When a True Statement Is the Truth

This comedic captioned photograph from Indian Libertarians's Photos would be funny if it were not a true representation of the contrast between the views of these two men.

Both perspectives fall short of the truth, although the Dalai Lama’s does not fall nearly as short as the Obama’s.  Yet even the much fuller view of the Dalai Lama still falls short of the truth.  While the statements that he makes are true statements, they are not the truth.  The truth includes more.

Here is another example from the Dalai Lama:



Some other sources, such as Goodreads, attribute this similarly stated to Frank Zappa, “A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.”

But to the statement itself, while it is a true statement, does it tell the truth?  The quote attributed to the Dalai Lama is less restrictive, saying “The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open.” Yet if one examines even this statement it is found not to be the truth.  In fact, it is not really even a true statement, but because it states a portion of the truth it sounds like a true statement.

The Zappa quote is completely false, for if a closed mind did not work, he would have no one to criticize for thinking with a closed mind.

The less restrictive statement attributed to the Dalai Lama speaks a portion of the truth, but not the truth.

A mind that is open can receive information and outside stimulation.  However, an open mind is unable to focus and process the information that has been received.  Focus requires a narrowing of one’s thinking.  Processing of information requires closing one’s mind so as to begin analyzing what has been received.  Furthermore, a mind that is open to all views or opinions is unable to perceive the difference between opinion and fact.

The Truth is not proportional.  The truth is always whole.  No part of the truth can stand apart from the whole.  The truth is integral.  If it is divided into separate parts it ceases to be the truth.

Even the analogy is not the truth.  An open parachute does not work properly unless it is attached properly to the falling person or object.  An open parachute does not work properly in a vacuum.  An open parachute does not work for an object that is not falling.  An open parachute does not function if it is upside down.  An open parachute cannot be worn inside a cockpit or other close quarters, but must be carefully and meticulously folded so as to be worn and deployed at the appropriate time.

An open mind is not sufficiently focused to consider the facts but only applies vague or nebulous perceptions.  While a healthy and well functioning mind opens to receive information, facts, questions, and even opinions, it also must close to the narrow evaluation process of assessing and acknowledging the truth revealed by these received data.

This fallacy carries into the major tenet of the Dalai Lama in the promotion of Religious Harmony.  If one reads what he declares in this matter, actually hearing what he says, it becomes clear that harmony is not what he teaches.  What he really espouses is dissolution and ultimate neutralization.

He says: “We must distinguish between belief and respect. Belief refers to total faith, which you must have in your own religion. At the same time you should have respect for all other religions.”

What does this really mean?  It means choosing ignorance over knowledge.  It means reducing one’s religion to mere ritual and sentiment and tradition.

He says: “If a harmonious relationship is established amongst societies and religious beliefs in today's multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural world, then it will surely set a very good example for others.”

What does this mean?  He concludes: “Therefore, it is very important to live in harmony and analyse where the opinion of the other lies. The best way to do this is to engage in dialogue, dialogue and dialogue.”

The essence of this is to target and bomb the dissenting parties with ignorance. “Engage in dialogue, dialogue and dialogue” is a longhand version of saying “Agree to disagree.”  If a person steps back so as to close one’s mind to focus on what is really being said, this means to agree to believe nothing and to count nothing whatsoever as important.

So for the Dalai Lama peace means to drive discord out of existence by means of bombing the dissidents with nothingness and emptiness.  So where is the truth?  Where is common understanding ever actually pursued?  Is this anything but another deceptive tactic?

How does the Obama define obtaining peace?  He says peace is obtained by bombing with drones.  Of course control of the media, invading the privacy of citizens, and blatant deception and lies are also among his favorite tools.

Perhaps the two are closer in their views than one may first perceive.

Does it really matter?  It matters to those who believe that the truth really matters.

+ + +

And That’s Enough

It seems today that nearly everyone calling oneself a Christian has adopted a new creed:


I believe in Jesus Christ
as my Lord and Savior,
and that’s enough.
This seems to be what is heard again and again, without fail.  It seems that whenever a person is confronted with Scriptures that clearly teach that this confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is clearly defined by further specific doctrine, people fall back to this as the only confession and doctrine that they will permit.

Well, there is, of course, this:

   
I cannot judge what is in another person’s heart.
It seems that people forget that the entire point of the Gospel is salvation for sinners who by Adam’s refusal to trust God’s Word have died to God and the life that is in His Communion.  They seem to forget that the preaching of forgiveness means preaching that people have an actual need to be forgiven.  They seem to forget that the primary cause of the need for forgiveness as proclaimed in the Holy Scriptures is the unbelief and false belief of people.

