"Ergun Caner"

Someone, in the spirit of satire, has been impersonating Ergun Caner, pointing out the "misstatements" made by Caner over the years as well as the hypocrisy coming from Liberty University's leadership and Caner's supporters. Here is one example video from his Vimeo account (he also has a YouTube account with a few of the videos):


Ergun Caner #5- Sometimes I Wonder About Charles from Dr. Ergun Caner on Vimeo.

The best part is at the 2:50-mark, where "Ergun" responds to a question about John 6:44:

"Well first, your Calvinist friend probably changed the syntaxes and the emphases and the Greek and taken from the Hebrew plural. For example, the regular...the layman...would say 'no man can come to me except the Father which hath sent Me draw him.' What Jesus was actually saying here was 'no man can come to Me except the Father which hath sent me draw him and I will raise him up on the last day.' You see...this is John 6:44...John 6...if you think about it...half of six would be three...John 3...then you bring the six back in...John 3:6...but it's not John 3:6, and see that's a common error. You would add the one between the three and the six...John 3:16, you see? I wasn't aware of that interpretation either until I had gone to seminary..."

The Jesus of Our Own Mind

In these days of debates over health care or Obamacare (whichever side you rest on), something I've heard repeated over and over again is that Jesus would support health care. Some have even claimed Jesus was a socialist, and that His care for the sick and poor would be enough proof of this. On Facebook, responding to a friend's post about this, I entered a brief exchange with someone else over whether or not Jesus would indeed support free health care. He stated that he "completely disagreed" with my assertion to the negative, and said that from his studies Christ would indeed support a national health care system, even proclaiming that he had read the New Testament in the original Greek. I replied that I too had read the New Testament, and in the original Greek. As I had already quoted scripture to make my case, I asked, like Martin Luther did to his Roman Catholic accusers, that he convict me with scripture. He immediately backtracked, stating that he didn't really quote scripture, and when I pressed him further he began to simply argue that you could say anything you wanted about faith. In the end, of course, what all this meant was that he had simply invented a Jesus of his own mind.

This doesn't begin or end with politics, of course. On another website, I had entered a brief conversation with a girl who claimed that she didn't follow the Bible, she just sought after God "in her own way," and that all she had to do was follow Jesus. I tried to make her understand that all scripture was God-breathed, and asked her, gently, where she thought she was better than God. She took offense to that, saying that she had heard a voice that calmed her nerves long ago, and that she felt happier than she ever did before, and I had no right to judge. When I tried to bring her back to what I was talking about, she got more upset and ended the conversation. She did not want the true Christ because, in reality, she worshiped a Christ of her own mind.

These days it's popular to entertain a Christ of your own imagination, one who does not judge, who does not care what you do as long as you're OK, and through which any person can enter into heaven. Press these same people to quote scripture and they either cannot or they can only do so sparingly, and often out of context. Christ was not a series of proof texts or vague ideas - He was the very source of Divine Truth, and the Way to the Father, and in Him we have Life (cf. John 14:6).

I wonder how many people who use the name of Jesus to support left-wing beliefs and cite the example of His healings would likewise concur with His belief that marriage was identified as being between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-5)? Or that there is only one true religion, as established through Him, and therefore not all roads lead to heaven (Matt 10:33; Luke 9:26; John 3:36)? Or that just looking at someone in lust was the same as committing the act of adultery (Matt 5:27-28)? I wonder how many looking at His healings would realize that they were done "so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt 9:6), and that they were done to manifest His glory (cf. John 2:11), thereby proving His divinity? In fact, I wonder how many people name-dropping Jesus would agree with His own assertion that He was deity (John 8:58, 17:5)? The answer to all these questions is...probably very few.

Due to the fact that Christ is often associated with the word religion, people who follow a universalist and "open-minded" opinion of faith therefore believe they can, in essence, play with the teaching and beliefs of Christ as much as they want. The problem is that Christ is not only a vague word known as "god," but is also a historical figure. You cannot play with what He believed and taught any more than you can any other historical figure. If I went to an American history professor and began to make up stuff about what I thought Thomas Jefferson would believe in, he could readily disprove me with the writings of Jefferson and his colleagues. What am I to say to this? Could I say, "It doesn't matter, I can believe about Jefferson whatever I want." No, of course not. That would be inane. Likewise, it is just as inane, if not more so, to claim that you could believe whatever you wanted about Jesus, regardless of what eyewitnesses and His direct followers wrote that He said and taught.

The fact is, when we proclaim that we don't need Holy Writ and that we can believe what we want, we are saying that we understand God better than He does. Indeed, we proclaim judgment on affairs to the same God who told Job, "Will you really annul My judgment? Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?" (Job 40:8). On the day of judgment we will all be judged before the throne of God (Rev 20:11-12), where we will stand before the glorified Christ and the legions of angels. Where, then, will our fictitious theologies be? Where will our man-centered, man-made thoughts be written? Will the Christ of our mind save us? Those who put their trust in their arm of flesh will find it to be broken and in shatters before the angels...but those who trusted in the true Christ will find themselves able to enter paradise with the host of saints.

There is only one Christ - the one who died on the cross, and on the third day rose again, and who ascended to heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father. From Him we have forgiveness of sins and life after lasting. He is not a buffet to be dissected and picked apart, but a full Deity to be worshiped and magnified. He is true God of true God, and under no other name on earth can we be saved. Amen.

Getting Around John 6:44

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." [John 6:44; NASB]

This single verse is found in the episode of Christ speaking to a large group of eager disciples in the synagogues of Capernaum. Have just fed five thousand with bread and fish (v. 1-14) and then walked on water in the sight of His twelve closest disciples (v. 15-21), this seems to be the high-water mark of Christ's earthly ministry. Those who had witnessed the miracle of the fishes and loaves head out in boats to find Him and, doing so, seek to have Christ perform another great sign and wonder (v. 22-25). However, this chapter will end with all but the twelve deserting Christ because of the hard teachings He gives them...one of which is seen above, in verse 44.

