Covenant Hearts’ Blog

If the Bible teaches that God has predestined the elect and yet calls all men to repentance, then we must hold both as scriptural not rejecting the one we don’t like. One day we will fully understand how they are consistent with each other.

If the Bible teaches that God hath declared the end from the beginning and that He is not the author of sin, then we must hold both as scriptural not rejecting the one we don’t like. One day we will fully understand how they are consistent with each other.

If the Bible teaches that God changes His mind and says that He changeth not, then we must hold both as scriptural not rejecting the one we don’t like. One day we will fully understand how they are consistent with each other.

Posted by Michaelsei (that’s me!) on Helium.com

In everything that you do, you are investing in your future. If you live like hell today, you should expect to receive hell tomorrow (’you reap what you sow’). This principle speaks succinctly to the issue of premarital sex. There are no rewards for having sex before marriage: instant and immediate gratification of lust will only bring the judgment of God. In the long run, there can only be negative results. If you engage in this immoral behavior, you will have sinned against God, you will have sinned against your own body, and you will have sinned against the one with whom you had sexual intercourse.

In the seventh of the Ten Commandments, God has commanded all of mankind to be morally pure: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Although it seems like a stretch to apply this command to premarital sex, it must be understood that this commandment is really a summary of all the commands like those found in Leviticus 18, which are considered a definition of the seventh commandment. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states: “Question 71: What is required in the seventh commandment? Answer: The seventh commandment requires the preservation of our own and our neighbor’s chastity, in heart, speech, and behavior.” Furthermore, Jesus Christ stated: “Ye have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28 (RSV). What an indictment! No man will ever be found guiltless of committing this sin. I think that if Jesus Christ condemned guys “checking out” girls, then He severely condemns premarital sex.

You also sin against your own body and the one you are involved sexually with when you engage in sexual intercourse outside of the marriage covenant. You take the risk of contracting an STD and/or getting pregnant. Abstinence until marriage is the only ’safe sex’ and ‘no fail’ contraceptive.

Our bodies were made for God’s glory not our own pleasure. On the other hand, God extends to us these pleasures inside of the marriage covenant. “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled…” Heb 13:4 (KJV). We rob ourselves and pillage our future delight with the wife or husband of our youth. We trade our birthright for a pot of porridge, so to speak. We have the opportunity to give our future spouse a beautiful gift on our wedding night, ‘you are the first, I have remained true to you even before we met.’

Everyday the number of single parents increases. Consequently, there is a major problem with thinking that premarital sex is okay. For those who value long-term commitment, it is clear to see that if there is no marriage covenant; there is no assurance of true commitment.

Posted by Michaelsei (that’s me!) on Helium.com

This is truly the wrong question to ask. As usual we approach thinking about God in a self centered way. “Why, God, do I deserve to be punished?” Instead we ought to raise our level of awareness to the depth of reality; which is: God is righteous. When we think in this way about God, the issues become clearer. That is not to say that we will like the conclusions, but that they do begin to make sense.

If you will accept the statement, “God is righteous,” as a premise, then I can show you by this thinking: (1) that God must send people to hell, (2) God is loving, and (3) hell is not what we should be worried about.

In order to really understand what it is at issue, we need to decipher this statement: God is righteous. First, when I say “God” I am personally talking about the triune God of the Bible. Second, when I use the word “righteous” I really mean that righteousness as we know it is simply a reflection of who God is and what He is all about. God holds the moral high ground and as such is righteous and without sin. Note: He is without sin. As a consequence He cannot sin. That is to say God cannot contradict Himself. Furthermore He cannot allow sin to enter His presence (or glory; truly God is everywhere and sin is too so that makes me a liar. No, for the sake of simplicity I will use the word “presence” what I really mean is “glory.”). We know this concept anecdotally as, “I’ll burst into flames if I go into church!” and/or as a phrase, “No man can see God and live.” Thus it is clear to see that God must send people to hell because God is righteous and cannot allow sin in his presence.