How can the forgiveness of unbelief and false belief be preached and administered without clearly declaring people's unbelief and false belief?

Why do so many sects exist within what is known as Christendom?

Is it not on account of the diversity of beliefs concerning what the doctrine of the Scriptures really is?

Is it really possible to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior while redefining what He says that this means?  Is it really possible to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior while openly denying what He says concerning the means of salvation?  Is it really possible to trust with true faith in the Messiah or Christ while opposing the very means through which the Scriptures teach that He builds His Church and works in it and through it to save the lost?

Who can even begin to speak of saving the lost without identifying them as the lost?



This group, The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, clearly identifies, even with pictures, those whom they are hoping to save from their lost condition.  How many people consider this to be unloving?  How many people say, “Oh no, I cannot judge these children as being lost”?

If a child is born with spina bifida, do people say that one cannot judge the child as having this deficiency in gestational development?  If someone insisted on calling the diagnosis of such children as cruel, would this not be counted as irrational and even absurd?  How can corrective surgery be pursued for such a child without judging or diagnosing the child as a sufferer of spina bifida?

Yet concerning the most serious broken condition of all, people are inclined to judge that such a condition must not be clearly diagnosed.  They treat the matter of spiritual brokenness to be a matter that should not be diagnosed in absolute terms.  Rather it is said to be a “personal matter.”

Who is really the uncaring and cruel person?

Is it not the person who refuses to acknowledge what has already been clearly diagnosed by the true Physician, the one who truly knows the condition of brokenness of mankind and openly declares both the cause and the cure?  Is not the truly cruel person the one who redefines both the condition and the cure so that neither are rightly recognized?  Is not the truly cruel person the one who administers the cure in an adulterated form that either has no efficacy or may even make the condition worse?

The Lord Jesus through His apostle declares the necessity of speaking the truth in love, saying:

       

     I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)     

      And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.    (Ephesians 4:1-16)

Therefore it seems absolutely necessary to ask:

      Is it really enough to direct people to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior without actually defining clearly and in unmistakable terms what this belief means?

+ + +

When a True Statement is made to be False

     There are many examples of this in the world. A statement is made, using portions of the truth to present a falsehood. The devil is the inventor of this tactic. He used this tactic in the garden of Eden to tempt the woman to doubt the truth and to refashion God’s Word according to her own reason. The result was that Mankind was cut off from the Truth, cut off from Life. Death thereby came to mankind in connection with the blindness and corruption of sin. The devil foolishly tried this tactic with Jesus, too. The devil actually quoted Scripture to Jesus in an attempt to move Jesus to accept something false. The devil actually quoted the Scripture verbatim. But he used the Scripture out of context, applying it to try to present a false precept, and therefore the true statement was actually false. Even though the statement was true in the context in which it stands written, used as the devil used it, it was nevertheless false.

     At When Love Encounters Impenitence, Love Does Not Go to War a statement is quoted as a beautiful “bit of grace and truth.” The statement is made at Steadfast Lutherans within the comments concerning the article Interesting Interview of Pastor Morris in the Newtown Bee, by Pr. Rossow. Notably, Pr. McCain in his blog post quoting this statement does not provide a link to where it was made. Thereby he uses the quote without allowing his readers to examine how it was used.

     The quoted statement was actually used to attack other Christians, using the deliberately controverted guise of love. The statement is actually an attack on people who are openly and honestly addressing a serious issue and calling for dishonesty within their church body to be swept away so that the truth may prevail among them.

     Here is the statement, which, divorced from the context in which it was presented, is a truly beautiful “bit of grace and truth.” It sounds wonderful until one reads it in the context in which Pastor Fiene has written and presented it.

When love encounters impenitence, love weeps while shaking the dust off its feet. Love doesn’t go to war. It doesn’t badger. It doesn’t shout. It doesn’t scream for everyone to fix their eyes on the sin that’s already been made as public as it can be.

Love doesn’t continually appoint itself to the task of penning another epistle of rebuke. It doesn’t repeatedly provide online fuel for those who easily explode in anger and cruelty. Love doesn’t seek to stir up more anger over vacations or preferential treatment.

Love is patient. Love recognizes that, were it not for the calling, gathering, enlightening, and sanctifying of the Holy Spirit, not a trace of orthodoxy would beat in any of our hearts. Love remembers that countless saints spent far more time than Pr. Morris has defending their sins before the Lord brought them to repentance. Love waits, hopes and prays that our brother in Christ will one day see his error.