Let’s now analyze this verse bit by bit:

No one can come to Me...

The state of a person pre-belief: no one is able to come to Christ. “No one can come,” also translated as “No one is able to come.” The root Greek word used for “able” (δύναμαι) means to have power, so that the phrase literally translates as, “No one has the power to come to Me.”

...unless the Father who sent Me draws him...

The Greek for this section reads:

...ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτὸν...

The Greek word ἐὰν is mostly used to introduce a condition or desired result, whereas μὴ is often used to offer a negation, hence the translation of "unless" (a literal translation would be "if not"). In other words, there is an extension of the condition (no man can come to Christ), which is the conditional solution: unless the Father who sent Christ draws him. If a person is not drawn by the Father, then they will not come to Christ; if a person is drawn by the Father, they will come to Christ. Fine scriptural evidence for both total inability and irresistible grace.

...and I will raise him up on the last day.

The finale of the verse. The person who has been drawn now has a promise: "I will raise him up on the last day." Note that the "him" whom the Father draws is the same "him" that is raised up on the last day. This entire verse, in fact, is a reiteration of what Christ had said in John 6:37: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." Christ likewise said in John 6:39: “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last.” All given by the Father to Christ will come to Him, and none will be cast out for any reason; likewise, the will of God is that all given to Christ will not be lost, but be raised up. When the Father gives the Son a person, that individual is guaranteed to be raised up on the last day. Thus it does not rely on he who wills or he who runs, but on God's sovereign grace upon the individual. We can see now why such sayings were so hard for the failing disciples in Capernaum.

Despite the clarity of this verse and its teachings, there are many who do not want to come to the conclusion that we just have. As such, there are a few ways people attempt to get around this. Let's analyze these attempts one at a time:

1. Jumping to John 12:32.

The Argumentation: Many, when trying to respond to John 6:44, immediately jump to John 12:32, which reads:

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

The conclusion, therefore, is that God draws literally all men to Christ. Some even point out that in the original Greek, the word “men” or (as it is sometimes translated) “people,” is not present, but it simply reads “I will draw all to Myself.” Some have even argued that, because of this, Reformed theology teaches universalism, since it claims that all men drawn will come to Christ (John 6:44) and yet Christ says all men will be drawn (John 12:32).

The Dilemma: There are three parts to this dilemma:

1) In jumping from John 6:44 to John 12:32, we commit the error of immediately jumping from the context of what the passage we’re dealing with is saying and finding another passage. Many justify this by arguing that the Bible must be taken in its entirety, and while this is true it is best to be used when dealing with broader subjects. To simply jump from passage to passage turns exegesis into proof-texting. Please note that I am not saying that it is wrong to verify scripture with scripture, or to look for a truth within all of scripture; only that jumping from one verse to another must be done with discernment.

Such scriptural acrobatics likewise presents a way of thinking that does not correlate with how we follow a train of thought. If Person A talks to Person B, Person B is only capable of knowing what Person A is saying within that frame of time. Person B has no way of knowing what Person A is going to say months down the road. Those listening to Christ in the synagogues of Capernaum were listening to a single train of thought, not listening to Him say John 6:44 and then suddenly knowing what He’d say in John 12:32. Such a situation is something I call a “grammatical Slaughterhouse Five.” For those who don’t know, Slaughterhouse Five was a book by Kurt Vonnegut where the main character could, at will, travel between events in his life, so that the narrative goes from his time in World War II to his death to his marriage and so on. Many reading scripture treat the train of thought in a similar fashion, so that we go from Jesus lecturing failing disciples in Capernaum to Jesus in Jerusalem responding to Greek requests.

2) To say that Christ means He will literally draw all men (that is, every single individual) to Himself is illogical, and for an obvious reason: not all men have been drawn. Some atheists, misinterpreting this passage, have tried to claim this as a contradiction in scripture, since it is clear that after Christ was raised not every person was drawn to Him, and indeed some have died never hearing of the gospel. If Christ truly meant that He would draw literally all men, then He is either a liar or a failed Savior, for He has not accomplished that goal.

3) To say that Christ is saying literally all men will be drawn to Him is to ignore the context of this passage in John’s gospel. At the beginning of this section, some Greeks had come and said they desired to see Jesus (John 12:20-21). The disciples go and tell Jesus (John 12:22), from which Christ goes into a lengthy speech regarding His upcoming crucifixion. At the end of the speech, Christ departs...and never sees the Greeks (John 12:36). Why was this? This was because His time with the Gentiles had not yet come, but after the crucifixion many men - Gentiles included - would be drawn to Christ. The reason this verse is often translated as "all men" or "all people" is to clarify that this is what Christ means: all kinds of people. Even synergistic theologians (Adam Clarke, John Wesley) and Eastern Fathers (John Chrysostom, Theophylact) recognize that, when Christ says "all" in John 12:32, He simply means both Jews and Gentiles, mostly likely because they also recognized both the context discussed here and the dilemma discussed in the previous section.

2. Ignoring half the verse.

The Argumentation: The person reads the first half of the verse, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." From here they conclude, "Ah, on this we agree - no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws them. However, after that it is still possible to reject Christ." John Wesley, in his commentary for John 6:44, writes:

No man can believe in Christ, unless God give him power: he draws us first, by good desires. Not by compulsion, not by laying the will under any necessity; but by the strong and sweet, yet still resistible, motions of his heavenly grace.

Wesley, like so many who read this verse, argues that God does indeed draw a man, and agrees that a man cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws Him...but maintains that a person can still, after being drawn, reject Christ. Many likewise argue that the “coming” initiated by the Father is merely the enablement, but after that the person must still decide to believe in Christ.