If God is righteous and is the standard of righteousness, then we who are mere mortals are bound to His Law-Word. Let me ask you a question; have you ever sinned? Let me be more specific; have you ever lied? cheated? stolen anything? Perhaps you have had anger without merit towards another (even if you think you were justified, your thinking was clouded by emotion so how can you be sure?). Maybe you have lusted after someone. If you have done any of these you have broken God’s Law-Word. God calls this sin. In light of the previous paragraph you can only conclude that all men must be headed for hell. Who can say that they have not sinned? If you can show me someone like that then you may have found a liar. So God destroys all of humanity in a vengeful spirit, end of story. No. He sends His Son to take the punishment for sin and makes a way to seek and find Him in this dark and fallen world. Not all are saved. Not all want to be saved. But for those who are saved, the love of God is not merely an intellectual idea but an experienced ideal. So what is the love of God? The love of God is that He is not allowing everyone to perish in their sins but He is saving some. That is real mercy and grace. “To err is human, forgive divine.” Why do we say this? Because it is so hard to forgive. God does forgive, this is love. Seek and find Him and you too will experience that love.

What can be worse than hell? Well, what God says is worse than hell for starters. What place has God prepared for the devil and his demons from before time began? Where will He send all of the unrepentant sinners on that Final Day of Judgment where time will end and [for us] eternity begin? The answer: what the book of Revelation refers to as the Lake of Fire. The lake of fire is not hell. It is not synonymous with hell and should not be confused with hell. Hell is bad, yet it is only temporary. The lake of fire is worse, but it is everlasting. If this does not unnerve you then do not ever say, “I wasn’t warned.”

Yes it is true that if you end up in hell you cannot change your religion, start serving God and go to heaven after all is said and done. Your chance to go to heaven really does exist. God is love and has made a way for you to avoid the lake of fire. Seek after Him and find Him. Acknowledge His existence, then follow Him. Read His Law-Word and obey it. If you believe Jesus (i.e. believe what He taught) and that God raised Him from the dead, then you will be saved. If you persevere in this faith you will be saved. Obey Him by getting baptized. But if any of these elements are missing then you have reason to doubt your salvation (if you “used to be” a Christian but are not persevering then it is probable that you never were saved). If there are any doubts as to the truth of my statements then seek the truth and you will find it. Or contact me.

How could a loving and righteous God NOT punish unrepentant sinners? If He did not punish them, how could He reward the repentant sinners (now called saints)? Reward and punishment are two sides to the same coin (two “faces” of the one God). That is, whatever face of God we are beholding when we die is the face of God we will experience for eternity. So in a way, bear with me, we could say that a loving God could not send people to hell. Let me leave you with this last thought: God’s wrath sends people to hell, but God’s love saves some from hell.

To introduce this topic let me give a bit of my background.

I was raised in a Christian home. So naturally I became a Christian because I believed everything I was told, right? NO! I believed what my parents taught me was true, but that did not make me a Christian; in fact I resisted it.

In my teen years, as many others do, I was searching for identity. But did I look to Christ first? No. I looked elsewhere. I was particularly interested in mythology. But any thinking person could not accept mythology as true. It cannot be true. There is no basis for morality in mythology (specifically the Greek/Roman types). So I continued searching.

I started looking into other more modern myths such as vampirism, but was quickly dissuaded. I came to the realization that Christianity seems to be the most reason-able religion, but really just based upon my limited experience and introspective reflections. So then I accepted what my parents believed then, right? Have you learned by now that I do not do that. I did not.

I wanted to know if maybe other “Christian” branches had the truth; I looked into Catholicism then the Eastern Orthodox. But I did not find truth there either. This took place when I was about fifteen. I had not found the truth for myself. I believed my parents’ faith to be true, so by default I accepted what they believed as true.

In the winter I was seventeen going on eighteen, I had what Christians call a conversion experience. The faith of my father became my own faith. I had finally found the truth. Something awakened inside of me and I yearned so much for the truth of God’s Law-Word that I read it every day, every chance that I got.

This is how I came to believe in God. But that is not to say that I have no rational basis for belief in His existence. I do. But as a caveat let me note that no one will become a Christian just because they read what I say and believe in the existence of God. God has to reveal Himself to the individual for them to truly put their faith in Him.

Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence*:

There is proof that God exists. But if you expect me to upload a picture of that proof you are severely mistaken as to the nature of the question: “Does God exist?” The proof is not materialistic and it is not empirical. It is philosophical. Now, I am not a trained philosopher, but I will do my best to open up for you the enigma that is the philosophical proof of God’s existence.

Normally we argue and debate about things we believe or do not believe, but this proof goes beyond that. In order to deal with the claim of God’s existence we call for proof. But in order to provide proof we must first deal with what qualifies as proof. Do you see how you have to keep going backwards until you find the starting point?