And, in the meantime, if love must shake the dust off its feet, then that’s what love must do. But it does so in tears, not in a manner like this.

     The issue being raised by the original article is the issue of a blatant sin committed within the LC-MS. The pastors and congregations of the LC-MS take an oath not to partake in unionistic worship. In the situation being addressed, a pastor openly, publicly, and proudly violated this oath. When he was called on it, he apologized in a way that actually accused those who sought to bring him to repent. I posted concerning this at An Apology Is Not Repentance. The end result was that the LC-MS president apologized for attempting to do his sworn duty, while the one who should have been called to repent denied that he did any wrong. The way it was finally presented was as a call to the members of the LC-MS to repent of their desire to call sin “sin” and to call sinners to repent of their sins, especially their public sins against the Gospel.

     The falsehood begins with the very first sentence, where Pr. Fiene says: “When love encounters impenitence, love weeps while shaking the dust off its feet.”

     This is a very devilish use of the truth. For this is exactly what the Lord Jesus has commanded the saints to do regarding those who reject the truth that has been presented to them. However, Pr. Fiene is not in agreement with Jesus that Pr. Morris should be confronted openly with the truth and then told that he is not a Christian on account of refusing to acknowledge his sin and repent of it. The people whom Pr. Fiene is countering are actually calling for Pr. Morris, as well as his district president and Pr. Harrison to be called to repent of their public sin in this matter, the sin of calling sin as “righteousness” and righteousness as “sin.” They are calling for repentance of all three lying pastors. But even they are not speaking of shaking the dust off their feet. Even they are not saying that if these lying pastors refuse to hear the truth and be called to repentance that they should be excommunicated for the sake of showing them the seriousness of their impenitence. Pr. Fiene especially is not calling for this. He is trying to condemn those who are at least calling their leaders to be accountable. He is trying to change the focus from the call to the leaders to repent, so that the focus becomes one of calling those who are calling for repentance to repent. But because this devilish maneuver is masked as love, it is a very effective deception.

     If those who practice unionism don’t believe that it is sinful, then they should admit this and end their participation in the LC-MS communion. However, the sad fact is that the LC-MS is not what it claims to be. The LC-MS has openly practiced unionism at many levels for decades, perhaps really even for its entire existence. The LC-MS has only pretended to be against unionism, while allowing it and actually practicing it for years.

     From that perspective Pr. Fiene would be correct, if indeed he were saying that the members of the LC-MS should admit the longstanding impenitence of the LC-MS and with tears shake the dust off their feet and walk away.

     But Pr. Fiene’s dishonest use of the truth goes further still. He says:

     Love doesn’t go to war. It doesn’t badger. It doesn’t shout. It doesn’t scream for everyone to fix their eyes on the sin that’s already been made as public as it can be.
     Love doesn’t continually appoint itself to the task of penning another epistle of rebuke.

     This ignores the very obvious fact that war has already been declared and imposed upon those whom he is condemning. War has already been declared by those who gave an oath not to partake in unionism and then have openly done so and furthermore have publicly sought to make unionism the accepted practice of the church. Those who stand up against this are persecuted until either broken or driven out of the LC-MS. Those who do resist, those who do fight against those making war against them, are doing so not only for their own sake, but for the sake of their loved ones who are being destroyed spiritually in this war imposed by the so-called tolerant ones.

     This is true also for those who have admitted the truth of the impenitence of the LC-MS and have shaken the dust off their feet and walked away in tears. They still look on as they see their family and friends being led further and further away from the narrowness of the truth into the broad path of relativism and tolerance of adulterated doctrine and practice. As they view the changes effected in their family and friends, their love does move them to pen yet another and another epistle. They do experience and even express holy anger as they stand helplessly watching their loved ones spiritually eviscerated.

     And then Pr. Fiene and Pr. McCain cry out that love does not cry out against such things.

     Truly there is a point where one must finally say, “I have nothing more whatsoever to do with thee.” There does come the time where mourning and even praying for such comes to an end, as the Lord told Samuel to stop mourning for Saul and John says not to pray for those who sin unto death (1 John 5:17).

     I must admit that I don’t really know how to make this distinction and so I simply continue as the Lord Jesus teaches in the Our Father and as the General Prayer follows the admonitions of the apostles, praying for everyone generally. As for those who seem to be beyond receiving anything good from me, I do eventually stop praying for them specifically, including them in my general prayers for all and for all of the enemies of the cross. And even though I have shaken the dust off my feet concerning the impenitent churches and those who remain in their clutches, my heart nevertheless longs for their repentance unto the way of true peace and life.