The Dilemma: Every person who argues this way commits the same fallacy: they ignore half the verse. You see, this is not how the verse ends. Christ follows up this statement with: "...and I will raise him up on the last day." Something happens to the person who is drawn to Christ by the Father: that person will be raised up by Christ on the last day. An unbeliever is not raised up on the last day (at least not in the context in which Christ is speaking), therefore this cannot be a person who has rejected Christ.

Those attempting to say that a person drawn must still believe and therefore still has the ability to reject Christ are essentially adding conditions which Christ Himself never puts there. Some might argue that we have to believe in Christ, and while that is true, that is no doubt part of the Father's drawing: those drawn will believe in Christ. However, there is no possibility that those drawn by the Father will reject Christ for two simple reasons: 1) that possibility is not said in the text, and is therefore simple eisegesis; 2) Christ has already established that of all those given to Him by the Father, He will lose nothing (v. 39).

3. Separating the "hims."

The Argumentation: Many people, recognizing that there are two uses of “him” in the passage, will argue that the “him” that is drawn by the Father is different than the “him” that Christ raises up on the last day. The first “him” is a person whom the Father draws, but after that can still resist. The second “him” is merely the person who accepts God and therefore will be raised up.

The Dilemma: Let me present a little parable: suppose a man is angry with another man, and makes the statement, “I’m gonna find him and kill him!” He goes out and does it. Now imagine if the police, hearing that the man had threatened to kill the murder victim, arrest him. Under interrogation, the man replies, “Oh, no! I was misunderstood! The ‘him’ I wanted to find and the ‘him’ I intended to kill were two different people! The ‘him’ I found was the murder victim, but the ‘him’ I wanted to kill wasn’t!” Of course, this wouldn’t fly at all. That excuse would be laughed at in a court case, let alone a police interrogation. No human being thinks or speaks with this train of thought unless they’re mentally incapable. Nonetheless, this is exactly how many people argue from this passage. There is nothing in the text to suggest the two uses of "him" indicate separate persons, and to suggest they are is to run away from dealing with that fact.

400 Years of the 1611 Authorized King James Bible

Four hundred years ago (not the exact day), the famous 1611 King James Bible came out in England. And in celebration, a brief exchange regarding KJV-Onlyism, featuring Daniel Wallace, James White and a bunch of KJV-Only fellows:

Who reads the translations?

The following is meant for humor and is based on the "Who reads the papers?" routine from the show Yes, Prime Minister (source; warning, some profane language at the end). Keep in mind this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not literal.

[The pastor of a small church sits at his desk, the church secretary nearby]

Secretary: "I assume your demeanor is about the upcoming decision by the committee to pick which translation we'll use for the new Bibles."

Pastor: "How did you guess?"

[The church deacon enters]

Pastor: "Ah, deacon! Glad you're here. I've decided to make a decision about which translation we're going to use for the new Bibles."

Deacon: "What do you propose to do?"

Pastor: "Uh...think about it!"

Deacon: "When did you come to this momentous decision?"

Pastor: "Just now."

Deacon: "When did you first think of it?"

Pastor: "Er...just now."

Deacon: "I wouldn't worry about it until it becomes a greater issue. Now, I have the church financial report here..."

Pastor: "Now wait a minute, our theology is at stake here. This is more important!"

Deacon: "With all due respect, sir, it is not. No translation is perfect, and you have to read each while remembering that they pander to their readers' prejudices."

Pastor: "Don't tell me about the translations, I know exactly who reads the translations: the NRSV is read by people who think they know God; the KJV is read by people who think they ought to be God; the ESV is read by people who do know God; the NIV is read by the children of the people who know God; the NLT is read by people who think they own God; the TNIV is read by people who think God should be another god...and the Message is read by people who think He is."

Deacon: "And pastor, what about people who read the NAB?"

Secretary: "NAB readers don't care who God is as long as He goes good with wine."

[The deacon and pastor both glare at the secretary, who shyly covers her face with her clipboard]

Atonement and Forgiveness

Several weeks ago, while attending a seminar at a local seminary here in Kansas City, I heard this amazing statement from one of the speakers:

"Our atonement comes from forgiving others."

I almost did two barrel rolls when I heard this. Was this person serious? We are atoned for by forgiving others? Sadly, that's exactly what the person meant. In bringing this up on Facebook, someone proposed to me the following: "It might be accurate, however, to say that Christ's atonement is conditional upon us forgiving others (Matt 6:15)." I'd like to take a moment to address both these points briefly.

That a trait of a true Christian is that they forgive others is, of course, absolutely correct. We're not trying to run to the opposite extreme. The problem, however, is in trying to tie the atonement into our personal forgiveness. From there we run into many issues:

First, we cannot possibly mimic the forgiveness given by God for our sins - that's simply impossible. That's like comparing a father forgiving the man who killed his wife and children to a kid who forgives another kid for stealing Halloween candy. It might also be helpful to point out that the Greek word translated as "trespass" in Matthew 6:15 (whose root is παράπτωμα) means a lesser kind of transgression, as opposed to the "debt" discussed in Matthew 6:14 (root word: ὀφείλημα) which means something plainly owed to another person. The two "trespasses" discussed in either verse are of two different levels and degrees of seriousness. This was the point of Christ's parable of the ungrateful servant who, owing an ungodly amount of money to his master, refused to forgive the small amount of money owed to him by a fellow servant. The fact is, it is simply impossible for us to mimic the forgiveness given to us by God, when compared to the forgiveness given to others.

Second, we have to ask ourselves: would we be able to honestly say to God, on the day of judgment, that we forgave all trespasses done against us? From every tiny little thing to every major thing, would we be able to forgive the other person, or even remember to do so? I probably don't remember all that was done against me, and there are some from my past that may take greater spiritual maturity before I can. If there is still that imperfection, and our atonement is the basis of this, then does that mean that we will not be atoned for and therefore shall be cast into hell?