So what qualifies for proof? Some might say a miracle or an appearance of God. But is that the only thing that can qualify as proof? To an empiricist or a skeptic, yes. I believe that would be the only thing they would accept as proof. Wait a second, what is up with the “empiricist” or “skeptic” talk? What I am saying is that there are differing philosophical schools of thought; and differing schools have differing criteria on how they arrive at their conclusions. If a “monist” and a “dualist” get into a debate they will most likely “speak past” each other. Why? The reason why communication breaks down is because everything known by a person is interpreted by their understanding. That is to say, your world view affects everything you believe; and people who hold differing world views cannot rationally resolve their disagreements without first dealing with the problems between their world views. What is next?

You have to talk about presuppositions and the pre-conditions of intelligible experience. This is the only way to rationally resolve the differences between world views. The proof of the Christian God is that without Him no other world view makes any sense. Without Him no other world view can rationally sustain an argument as to the origins of laws of logic, scientific laws and laws of morality. No other world view besides the Christian theistic world view can account for these laws in a consistent and internally coherent manner.

As to the laws of logic, the atheist cannot “logically” prove why we must use the laws of logic. As to the laws of science, the atheist cannot prove the basis for scientific laws. As to the question of morality, without God who is the arbiter of right and wrong? They cannot give a reasoned response. Morals are either conventions, stipulated or arbitrary. How then can they be laws?

The Christian theist has answers to these questions. What is the basis of these laws? The laws of logic are a reflection of the thinking of God. Morality is a reflection of the character of God and scientific laws reflect the way in which Gods sustains the creation. How do we know this? God has revealed this to us by His Law-Word.

The Bible reveals to us who God is and what He is all about. Consequently the world reflects this (general revelation). We see this in our everyday experiences. We view the world through our understanding and it logically makes sense because we know God. The atheist views the same world. Surprisingly it makes sense to him too. But the problem is he has borrowed the Christian theistic world view in order to make use of the tools of logic.

The laws of logic do not arise organically from an atheistic perspective and as such they cannot hold to a non-contradictory view of the world. Thus at the root atheism is irrational.

The proof of the existence of God is that without Him you cannot prove anything.

If perfection was required before anything could be done, nothing would be done. But God in His manifold wisdom and grace has elected to work with that which is imperfect, viz. humanity. “Be ye holy as I am holy.” God has no priorities. Priorities are required of finite creatures. We do not have the time, stamina, ability, etc to do it all. Thus we prioritize. But what is God’s priority? Would He have us achieve internal perfection before attempting to reform the world? Are results more important to God than means? Is orthodoxy more important than orthopraxy?

To all of these statements I give a resounding “NO.” I do believe in the importance of orthodoxy, but how can we separate it from God’s requirements? This is my perception of a problem in the Reformed movement. The youth are “jumping ship” as they say. Ought we to focus our efforts on the church before trying to reform the world? Some think so, “judgment will begin at the house of God,” is true but is it everything?

The more I learn the more I see moderation. “Moderation in everything,” even in moderation? Moderation for moderation’s sake? Again NO. This ignores the express point of it all. “What does God require of man?” How do we learn what He requires? What does He require? He requires us to live righteously, believe orthodoxy, evangelize the lost, occupy till He comes, be fruitful and multiply, and on and on and on.

I have long championed right thinking over right living as the more important thing. Why did I do this? For one to excuse my own sins because at least I believed the right thing. But Proverbs tells us a different story. Wisdom as defined by the first 8 chapters (this is as far as I got with an in depth look at this concept) is not just right thinking but also right living. Proverbs assumes continuity. What one believes affects the way he lives. “Wisdom is the principal thing.” Get wisdom.

So what does God require? Everything. But how are we to prioritize? Let me lend my thoughts here. We will not be perfect. We should not try to achieve perfection before trying to influence this world for God. If we were to try this we would logically end up as hyper-isolationists, if I can say that. We would be ultra-introspective so much so that we would be of no earthly good. We would spend a lifetime of possibly asceticism trying to reach personal holiness without interaction with anyone else. With interaction comes influence. And if you cannot influence until “you are ready” then you will never interact.

You are not required to be perfect before getting married. Some tend to think so. But God gives grace so that we may grow through the process. We live more righteously because of the complementing aspect of relationships; because God makes it work that way to our benefit.