     It seems that a big issue for those still in churches like the LC-MS is that they imagine that they are still fighting to protect their home and loved ones. They seem not to realize that their church body that they call home has been confiscated by the enemy. So they continue fighting for what is no longer theirs. They fight battles that are nothing more than futile rebelling against the established rulers of the household. From this perspective they would do well to hear Pr. Fienes that such is not the way of love. Love rather would admit the impenitence of their false church so that they would shake the dust off their feet and walk away in tears. Then they would be free to embrace the true faith, the true doctrine, and the true worship without continually fighting the enemy whom they falsely call brother. Then they would begin to understand what St. John declares, saying:

     Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. (1 John 3:13-14)

     In order truly to love the brethren, one must first rightly acknowledge the brethren. Continuing in fellowship with those who are not the brethren is to malign and despise the brethren. Those who love the brethren do not join themselves to the world that hates the brethren. Rather, in love for the brethren, they stand together with the brethren apart from the world. It seems odd that so many have forgotten this so that they continue to cling to worldly corporations that use “Church” in their corporate identities while ignoring and even despising those who stand apart, gathered into the name of Jesus. They somehow seem to have become convinced that love means holding to the church that bears the name and works of their fathers and grandfathers rather than the Church founded upon and preserved through the name and works of Jesus.

+ + +

An Apology Is Not Repentance

In the movie The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000) is the following conversation between Rannulph Junuh and Adele Invergordon.


Adele approaches Junuh and sits beside him on the bench, uncomfortably.

Junuh:  There something you wanted to tell me?

Adele:  Well, I'm trying to think of how to say it, Junuh.

       There is a purpose to this visit...
       ...and that's to apologize.

       I'm not an apologetic woman, it takes me longer to organize my thoughts.

       I want to seem properly contrite for having gotten you into this match...
       ...but not seem what I did was ill-intentioned, since it wasn't.

Junuh:  What exactly are you apologizing for?

Adele:  For publicly humiliating you.

Junuh:  That'd be a good thing to apologize for.

Adele:  However, I think that...

       Basically, what I'm trying to say is...

       ...that I'm sorry.

       But it's not my fault.

       You're the one to blame.

Junuh:   That's one hell of an apology, Adele.

Adele:  I'd stop the tournament in a flash, if I could. I truly, truly would.

       Because I know it's just gonna get worse.
       The way you're playing, you're destroying...
       ...any chance Jones and Hagen have of doing well.

       And your supporters? Every man, woman, and child in Savannah...
       ...are so demoralized that they can barely hold down their lunches.

       So, you want my apology or not?

Junuh:  No.

Adele:  Well...

       That's the Junuh I know. Just full of little surprises.

What was this?

Why did Adele even approach her estranged husband?

Years earlier poor Junuh was the sole survivor in a World War I battle.  He did not know how to face people after this.  He could not explain it for himself.  He was counted as a hero by everyone except himself.  He felt guilty for surviving.  So he returned to his hometown but not to his wife.  He was not able to forgive himself so as to face himself, so he could not be open to face her, either.

This was wrong.  She was deeply injured.  She suffered for over ten years because of his inability to face the circumstances of his life honestly.  He sought for answers without turning to the source of truth and goodness.  So he tried to hide from himself.  He could not do this while embracing his wife.  The marital union requires honesty.  All unity is completely dependent upon the Truth.  Junuh had turned his face, his heart, his soul away from the Truth.

Adele wanted to save her father’s legacy.  She wanted to save the golf course and fortune of her father.  She devised a grand plan to have a legendary tournament to initiate interest in the golf course.  So she coerced her husband to come forth and play in the tournament.  Her motives were mixed, but were selfish.  She thought only of what she wanted, even though deep down that included reconciliation with her husband.  But even this reconciliation she sought for selfish motives.

Eventually she confronted her husband with his sin against her.  He apologized sincerely.  He confessed his sin and asked forgiveness, which she initially refused to give.  But he repented nonetheless.  Eventually she did forgive him and rejoin him.  And he forgave her even though she never truly confessed her own sin against him.  But she did turn from her sin.  She stopped blaming him and hating him.  Though her confession was incomplete, she was turned again to love and true compassion for her husband, and he received her with no demands upon her.  Her confession and contrition were false, but she was nevertheless turned from this falseness back to the truth of their love.

The confrontation took place.  Both hearts were turned.  Forgiveness and healing and reconciliation resulted.  They began life together anew.