Thirdly, if we fail to forgive someone, and therefore annul our atonement, does that make the atonement of Christ itself null and void? If so, then from where will our next atonement come? For if we believe truly that Christ "died for sins once for all" (1 Pet 3:18) then even our imperfection in not forgiving every transgression (as discussed in my second point) can still be covered, for the year-by-year, sin-by-sin sacrifices of the Temple ended with the sacrifice of Christ. If, however, we say that the atonement is done away with in our transgression, then the atonement is imperfect. We therefore have to "make up" for our lack of righteousness, and must do something to please God.

Fourthly, as we saw from the previous paragraph, this entire thinking leads, in one way or another, to works-based righteousness. The atonement becomes dependent not on what God does or what God did, but what we do. This makes God's ability to redeem His people, so important under the new covenant, completely dependent upon the creation rather than the creator.

Lastly, and in relation to the last point, this makes the entire sacrifice of Christ pointless. I might ask: if we are atoned for simply by forgiving others...then why did Christ die? Why did Christ suffer the most painful, embarrassing execution of His time, and all in front of friends and close family, if all He had to do was tell people to just forgive one another? Why did Christ come at all, if atonement comes from a message that any prophet could have given?

Again, I'm not demeaning the importance of forgiveness, but forgiveness is because of what Christ did, not what Christ can do. A true believer forgives the small transgression against us because of the great transgression we have committed against God, and its own forgiveness through the salvific sacrifice of Christ. We don't forgive because it feels good to do it - we forgive because we have been forgiven. To say that our atonement is in our forgiveness of others is to present a kind of postmodern nonsense. To suggest that our atonement is conditional on our ability to forgive is something that I must, with all respect, disagree with.

The Bereans and Scripture

A popular section of the Acts of the Apostles deals with the evangelical work by Paul and Silas in Berea. The relevant passages read:

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. [Acts 17:10-12; NASB]

The first notable statement is that by Luke that the Bereans were "more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica." The immediate contrast is made to the Jews who belonged to the city Paul and Silas had just come from. Why are they spoken so poorly of in this passage?

Mostly, the drive of the Jews in Thessalonica (or, more appropriately, the Jewish leaders) was out of jealousy (Acts 17:5) and not divine truth. Luke accounts that of the synagogue members in Thessalonica, Paul and Silas managed to convert "some of them" in addition to "a large number of the God-fearing Greeks" and "a number of the leading women" (Acts 17:4). The apostles were therefore stealing not only some of the Jewish leaders' own flock, but also prominent members of the religious community. It is after this occurs that it is said the Jews were jealous of Paul and Silas, hinting that their motives were entirely selfish in nature, much like the Jewish leaders of the Temple had been.

Note in the previously quoted passages from Acts 17:

1) The Bereans are said to be more "noble-minded." The Greek root word (εὐγενής) literally translates as "good birth," and refers to someone born of noble blood. However, Luke uses it here not to tell us that the Bereans were all wealthy people or of royalty, but rather in a figurative sense, hence the translation by the NASB of "noble-minded."

2) The Bereans are said to have "received the word with great eagerness." The root word for what is translated in the NASB as "eagerness" (προθυμία) literally translates as "before passion," and refers to a mindset that is inclined towards a certain tendency (the KJV, ASV, and others translate it as "readiness of mind").

3) The Bereans are finally said to have responded to the word of Paul and Silas by "examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." Note from this:

A) Their examination. They responded to Paul and Silas' words by going right to the inspired, God-breathed word of God. Although Luke's account here is sparing, nothing is recorded of any kind of indignation from the apostles in regards to their doing this. This despite the fact that, with the apostolic authority given to Paul, the two Christians could have easily demanded their authority alone be respected. Likewise, Paul could have stated that, as what he said came from God, it should be trusted lest the Bereans be damned. Yet this was not even Paul's methodology, for Luke had told us earlier that it was "Paul's custom" to reason with the Jews "from the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2). Paul would write to Timothy that "the sacred writings...are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 3:15). Paul knew that the truth he spoke was not confirmed solely in who he was or what he did, but entirely on the sacred word of God. It is believed by Muslims that their religion is truth, and yet it is well known from ahadith sources that even in the early days of Islam it was strictly forbidden for Muslims to study the Christian scriptures in earnest. Only that which is based on a lie should ever be afraid of those who seek the truth.

B) The extent of their examination. The Bereans were said to be examining the scripture "daily." This wasn't a case of someone listening to a proof text and then saying, "Hmm...all right. Sounds good." They were giving a prolonged, serious look at what Paul and Silas were saying. How many exact days they spent deliberating and studying is not known (neither is it important to know), but if Luke accounts they had done it "daily," it must have been at least a few days or more. It is likewise not known how interactive Paul and Silas were involved in this examination. It could have been that Paul and Silas simply spoke and allowed the Bereans to ponder on what they had said, in order that God's word may have affect. Martin Luther once humorously remarked in a sermon:

I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never with force. I simply taught, preached, and wrote God's word...And while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philipp and Amsdorf, the word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it.

It could also be that Paul and Silas were active participants, engaging the Bereans in their questions and concerns. It is undoubtedly possible to argue from scripture with evil intent, just as the Sadducees did with Christ (Matt 22:23-32) and no doubt the Jews of Thessalonica did with Paul and Silas. However, the Bereans were described to have been more noble than those in Thessalonica, and any questions - even objections - would have been merely in pursuit of truth. There was a world of difference between the Pharisees' demand for a sign (Matt 16:1) and the demand by Thomas to see the wounds of the resurrected Christ (John 20:25): one demanded something because they were not satisfied with the several signs they had already seen and had no earnest desire to believe; the other wanted sure evidence so that he may indeed believe. The good intention of the Bereans are confirmed in the following point:

C) The purpose of their examination. Namely, "to see whether these things were so." Paul and Silas had come with a claim which was argued from the scriptures, and now it was time to verify it. The Bereans did not rely solely on the local synagogue authority (which had proved corrupt in Thessalonica) nor did they rely, by any means, on their civil authority (which was entirely pagan). Rather, the Bereans (collectively, both synagogue leaders and people) went to the scriptures. The prophet Isaiah, dealing with supposed prophets, cried out: "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isa 8:20). The Bereans were doing just that: Paul was preaching that Christ had come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matt 5:17), and to verify it the Bereans were going to the Law and the Prophets.

