournful note that Timothy had heard only moments before. “I am well in body, though I fear my heart has suffered a mortal wound.” The dragon stood and limped to the human. “Why, Timothy?” the dragon asked. “What drove my beloved to act in wanton violence toward me?” When the dragon sighed, a flurry of wayward sparks drifted to the rocky floor.
Drake was an arm’s length away, now. A tear trickled down Timothy’s cheek and nestled in his beard. “I cannot say. Matt does not know the legends. Or rather, he learned the wrong ones.”
Anger seeped into the dragon’s voice. “My corrupted brethren have destroyed the fair reputation once bestowed upon us. Their stories have tickled Matt’s ear, you say?” Drake bowed his head. “Then I mourn for him all the more.”
Timothy stroked the fine dragon’s smooth scales, running his fingers along the ridges between the armored plates. Pure dragons had always been this trusting of another, so spoke the old stories. Drake would not harm him; indeed, the thought would likely never cross his mind. “I am glad the stroke did not cause undue harm.”
Drake’s ears perked up. “Silence!” he commanded. “The lad comes.”
Timothy bowed to the dragon and moved to the wall of the cave, hoping to blend into the darkness. The sword continued to reflect the light, a beacon in the opposite corner.
"Matt!" Drake bowed his head low. "You have returned." Excitement seemed to radiate from the dragon's body. Drake took a step forward. "I want to apologize for whatever it was I may have done to you. What?"
Matt rested a hand on the hilt of his sword. "Why do you mock me, dragon?" The creature backed away. "I came to kill you, yet you remain alive! And you know my name." Matt drew his sword and held it before him. "Now I'll finish the job."
"But Matt, I..." Drake's gaze flickered to Timothy. "I do not understand. What have I done to you? I have wished you no harm." Timothy wanted to call out, to help, but he knew to do so would be wrong. It was rude enough to listen to the conversation.
"There was an old man at the tavern. Because of him I'll be a laughingstock if I do not return with your head." He glanced toward Timothy but saw nothing. "Tell me why you should live."
Drake had not heard. His thoughts were turned inward. "I Chose you," he mumbled. "I swore on that day to ensure your happiness." Sparks littered the floor, and Matt jumped back. "Does this mean I have failed?" Drake lowered himself to the ground. "Then kill me, for I have abandoned my oath."
Timothy blinked. He had not expected this!
Neither, apparently, had Matt. "This is trickery, I know it!" Matt breathed heavily but did not attack. Second thoughts?
The dragon moaned. "You are not happy, Matt? There is nothing I can do to restore some of the joy I sensed in you that day?"
Matt's sword arm lowered, as though the instrument had become heavier. Hope sparked in Timothy's heart. Perhaps he would leave! Then Matt's troubled expression changed to one of fierce determination. His arm found strength once more. Drake glanced at the youth for a moment before returning his gaze to the floor.
Timothy's jaw trembled. It was not his place to interfere, yet he could not bear to see the destruction of an innocent creature! Soul overcame mind. "Enough!" he shouted. Matt's sword clattered to the ground; he had dropped it in shock. Timothy's voice reverberated through the chamber, giving the impression of a giant speaking. The old man stepped from his hiding place. "Keep your hands where I can see them!" he barked. His staff tapped against the stone for each step he took. "I will not have you lay a hand on Drake."
The dragon sighed, his hot breath buffeting Matt. "Timothy, what is this you have done?"
Timothy bowed. "My apologies. I could not watch in silence while a fool slew you." He shook with rage. "And you, I hope, will not be foolish enough to die due to one child's ignorance!" He glared at Matt. "Should you kill this creature, I will hold you responsible for driving the most noble race to grace this earth to extinction!" He set his foot next to the sword and slid it away.
"What's it to you? I don't see what you have to lose."
Timothy swatted at Matt's leg. The youth jumped just in time. "Do you truly know nothing, boy? You owe your very existence to creatures such as he!" he said, jabbing his finger toward Drake. "What is more, he Chose you. Do you know what that means?" Matt shook his head. "I thought not. That is as close to a statement of servitude as one of his stature can get!"
Matt laughed. "You mean he would do whatever I told him? You are a lunatic."
"I said servitude, not slavery. And do not speak!" he snapped at Drake. "This is no longer your concern." Timothy stooped and picked up the sword. "A nice blade," he said as he tested it. He presented it to Matt. "Take it. Good. Now I want you to do something for him."
Matt rolled his eyes. "Will it make you leave?"
"Yes. Now. I want you to look Drake in the eye and say, 'I am honored that you Chose me, yet I humbly ask that you seek someone of greater worth than I.'"
"Like you."
"Just do it."
Matt sighed, shook his head, and spoke: "I am honored that you Chose me, yet I humbly ask that you seek someone of greater worth than I."
Timothy nodded once. "Good. Drake, you are no longer bound by oath to this buffoon." He pointed with his staff. "And you, young man, should leave. Drake now is under no obligation to keep you alive."
"But--!"
Timothy arched his eyebrows. "You want to risk it? You are a fool."
Matt sheathed his sword. "Fine. You win." He pointed at the dragon. "But I will get you one day!" Timothy watched him leave the chamber and listened until the echoes ceased.
"There we are. And look, he left his sword. I am sure you can pawn it, Drake." The dragon stared at the entryway. "Drake. He is gone. And by his own words, he is no longer chosen by you."
"I suppose. Timothy, will I find someone else?"
Timothy shrugged. "Perhaps. But you may want to educate the next one first. Speaking of, I take it he was your first?"
Drake's ears pinned back in embarrassment. "It was. I will know better next time."
"There will be a next time, good. Do not be intimidated by this one mistake. And now I should be going. You are certain you will not suffer further physical injury?"
"Yes. Thank you." Timothy hobbled to the exit. "And Timothy, when will you clothe yourself in scales once more?"
Timothy pondered this for a moment. "In time. It is easier to spread the truth about us in this form." He snapped his fingers. "Oh, and one more thing. You should probably consider leaving soon in case Matt returns. Humans are predictable that way."
"Yes, Timothy, I will." The dragon bowed. "Thank you."
Monday, October 29, 2007
Pictures
Um...this is a tad late...As most of you already know, I went to TDY's house a couple weeks ago. It was a lot of fun, but it was quite chilly.
Must warn you, though, that I don't have many pictures (as DIOMers can testify). So I'll give you two or three.
Here's TDY at his computer.--Oh, and TDY? How do you survive with that internet connection?
TDY's Dad
The best part of it being cold.--Guess before clicking!
Must warn you, though, that I don't have many pictures (as DIOMers can testify). So I'll give you two or three.
Here's TDY at his computer.--Oh, and TDY? How do you survive with that internet connection?
TDY's Dad
The best part of it being cold.--Guess before clicking!
Friday, October 12, 2007
Airport
I'm sitting in the Charlotte airport at the moment, waiting for my flight to Rhode Island. If all had gone the way it was originally planned, I would have been in the air a few minutes ago, but we can't always have things our way.
Oh, well.
My next post probably won't come until Monday evening or later. Y'all won't get pictures until a couple days after that, because I like to procrastinate when it comes to posting stuff. (There may be more pictures up on DIOM than on here. I don't know. We'll see.
)
Oh, well.
My next post probably won't come until Monday evening or later. Y'all won't get pictures until a couple days after that, because I like to procrastinate when it comes to posting stuff. (There may be more pictures up on DIOM than on here. I don't know. We'll see.
)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)