This story does not fully portray the life of the forgiveness that is in Christ, but it does demonstrate some of the important aspects.  The reconciliation that God works is far greater.  It is a one sided reconciliation in that God initiates it and fulfills it.  He is the innocent one, the one who has been wronged, and yet He willingly takes the blame and buries it with His own death.  He rises up and continually calls to us to confess our waywardness and to be reconciled to Him in His love.  Even though we are unable fully to confess our sin, He eagerly forgives us and restores us.  Even though we turn from the truth, He proclaims it openly and fully so that we are moved to believe it and be turned again to Him to receive His grace, mercy, and peace.

Like Junuh, we need to hear the good news that though we are lost, our place has been reserved for us.  When we finally hear this in faith, we are turned from our obstinate unbelief so that we gladly and humbly return to the one calling us back to His fatherly embrace.

Like Adele, though we are confused and angry, often not even knowing why we are angry, God’s continual call melts our stubbornness so that His love prevails and we are rejoined to Him in His Holy Communion.  Deep down that is what we want all along, but because we seek to be strong on our own we resist His loving call to return humbly to Him.  When we finally hear the truth that His love and His calling are the answer, when we finally are broken with the weariness of fighting to make things right in our lives by our own reason and strength, when we finally admit that we cannot do for ourselves what God graciously does freely for us, then we look up and see that the battle has already been won and the life is already restored for us.

---

I was moved to write this as my heart sought a way to address the fraudulence in the following video.  In this video the president of the LC-MS seeks to effect healing within his church body through a pretense of repentance.  In this and the letters at Pastoral Letters on the Newtown Tragedy no wrongdoing is ever actually confessed or addressed.



If one carefully observes both the video and the letters, both Adele and Junuh show forth in various ways.  There is hiding from the truth.  There is lack of open confrontation of wrongdoing.  There are false attempts at apologies that really are not apologies at all.

In the end this is much worse because there is no repentance, no forgiveness, no healing.

There is, however, a very subtle pointing of the finger of blame away from those who are in the middle of the conflict.  Very subtly the blame is placed upon those within the church body who are calling out for the leaders and pastors and congregations to turn from the pretense.  Those who are calling for the truth to be confessed and the hypocrisy to be abandoned are being told that they are unloving for not being willing to pretend that all is well.  Those seeking honest confession and absolution and a genuine turning from corruption of the truth are being told that they should turn a blind eye and be quiet for the sake of a pretense of unity and love.

This is not the way of true healing.  This is not the way of real unity.

It would be wonderful to see the leaders and people of this church body to realize this and to be turned to the Truth so that they may receive the healing that their hearts long to receive.  The problem remains for them that they serve their mammon and imagine that they can serve God also.  They continue to fight to preserve what they hold most dear, that is, their church body.

It would truly be a joyous day if like Adele they realized that saving the legacy of their fathers is not what matters.  Then they would walk away from their church body and be reunited in the union of the true faith.  Then they would truly be “synod” not through a corporate charter and a constitution and by-laws, but as those truly in the “together-way.”

+ + +

Christian, Lutheran, Whatever, What ARE You?

A blog that I sometimes visit is Worldview Everlasting.  When I first stumbled upon this blog I was fascinated by it.  Over time I became aware of the cause of my uneasiness with this “Lutheran” and his “style” and the compendium of topics and contributors.  Now I visit the site occasionally just to see whether things have moved in a more helpful direction.  My visits are becoming less and less frequent, due to the continual disappointment.

One of the recent video posts is All Ur Labels R Belong to Us.

The very title, with its world-mimicking bad grammar and style, makes me squirm.  It immediately sets off the holy alarms in my spirit and soul.  It is akin to the feeling of having a caterpillar or other creature crawling down my neck inside the back of my shirt.  Sometimes this sense is more like the feeling of having bird poop fall on me from overhead.  Other times it is like the sense of feeling my foot slip when I step upon a fresh pile of doggy poop in someone’s back yard.

The immediate sense is that something is not right.  Something is out of place.

Such senses should not be ignored in life.  The warnings are genuine.  They are signals that one should be alert and on guard.

These uneasy sensations are the natural response to things that do not fit, things that are not honest and true.

In the case of these titles of video posts, they do not fit with the manner of what the blogger claims to represent.  This is not the norm for the one holy catholic Church that is called, gathered, enlightened, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit and kept with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.  This simply is not the way of those who are called out of the world to stand apart from the world.  This is not the way of those who live in the world but are not of the world.

Read the Scriptures and see.  Does the Lord conform Himself and His ministry and preaching to the style and manner of the world?  Do His apostles preach or write in this way?  Do they try to incorporate the modern lingo and mannerisms so as to try to make themselves more appealing?

The Scriptures do speak of those who use this approach.  What the Scriptures say concerning this way is not flattering.