Parents are not required to be perfect before having children or else there would never be any children. But God gives them to us and expects us to grow through the process.

Churches should not isolate and internalize without influencing the world. They should actively seek dominion in all spheres. The church is not perfect but it will grow through the process.

Children should not be excommunicated following their baptism. They should be able to eat with Jesus and grow through the process learning by participating.

I am an advocate for activism; activism in personal lives, activism in the family, the church society.

The fractured and splintered churches and their “pet” doctrines simplify the truth. In many cases several groups understand aspects of what God wants from us. We prioritize not God.

Moralism is not holiness, activism is not righteousness, purism is not perfection. God requires a pure and active moral creature; He demands it all. How we prioritize is seen by our denominational affiliations. How do we encompass all of the correct and complementary views? Whose doctrines and practices are closest to the “truth?”

I do not think the issue is as much about how much we know as it is how we know it. In the garden, Adam and Eve through obedience (i.e. growing through the process) would learn what was good and evil, but they chose differently. What does God require? Obedience; that is what I mean by “everything.” God requires perfection of thought, word and deed. But this is a practical impossibility by man. Thus God in His omniscience gave us simple (not easy) instructions: obey!

Rewritten & posted by Michaelsei (that’s me!) on Helium.com

“We will never have God’s exhaustive knowledge of reality (in my judgment, not even in heaven).” John Frame

If this is true, and I think that it is true, then we will always be ever increasing and never diminishing. How does that feel? In a finite capacity we have felt this.

Have you ever read a good book? It was so great that you could barely put it down; you couldn’t wait to pick it up again. And how did you feel when you finished it? “The End.” No. “Where’s the sequel?”

Then the feeling diminishes. It goes away. We remember the book though.

Have you ever seen a good movie? It is similar to a book, but it only has minutes to build up before it is all over; and usually doesn’t quite evoke what a book can.

Have you ever been “in love?” You could not bear to be away from that person. No matter how long you were together it was never enough. You wanted to spend the rest of your life with that person; then you got married. Seriously, not being a cynic, marriage is great but it is hard work (a good marriage is).

What I’m saying is that we are bound by the “constrictions of time.” “All good things must come to an end.” They do and oftentimes change form. A good book ends with the beginning of the next one. Your romantic interest becomes your lover. But what of heaven? What of God?

It is beholding perfect love; not fully understanding it, but growing in it always. “Let the good ‘times’ roll.” It will be good; it will not end. The good feeling won’t go away; ever. That is eternity. Whatever God actually has for us (playing harps, making cloud castles, opening and closing gates for others, living on the ‘new earth’); whatever it is, it won’t be dull, boring.

God made us and He knows us. Jesus Christ is a man (though He is God). It’s gonna’ be good.

In my view toleration is the most unchristian ideology at work in the minds and hearts of men. The more I learn about God, the more I realize that He calls us to something resembling moderation not toleration. Moderation accepts no sin, accepts no evil. Toleration, on the other hand permits it.

Moderation: temperance, restraint; the quality of being moderate.
Moderate: not extreme or excessive, balanced; not violent; become less severe, to act as a moderator
Toleration: forbearance, allowing, enduring, or accepting what is not actually approved, act or instance of tolerating
Tolerate: to allow the existence, presence, practice or act of without prohibition or hindrance, permit

If God does not allow toleration of sin personally, how can He allow toleration of sin corporately in His body? Even our society of toleration does not intellectually tolerate Christianity. To be moderate does not mean equivocating. We do not accept sin, but neither do we walk around casting stones either. God wants us to be “moderators” on earth.

Intolerance is an inescapable concept. It is not really a question of tolerance or intolerance. The real antithesis is between those who would tolerate God and those who will not tolerate God. As Christians we need to come to grips with this reality and instead of accepting the false gospel of toleration we should repudiate it. But in our repudiation we need to be moderate.

Balance is the key.

What is more important, the individual or society? If you answer one or the other and take it to its logical conclusion, you will end up in one of two extremist camps: individualism or socialism. As a Christian theist I see a synthesis between the one (individual) and the many (society) based upon the concept of trinity. Neither is more important. They are both (or all) equally important. Both need to be dealt with as such. Laws passed to protect a society need to examine whether it is unduly encroaching upon individual rights. A society that protects individual rights needs to ensure that it does not do so to the detriment of society. The answer as originating from scripture is a multi-perspective view rather than a narrow one. The secular variant we might call the gospel of moderation. Again when I speak of moderation I come from the scriptural viewpoint, and yet it is very acceptable to a secularist when toleration is seen as a misplaced antithesis.