Let it be noted from this and the regards which the Bereans gave the gospel:

1) The Bereans did not throw the authority of the gospel upon their leaders. While the religious leaders of Berea were no doubt just as honorable as their congregation, it was the religious leadership of Thessalonica which had worked to hinder the work of the gospel. If the church simply throws the responsibility of the gospel to their leaders, they will be at the whim of the strengths and weaknesses of the individual leader or collective body. All too often, because of the spiritual apathy of the parish, this becomes a growing concern and one example of sola ecclesia. The orthodoxy of the church becomes dependent upon the decisions of the leadership and not Holy Writ.

2) The Bereans placed the authority of their salvation, their beliefs and their doctrines upon the sacred scriptures, given to them by God. Both Paul and the Bereans were going from a scripturally-minded standpoint and were both appealing to the word of God. The Bereans were not, as those in Thessalonica were, concerned with numbers or what they would have to give up, but instead were concerned first and foremost with the truth. As such, because the scriptures, being the God-breathed writings given to us for our edification, are the very essence of truth, it was the truth which was found therein.

Let us, like the Bereans, make the scriptures our final authority, and submit to them all that God has asked of us through them. Let us not be seduced by jealousy, the desire for antiquity, or placing our hopes in the arm of flesh, but on the eternal word and spirit of the Living God.

God's Neverending Providence

Recently Kansas City has been hit by some serious snow. Having lived in the southeast eight years of my life or so, I was familiar with snow...but I'll admit I wasn't fully prepared for just how much snow would hit Kansas City. Things like black ice, sludgy mush and other fun bits of nature proved to be a renewing headache as well.

The worst aspect is that...well...my car isn't exactly designed for weather. I drive a 2010 Kia Rio5, a little car that, despite being manufactured by a company whose parent country is often filled with snow, doesn't seem apt to handle winter weather very well. As such, my trip home found my car literally sliding downhill on the neighborhood road and into a ditch. My housemate was kind enough to come out and try to help me move it, but ultimately decided to leave it overnight. This was decided based on the fact that the house was just down the street and housemate's brother-in-law was coming the next day with truck and chains.

There were a lot of other things going on in my life at the time - on top of the fact that I had had no meal that day due to being called in to work early (and forgetting my wallet at home...) - so overall...it was very stressful. To the point where I just wanted to lay in bed and pretend nothing was wrong. I prayed to God that everything would work out, that things wouldn't be as bad. I started to worry too much, find things to worry about.

In the end, housemate's brother-in-law came with his truck and we managed to get it out of the ditch and into the road. The battery had died overnight, but with a little juice from the jumpers the Rio5 was up and running again, and I managed to get it up the hill and back home. I was more worried about getting home tonight after work, with the roads icing (temperature at 2:00 AM is expected to get to below zero), but I again managed to get home on time and safe and sound.

I recognize to many (especially those who got a car totaled in a blizzard) this entire post may seem like making a lot out of a little. I'm sure ten years down the road something worse will happen or I'll simply look back and realized there was nothing to really worry about. However, I think all things have a purpose, good and bad. Times like this remind us that, contrary to our minds, we are not in charge. We do not control the weather, we do not control all the incidents that happen in our life, and we are most certainly not the sole masters of our destiny. All things happen by the sovereign hand of God and, as Charles Spurgeon once said, every dust particle is moved by God's hand. Yet just as much as we treasure the good that comes our way, we must be ready to embrace the trials and tribulations we face as well. We must be reminded that God is still sovereign in all things, and ultimately we need to trust in Him for all things.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Calvinism and Evangelism

A common argument against Calvinism these days is, "If God elects people, what use is evangelism and missions?" This has already been responded to ad nauseum by many who can (and did) do it better than I could, but because this argument seems to continue popping up ad infinitum, I thought it would be worthy to touch on it for a moment.

There are two main points to address why this argumentation is fallacious:

1) It completely ignores historical precedent. Some of the greatest and most renowned evangelists and missionaries have been Calvinists. For example, John Eliot, an early Puritan in New England, was a missionary and evangelist to the Native Americans, as was the 18th century David Brainard. Brainard himself was a friend of the famous Jonathan Edwards, whose evangelical efforts led to the First Great Awakening, and who later served a missionary role among the Native Americans himself. On top of this, we have William Carey, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, David Livingstone and many, many others. Anyone who thinks evangelism and missionary work is an issue for the devout Christian who adheres to the doctrines of grace is simply making bluster.

2) It is based on a fallacious presupposition. The argument seems to come from the thinking that if God elects people, then He can only do it by one way, which is direct divine intervention akin to the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. This is simply not the case: while the Good Shepherd knows who His sheep are, He is able to ordain the means by which the sheep are called into His flock.

I would like to briefly look at a biblical passage to address this:

The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him, "Follow Me." Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

Philip said to him, "Come and see."

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!"

Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?"

Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."

Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." [John 1:43-49; NASB]

The first thing to note is the finding of Philip by Christ: Philip did not seek Christ nor was it Philip who found Christ, but rather it was Christ who found Philip. Upon finding him, Christ simply says: "Follow me." This was the same command given to Matthew at his tax collection booth (Matt 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), from which Matthew immediately rose up and followed Christ. Philip likewise is so overcome by Christ's simply command that he runs to his brother Nathanael and tells him that they have found the Messiah.

Nathanael, for his part, is doubtful, but nonetheless goes to see Christ for himself. Christ greets Nathanael with a statement regarding his character and ethnicity, which takes Nathanael by surprise - how could this Man from Nazareth whom he had never met before know about him? Christ replies, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."