In the video post listed above, All Ur Labels R Belong to Us, the content matches the style.  It is consistent with the overall approach of the web site.  It tries to blend the world’s view of reality or the “worldview” with the view of the Church with the catchy title of “Worldview Everlasting.”  It sounds very spiritual.  It sounds very “other-worldly.”  But it is really very worldly in the end.  It is a reduction of “the things above” to acceptance in terms of things below.

This is demonstrated powerfully in the following portions of this video post.

On the time line, at 4:16, a question from a commentator is shared.



At 4:26, Fisk addresses this.



Here Fisk identifies the problem with Lutheranism, including his definition of Lutheranism.  The problem is one of dishonesty and total lack of integrity.

Notice the statement in the center of this where Fisk replies, saying:

     You are not a Lutheran - which is fine, so long as you are honest about it.

This is a recurring doctrine throughout this video post.  It flows throughout the entire blog and its many posts.

At 5:14 Fisk says in this video,

     Be what you are.  Love what you are.  If you believe something, embrace it. . . . I’m not trying to put you in a hole, I’m just trying to get you to, you know, enjoy what you actually think.  Embrace it!

Is this what the Lord Jesus teaches?  Is this even remotely like what the apostles teach?  Do the Scriptures ever say this?  Or do the Scriptures actually declare that we should hear the truth and be turned from what we are and what we think and what we construct for ourselves?

Do the Scriptures ever declare that it is OK to believe what we want so long as we listen to what others say and accept them for who they are?

Is this the way of the Holy Scriptures?  Is this what is exposed in the “Lutheran Confessions” that Fisk claims to believe and confess and teach?

Do the Lutheran Confessions say that it is OK to love and embrace the ways of Wesleyan Baptist theology and practice?

At 9:12 Fisk says:

     But if your ism happens to be Lutheranism, which basically has six chief things, there’s like six things that make a Lutheran, we call them the six chief parts, and we believe they’re actually six things that make you a Christian, too, although you can be a Christian without believing everything about every piece of the chief parts, but they are the fullness of Christianity and they all point you back to Christ and the cross, but pretty much to deny any of these six things, I mean, it’s not like it’s this big giant list somewhere, it’s six stinkin things, right, you believe these six things and you are a Lutheran.  You don’t believe these six things and you’re not a Lutheran.  We call these six things the Small Catechism, because it is rather small, and catechism means: “teaching.”  It is just the small list of teaching that actually makes you Lutheran.

     I don’t define this.  I mean, where do you get off accusing me of that?  As if it is my idea.  You think I’m making this stuff up?  You think it’s about me?  If you think it’s about me, you just got to watch these videos a lot more, because you know, go back and watch the old ones.  This sucker aint about me man, this sucker’s about the Word of God.

Do people who speak this way ever even listen to themselves so as to hear the amount of double-mindedness that is expressed in their preaching?

For openers, where does Lutheran doctrine ever speak of Lutheran Christianity?

Hmm?

Where do the Lutheran Confessions ever speak of anything other than the one holy catholic/universal/Christian Church?

How can Fisk say, “they’re actually six things that make you a Christian, too, although you can be a Christian without believing everything about every piece of the chief parts”?

How can he say two diametrically opposing things within the same sentence and not hear the fallacy?

How can people listen to this and accept this as genuine?

How can he furthermore refer to the six chief parts of the one true faith by which God’s grace is declared and taught and imparted as “six stinkin things”?

Is this the way of someone whose first thought is to proclaim the truth of God’s Word, or is it the way of someone who is more concerned about sounding cool?

If these six chief parts are what make a person a Christian, how is it possible not to believe everything about them without losing one’s Christianity?

Does a baker accept this notion regarding the ingredients for a cake or a loaf of bread?  Does a mechanic say this regarding the parts of an engine that is being reassembled?  Does an electrician say this concerning the wiring of a house?

Would you trust any of these if they did?

How can Fisk make such statements while demanding integrity and honesty of others?

How can Lutherans in general follow this way as most do today?

The answer rests at least in part with the rest of what Fisk says about these six chief parts.  He says that we call them the Small Catechism.  He makes this false statement because he is falsely focusing upon the “smallness” of the essential and necessary parts of the Christian faith.  He is attempting to minimize the content of the doctrine that must stand as what is believed.

What does Luther and the catholic Church call these six chief parts?

The Catechism, is what they are called.

The so-called Small Catechism is the smaller and more concise of Luther’s explanations of the Catechism.  Luther wrote a Small Catechism in which the six chief parts are briefly explained so that the simple and young could understand them.