Love the Lord…and Him ONLY shalt thou serve.

God is the father of us all. He created all men. The world is His footstool. His dominion is overall, but this has yet to be played out in history. And when all kingdoms submit to Him then will the end be.

In a very obtuse way I am going to say that the whole world is [t]he Church. By this I mean that God created all men and that He has called all men unto Himself. This calling all men unto Himself is not some weak desire for all to be saved nor does God feel a consternation that His will shall not be done. On the contrary, His will is already established and declared end to beginning.

I do not deny that there are two different kingdoms at war. But for the sake of discussion I am going to say rather that there is one Church with two different factions. In the one group we have the covenant-keepers and in the other the covenant-breakers.

The covenant-keepers strive always to retain the relationship with God as it was once for all delivered and revealed. The covenant-breakers want nothing to do with God and want to replace Him with another god or even with themselves. They deny Him and by some even His existence. They observe the lives of the covenant-keepers and are convicted (they know that the covenant-keepers follow the way of truth).

In response to having to confront the truth, the covenant-breaking faction fights against the covenant-keepers. They may preach the message of “tolerance” to the covenant-keeper, “don’t force your religion down my throat;”but they seek nothing more than the conversion of all covenant-keepers to the covenant-breaking faction’s point of view. They do not want to see division in the “Church” any more than we do. Fundamentally the struggle is one of dominion (it is a comforting thing to know that we can rely on His promises).

Conclusion: The preaching of toleration is a tactic. Their strategy is to replace God at every point possible. The goal is dominion. Christian, you now know your enemy. Love thy enemy. And convert him, because he is trying to convert you. Our goal is dominion. Our strategy is to infuse God into every area of life. Our tactic is to preach the whole counsel of God.

Check out a good article by Schlissel.

If you want to see skepticism in all of its irrational glory check out this forum thread. This is a good starting place for anyone interested in combating the modern revival of Gnostic “Christianity.” It is a long read and provides several external links leading to a detailed study (not by me by any means, no time for that right now).

Now I know better where some people are coming from. (Truly from irrationality, but I know the basis for their questions now.)

In another part of the website Jay Rogers presents his scholastic research on The Real Jesus (someday soon I will jump in).

What is evangelism? To many Christians evangelism is what they support through missions. Others feel it is more tangible and must be themselves preaching on a street corner. Still others believe that their lives as lived is another form of evangelism.

Which one is right? Are any right or wrong? Paul says in 2Ti 4:5, “But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” and Peter says in 1Pe 3:15, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”

So we are all required to do the work of evangelist because that is what the Bible says, right? Lifting one verse out of the Bible and using it in such a manner is called proof-texting (I think). And in this case we would be wrong to proof-text in this way. What is the context in which this verse is given?

2 Timothy 4

1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus
Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3For the time
will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4And they
shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Paul is giving direction to Pastors not laymen, we should take note of this and then draw out the principle that we are to follow. What is the context that Peter speaks in?

1 Peter 3

8Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as
brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9Not rendering evil for evil, or
railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto
called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10For he that will love
life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that
they speak no guile:
11Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek
peace, and ensue it.
12For the eyes of the Lord are over the
righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is
against them that do evil.
13And who is he that will harm you, if ye
be followers of that which is good?
14But and if ye suffer for
righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be
troubled;
15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is in you with meekness and fear:
16Having a good conscience; that,
whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that
falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

This is addressed to all Christians. It appears to me that a cursory view here of these two passages show slight differences in the roles of differing parts of the body. Pastors are called directly, in the tradition of the Apostles, to do the work of an Evangelist and that laymen not neglect this when the opportunity arises. If that is what is being taught in Scripture, then it is wrong for the radical proponents of personal evangelism to condemn those who are not as vocal about their faith.

Here is a good analysis of the modern trend in evangelism: Highly Questionable Methods by Robert Reymond

For more information on Dr. Robert Reymond, see his wiki-bio. He currently shares a Pastoral Ministry at the OPC mission Church plant of Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church.