When Christ said "I saw you," the root word for what is translated as "I saw" (εἰδῶ) actually means knowing, and is often translated "see" in a figurative sense. This could be compared to the English phrase, "I see what you mean," which could likewise mean, "I know what you mean." Christ is not merely saying that He saw Nathanael under the tree, like a psychic might have a vision of someone being at work, but rather Christ knew Nathanael before Philip came to call him to Christ. This is why, upon coming to Him, Christ greets Nathanael with, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" Christ had His finger on Nathanael before Philip even arrived to the tree.

Indeed, Christ knew who among all of Israel would be chosen as His apostles, and their selection was not by their own merits or actions but by His own will. This is made clear later on in John's gospel when the Lord says, "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit..." (John 15:16). Both Nathanael and Philip were chosen by Christ to be His disciples, and there was no possibility that either could have ended up as Judas.

Here comes the connection with this post's topic: God is the chief designer in the means by which the sheep are called into the flock. Philip was effectually called directly by Christ, yet Christ likewise used Philip to bring Nathanael to Him. Christ could have easily gone to Nathanael and called him as directly as He called Philip, yet it was His will that Philip be used to bring Nathanael to Him. In a similar manner is missions: we are commanded by Christ to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19), and we will be used by God those other sheep of His flock to Him.

Note on this last point: Christ had commanded the apostles to go out into the world and preach the gospel, and yet He had stated, "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd" (John 10:16). On the one hand, the action is given to the apostles; on the other hand, Christ states that He is the active party in the bringing together of the flock. Is there a contradiction? Not at all. Christ is the active party, but - just as He brought Nathanael to Himself using Philip - He uses missionary work as one means to bring together those "other sheep" into the fold.

God is sovereign over all, but, contrary to what hyper-Calvinists would believe, He has a use for we broken vessels. This is why we must endeavor to evangelize to the lost while at the same time remembering that they are never saved because of us, only in spite of us.

Is the World Ending on May 21, 2011?

Recently there's been a lot of hooplah about the supposed prediction by Harold Camping that the end of the world will be on May 21, 2011. The immediate passage many Christians may be thinking of is the words of the Christ to the disciples:

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." [Matt 24:36; NASB]

Christ seems to make it clear that the day and hour of His return no one knows except the Father in heaven. Why, then, does Harold Camping seem to know?

Well, in his tract No Man Knows the Day or the Hour? (source), Harold Camping (or at least, the writer of the tract) seems to have an answer:

...we learn that during the church age there would be a great curiosity concerning the time of the end, but believers were not to be at all preoccupied with this question. They were to concentrate and focus all of their attention on the task of bringing the Gospel to the whole world.

Therefore, regardless of how brilliant or how learned a theologian or Bible student might have been, or how diligently they studied the Bible or faithfully served Christ, it was impossible to learn from the Bible the timetable for the end of the world. Anyone who claimed he knew the time of the end was always wrong.

Nevertheless, there is a very striking statement in the Bible. It is recorded in Ecclesiastes 8:5. There God declares:

Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing: and a wise man's heart discerneth [better translation: will know] both time and judgment.

In the Bible a wise man is a true believer, to whom God has given a profound trust in the authority of the Bible. True believers have been in existence since the beginning of time. But the timeline of history as it is revealed in the Bible was never revealed to the hearts of the true believers....However, it was not until a very few years ago that the accurate knowledge of the entire timeline of history was revealed to true believers by God from the Bible. This timeline extends all the way to the end of tirne. During these past several years God has been revealing a great many truths, which have been completely hidden in the Bible until this time when we are so near the end of the world.

Alarm bells should be going off in our head about now. Any time someone speaks about "revealing a great many truths," especially those which have been "completely hidden in the Bible until this time," it is usually in the spirit of false prophecy.

In fact, before we continue, something important must be noted: Harold Camping has already been shown to be a false prophet. He had before predicted the world would end somewhere between September 15-17 in 1994 (source). At another recorded time, he pinpointed it to be September 6, 1994 (source). Guess what didn't happen that September?

Scripture is very clear about false prophecies:

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." [Deuteronomy 18:22]

For the sake of discussion, however, let's continue to review Camping's claims about 2011, since many people may be curious about the claims made by him and his followers.

Perhaps the biggest shock to most learned Christians at this point is the completely false application of Ecclesiastes 8:5. Camping interprets this as meaning that a true believer will be made known about the end times. Is this really what the writer of Ecclesiastes is talking about? Let's review the context quickly.

I say, "Keep the command of the king because of the oath before God. Do not be in a hurry to leave him. Do not join in an evil matter, for he will do whatever he pleases." Since the word of the king is authoritative, who will say to him, "What are you doing?" He who keeps a royal command experiences no trouble, for a wise heart knows the proper time and procedure. For there is a proper time and procedure for every delight, though a man's trouble is heavy upon him. [Ecclesiastes 8:2-6]

Is the author of Ecclesiastes saying that "true believers" will come to know the hour and day of the end times? Not at all. The point the writer was trying to make was that a wise man (not a "true believer," but simply someone with a deeper sense of tact) knows how to handle various situations. One cannot possibly come to another conclusion unless one springs verse 5 from its immediate context and invents new meanings to its words...something Harold Camping has unfortunately done and, in later interviews and discussions, has done over and over again.

Some nights ago, I was on Skype with a friend, and brought up this very subject. Without saying anything beforehand, I asked him to turn to Ecclesiastes chapter eight, then asked him (since he had the KJV, which Camping also uses) to read aloud verse five. Even he, without any teaching from either side and simply going to the text itself, recognized that Camping was being both erroneous and eisegetical with this verse.

In any case, I'd like to point out something here with the use of Ecclesiastes 8:5: we have completely jumped from our train of thought. What do I mean? We had earlier established that Christ had warned His disciples that no one knows the day or the hour, not even Him. Christ made it abundantly clear that the only one to know when the end time would be was the Father alone. What is Harold Camping now doing? He has jumped from that text, and is now declaring, "Oh! Well, actually, according to this verse in Ecclesiastes, any true believer knows the day and the hour!" How did we jump from "the Father alone" to "any true believer"? Those are two contradicting points.