Luther also wrote a Larger Catechism in which he expanded his explanations of the Catechism or the Six Chief Parts more extensively.

Something that Luther does not say concerning these six chief parts is that anyone ever may dare to deny them in any part.  To deny these in any way, to reject so as not to believe any portion of these, is to deny the Word of God Himself, to deny Jesus, and to lose one’s salvation.

Luther treats this very seriously.  He never speaks of those who reject the efficacious nature of Baptism as true Christians.  He never speaks of those who deny the body and blood of Jesus in the Sacrament as true Christians.  Rather, he warns them against eating and drinking judgement upon themselves and cutting themselves off from God’s Holy Communion.

But Fisk and nearly every Lutheran today mocks this, saying that a person can be a Christian while denying and refusing to believe what Jesus and His apostles plainly declare.

The Christian faith, the faith by which salvation is imparted by God to those who stand desperately in need of being saved, is an “All or Nothing” faith.  It cannot be divided into portions that are necessary and unnecessary or even less necessary.

As an arborist who climbs trees using ropes for my own positioning and safety as well as for securing and lowering tree limbs and controlling the felling of trees in dangerous situations, I have come to value a saying by Clifford Ashely:

     A knot is never nearly right; it is either exactly right or it is hopelessly wrong, one or the other; there is nothing in between.

This saying is exemplified in the following explanation from “Tie, Dress, and Set (TDS)” in “The Tree Climber’s Companion.”

     Tying knots involves more than just making the “rabbit come out of the hole, go around the tree, and back in the hole” as with the Bowline. A properly tied knot must also be finished properly by dressing it and setting it. Dressing the knot means properly aligning, arranging, or straightening all the parts of the knot so it matches the description and picture in the book. Knot and rope strength can be significantly reduced if the knot is dressed improperly.

     Setting the knot involves tightening all its parts so they properly touch, grab, and press against each other. This creates friction on the rope—the reason a knot works.  A knot that is loosely tied could “capsize” and come untied when a load is applied.  It is good practice to periodically inspect knots while in use to ensure they remain tied.  New knots should never be employed aloft until they can be skillfully tied, dressed, and set (TDS) while on the ground.

From this it is easy to recognize the absolute importance of 100% accuracy in the doctrine of knot tying.  It also is easy to see that one must believe all aspects of this in order for the doctrine to have its effect in practice.

For example, a knot that is tied correctly will not hold if the person does not believe that it must be properly set and therefore skips this absolutely necessary step.

The same is true concerning the Six Chief Parts of Christian doctrine.

No part can be ignored or rejected if the doctrine is to be effective.

God does not give His doctrine without purpose.  He does not teach things that are not necessary.  All aspects of the truth are necessary.  Any departure from the truth is a departure from the truth.

This should be committed to heart, mind and soul.

Any departure from the truth is a departure from the truth.

If one does not hold to this, what difference does it make whether or not one is “honest” about being a Lutheran?  What does it matter if the article of doctrine concerning Baptism can be rejected and one can still be Christian?

The reason that the many imagined Lutherans think that it is important to be Lutheran is that they are actually promoting themselves.

One of Shakespeare’s famous quotations is from Hamlet:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Lutherans often fall into this category, as Fisk seems to protest too much when he says,

     I don’t define this.  I mean, where do you get off accusing me of that?  As if it is my idea.  You think I’m making this stuff up?  You think it’s about me?  If you think it’s about me, you just got to watch these videos a lot more, because you know, go back and watch the old ones.  This sucker aint about me man, this sucker’s about the Word of God.

If it is not about “being Lutheran,” why do they protest so much?  Why do they not simply proclaim the doctrine of the true faith as absolutely necessary and stand upon this?  Why do they insist on the name of “Lutheranism” and their church bodies?

God says many times and in various ways, both through the ministry of His Son and through the ministry of His apostles, “Baptism saves you.”  (For example: 1 Peter 3:19-21)

If someone says that this is not true, what does that person say of God, of God’s Word, of the Scriptures, of the faith declared in the Scriptures, of the Holy Spirit who inspired men to write these Scriptures, of the men who wrote them and proclaimed them, and of the Church?

If one says that what God says is true but that one can be a Christian while saying that what God says is not true, what does this mean?

Why even bother preaching and teaching concerning these things at all?

Unless of course, it really is about you after all.

Whose word really matters?  In whose words do you really trust?

Hmm?

Romans 3:4

+ + +

The Importance of Iodine

As one whose undergraduate preparations were for veterinary medicine, and as I grow older with many additional years of experience and study and observation, I continually marvel at the blatant departures of the so-called health industry from what is known, a.k.a. science.