This is something that happens all too often when a person, faced with a scripture or verse that contradicts their theology, becomes guilty of a non sequitor in an effort to distract from the chain of thought. The greatest fault in this is that, in jumping to another verse, the person refuses to deal with the interpretation of another. This is similar to people who don't like the reading of Romans 3:10-11 and so will jump to another verse to try to prove their point, never seeming to realize that in doing so they are contradicting both the apostle Paul and the Psalmist. With Camping we have something similar, though given that one comes from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and one comes from previously proven false prophet Harold Camping, I think I know which one to place my money on.

From here, Camping moves on to justification that such revelation would take place in the end times.

In the book of Daniel God has much to say about end-time events. Much of this was understood by Daniel, and because it was such awful information, great agony came upon Daniel. We read for example in Daniel 8:27:

And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.

But then God told Daniel in Daniel 12:4 and 9:

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. And He said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

In other words, God is telling us that there is important information concerning the time of the end that has been recorded in the Bible ("the book") but is not to be revealed by God until the world is near its end.

Note, first off, the immediate assumption: that the book spoken of in Daniel was the Bible. Was this possible? Absolutely not. For one, the Bible had not yet been completed, whereas the book which Daniel held was completed, and in fact was ordered to be sealed until the end times. The book referred to by Daniel is, in fact, merely the book of written prophecies which Daniel had seen. The statement made "seal the book" was one made by prophets as a statement of judgment against people who did not understand (Isa 29:11), and was intended for a revelation that would not come to pass until much later. Remember that, in Revelation, John is told not to seal up his book of prophesy (Rev 22:10) by contrast.

Also note that the book discussed had been written by Daniel...did Daniel write the entire Bible? So even Matthew through Revelation and all that we know of as the New Testament was written by a prophet before any of those events even came to past? These questions, along with the previously stated facts, are what I mean by the fact that this book simply cannot be the Bible. That is simply a bold assumption read into the text.

Camping goes on to write:

In Revelation 22:18-19 we read:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

These verses absolutely assure us that after the Bible was completed about 95 A.D. no other words could ever be added to the Bible. Therefore, whatever end-time information had been given to Daniel, but was not to be understood until the time of the end, had to have been included in the Bible before the Bible was completed. However, God wrote it in such a way that it could not be understood until the world was almost at its end. Remember, understanding comes only from the Lord Jesus Christ, as we read in Luke 24:45: "Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." This explains why the Bible is written in such complex and difficult-to-understand language.

Of course, we see that again Camping and his followers commit the same erroneous application of any use of the word "book" as meaning the Bible. Yet what does John himself record at the end of Revelation? "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy." Much like Daniel was only referring to his book of prophecy, John is only referring to his book of prophecy.

Note also the dangerous application of Luke 24:45. When Christ opened the eyes of the disciples, why was this? So that they may understand that He was seen in the Old Testament (see Luke 24:44-47 for greater context). This, however, was personally given by Christ, and it was given to the apostles so that they may preach Christ crucified from Holy Writ. What application is being made here? That Camping is receiving this teaching directly from Christ, and that by his teaching the scripture is made more clear. Any time a man claims to speak directly from Christ, especially in regards to prophecy which only he can substantiate, we must be wary.

The strange statement at the end, which says the Bible was "written in such complex and difficult-to-understand language" seems to demand a special teaching authority, something often done in cults. Of course, the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. " (2 Tim 3:16-17). He likewise wrote to Timothy: "from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 3:15). That some of the Bible may be difficult for the laymen (in particular the prophetic passages) is true; however, that all of the Bible is written in "complex" and "difficult-to-understand" language is something that even scripture itself says is untrue. Any time a person claims scripture is so difficult that an outside authority must be relied on in toto, it is usually the first sign of a false teaching.

In the next section, after a lengthy quotation of Revelation 5:1-9, Camping writes:

These verses teach that there is a book that had been sealed and that was to be opened by Christ, Himself. The only book that can be in view is the book that the Bible describes in Daniel 12.

Note, again, an immediate assumption made without explanation of why the conclusion should be drawn. Nowhere in Revelation is this tie-in to Daniel's book made, nor is the book (often translated as "scroll") seen in Revelation 5:1 in any way connected to Daniel's book. In fact, if we wish to compare it with Old Testament events, there's many more similarities to the scroll seen by Ezekiel (see Eze 2:9-10) than the book written by Daniel. Yet the plain facts from scripture are that the scroll seen in Revelation 5 is specific to these events in Revelation: the seven scrolls represent the seven time periods which the breaking of each scroll will cause, none of which are recorded of in Daniel's prophecy.

Note also the contradictory thinking. We had established that the book in Daniel was supposedly the Bible, yet now we are claiming that the book in Revelation 5 is the book written by Daniel...is God therefore holding the Bible? Was the Bible given seven seals, which no one could open until the end times? Why, then, do so many people have Bibles? Why were large chunks of the Bible (namely the Old Testament) so readily available during the earthly ministry of Christ? Camping tells us, "The only book that can be in view is the book that the Bible describes in Daniel 12"...Yet wasn't that book in Daniel 12 the Bible? So the Bible is saying it came along in Daniel 12 but can't be opened except by Christ itself, yet we're reading that it can't be opened even though we have to open a Bible to read that? I hope people can understand why this logic is so astoundingly circular. I also recognize many will argue that the "seals" are supposed to be "that which figuratively seals someone from true understanding," but that is not the context given in Revelation 5.

At this point, I won't touch on much after section of the tract because all coherency and logic falls apart. The dates and numerology stray far, far from what scripture says and how Christians should read scripture. Should we be worried that the world will end on May 21, 2011? If it didn't happen around September of 1994, and scripture says not to worry about men who prophesy falsely, then chances are we have nothing to worry about.

Here I'd like to reiterate something that many others have: the danger here is not whether or not Christ will return on May 21, 2011...the danger here is what damage this will do for many out there in the world. How many people who become involved in this will fall away from the faith when nothing occurs? How many more will see this as what "real Christianity" is, and use it as a strawman to mock all Christians? How much damage will this do to the fact that someday Christ will return, and that we should all be living with willing readiness for whenever that day may be?

Let us all take this as an example of why discernment of the scriptures is so important, and why the most important factor in a Christian's life is not when Christ will return, but would we be ready if He should return today? God bless.

------------------------

EDIT - FEBRUARY 1, 2011: A Harold Camping supporter attempted to post a response to this, but due to the nature of the email I haven't allowed it to go through. What do I mean by "nature"? Well, let me post some excerpts:

...even if you doubt the bible look at the signs of the times moron...

...now d---head let me tell you what that means you ignorant a-- whole in the day of noah just in case u didnt pass 5th grade because everybody knows the noah story, god told noah that he was going to detroy the world in 7 days noah told everybody but no body listen they did exacly what your duma-- is doing ingoring it eating and drinking acting like everything is normal...

...so before you say the world not ending do your research and try not to look like a jacka-- because you do look pretty stupid.

...every thing thats in the bible is true and for d--- head a-- morons to say sum s--- like this p--- me off read your bible and prey for understanding them mabe you will be caous of what you say d--- head...

I'm especially amused that I'm told to read the Bible and listen to the words of God, then in the same breadth I'm called a chain of expletives. An immediate verse of scripture comes to mind, namely the lament of the apostle James with: "from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way" (James 3:10).

If this person wishes to have dialogue on this blog, I might give a word of advice: I do not allow name-calling or curse words. We are all adults here, and we should interact as adults. Likewise, if we are going to talk about the word of God, we should do it with respect for the subject matter. In the meantime, I ask my readers to pray for this individual, that his eyes might be opened to the deceit he has apparently supported with great fanaticism.

Sinners in the Hands of a Fluffy Teddy Bear

What if Jonathan Edwards was a seeker-sensitive pastor? His famous sermon might have sounded something like this...

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. [John 3:16]

In this verse is threatened the love of God on everybody. We are all God's visible people, living under grace. The expression I have chosen for my text, God so loved, seems to imply the following things:

1. God loves you.

2. God loves you.

3. God loves you.

4. God loves you.

Let it be dually noted that this passage is very, very beautiful, and sounds so very nice, so much so that we can forgo all the passages that come after it, and simply focus on this one verse, nay, those two words "God loved" and harp on it until the rotting horse is itself beaten into the ground. As far as I'm concerned, you can throw out the whole Bible.

There is no want in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment - that's just a horrible thought that offends anyone. He not only wants to bring people up to heaven, but he can easily do it. Sometimes an old man finds it hard to go up the stairs. It is not so with God. There is no stairs or escalator too difficult for the power of God to get us up. God's enemies quickly become his friends, and they become together in union. His love is like cool rain on a hot day, and we are like little stuffed animals which he desires to cast onto his bed so he can cuddle up with them later.

Everyone deserves to go to heaven. Divine justice? That won't get in the way. That just means God makes things better. Justice, in fact, calls aloud for the infinite reward of everyone on earth. Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom: "What a lovely tree! I'm gonna hug it!" The sword of divine justice is nothing but another name for the mercy of God, and really deserves to be called the flower of divine justice.

There is plenty of security for people on earth, and no harm will come to you. Though man is on the brink of eternity, that means nothing to God, and unconverted men can easily be converted in life or death. In fact, unconverted men walk over the pit of hell as if it were an iron door, covered in grass and beautiful flowers. There is no danger of falling. God has so many different unsearchable ways of getting everyone to heaven, and there is nothing to appear that God had need to send anyone to hell.

The love of God is like great loving waters of loving love, and they increase more and more, rise higher and higher, so rapid and mighty its course. Love, love, exciting and new. You'd feel God's great love now, only he's decided to hold it back by his mere pleasure. If God withdrew his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and all that love would come pouring out. His love is ten times greater than that of your boyfriend or greatest honey. It is just love. Lovey love love.

The bow of God's love, like the bow of cupid, is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and love bends the arrow at your heart, and fires away with a little heart-shaped arrowhead. You might be worried about judgment, but it's OK. You've probably reformed your life in many things, and may have had religious affections, and may keep up a form of religion in your families and closets, and in the house of God...and that's perfectly fine. That's good enough. Peace and safety, now you see that this is what is promised to you: peace and safety. As present as the thin air which you breathe.

The God that holds you close to his bosom, much as one holds a fluffy teddy bear, or some cute puppy dog or adorable cat, loves you, and is dreadfully in love with you. His love towards you burns like a steaming hot tub of warm water. He looks upon you as worthy of nothing else but to be thrown up to heaven, in fact you are ten times more righteous in his eyes than you may believe. You don't have to worry about offending him, in fact it is only by his desire that you aren't in his bosom already. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not been taken into his arms since you arose in the morning, but that God's been busy lately. Yeah, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment get into a warm cozy hug.

O poor, sad person! Consider how mean it is to be mean to others! Being mean is like a furnace of wrath and a bottomless pit! Be a nice person, and in that way you'll be mediator and be able to save yourself with no help from anyone at all. Everything you do, everything you have done, and everything that you can do will induce God to spare you, though he's probably spared you already.

Therefore, let every one who has a vague concept of God now embrace the love which God has. The love of God is no doubt hanging over everyone in this congregation, if not the whole wide world. Let every one fly out like a hummingbird to get their honey.

The Righteousness of the Lord

The following is from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such as our innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and not to the Lord also - he being the only standard by the application of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure: just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. No, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus, too, it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity. [Book I, Chapter 1:2]