However, having observed this continual and deliberate departure from real science, this continual and deliberate misapplication of science, this continual and deliberate ignorance of the clear connection of physiological and cellular attributes between animals and humans, I find myself even more amazed when I encounter medical doctors who actually acknowledge the truth and apply it for the benefit of humans.  It is such a wonderful thing to observe and so rarely encountered, that I find it hard to believe when I see it.

Dr. Brownstein is one such medical doctor.  I love his expositions concerning Iodine and its necessity in our bodies through proper nutrition.

He provides information via videos as well as articles at his web site and blog.  One video regarding the necessity of iodine is available here.  This video is long and cannot be paused.  An earlier version is available, which is posted below in five parts.











Dr. Brownstein does a wonderful job in this video of demonstrating how terribly we have been misled and how important iodine is to our health.  In case it was hard to hear, the recommended form is Lugol's iodine, which is a combination of both iodine and iodide.  This can be found at some health food stores as well as on line.

Another video is produced by an herbalist, Tony Pantalleresco, who not only speaks of the benefits of proper iodine levels, but also tells how to make Lugol's iodine.  His website is http://augmentinforce.50webs.com/.

Here’s the video:



On his web site, Tony includes some delightful quotations regarding truth and doctrine (teaching):

 

Quotes Of Truth Awareness

     "A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.  When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a lunatic."  -- Dresden James

     "When a man or woman is honestly mistaken and hears the truth, they will either quit being mistaken, or they will cease to be honest. "

      Because false doctrine is so abundant: "The Truth will be the Strangest Thing you will ever Hear" - Paul Smith

Food for thought.

+ + +

Whom Shall We Trust?

Whom Shall We Trust?

This question is one that always looms before us.  Whom shall or can we trust?

On this blog I include links to Alex Jones’ Prison Planet/InfoWars because this site presents much valuable reporting of information.  Included in this is exposure of the dangers of processed free glutamic acid and aspartic acid being added to our foods and vaccines.  This really is very important news.

However, also on this site is the promotion of products from which Alex receives income to support his news network.  Among these products are the Youngevity products, including one that Alex promotes highly, Beyond Tangy Tangerine.

Here is the product label listing the ingredients from http://www.deaddoctorsdontlie.com/Beyond-Tangy-Tangerine.463 and http://www.american-nutrition.com/beyond_tangy_tangerine.html:



In the “OTHER INGREDIENTS” section are other items of concern, but specifically listed under the amino acids are aspartic acid and glutamic acid.

Both of these are in free form, having been processed, and therefore having the effects of excito-toxins.  Alex has rightly made a big deal about the dangers of both of these when they exist in this free form and are added to our foods to be ingested.

So I e-mailed him and his associates at every e-dress provided on their contact page, drawing to their attention that they were promoting a product that includes the very things that they are warning people to avoid.

Sadly, I never received a response and Alex continues to promote this product heavily.

My conclusion is that I cannot trust Alex not to compromise when money is at stake.  This is typical.  It is true of many companies, news sources, and even the mainstream church bodies.

So who can we trust?

As a pastor I have always admonished those entrusted to my spiritual oversight that they should never trust me and what I say without being certain that what I say is actually in accord with the Scriptures.  While I explained that it is right for them to give their pastor the benefit of the doubt and not to suspect him, they nevertheless should do like the people of Berea, in Acts 17:10-12, who carefully examined what St. Paul preached to them to be sure that he was preaching what the Scriptures declare before they received his preaching as true.

Regarding the Gospel, this is the most important area in which we must be absolutely certain of what we are hearing and receiving.  But we should also apply this caution to those to whom we turn for our news and nutrition and health information.

After all, what we don’t know can indeed hurt us, especially if we do not know that we are being fed spiritual and/or bodily poison.

+ + +

Will the Real Candidates Please Stand Up?

Does the past matter? Should the American people be informed regarding the history of those who are running for office?

How can Americans learn the facts? Will the facts be discovered from the news industry? Will they learn the facts from sitcoms and late night TV comedians? Will they learn the facts from so-called conservative radio programs?

Has this not been the avenue that most Americans have traveled? Has anything been learned that helped improve and change the downward spiral that has been observed? Or has the spiral suddenly become a plunge?

For those who think that an half hour video presentation is not an exorbitant investment of time, here is a link to an article and video with a powerful amount of information. All of the information is supplied with the sources. Therefore it can be checked and validated.

The Real Newt Gingrich .

While this video presentation focuses particularly upon Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, it actually addresses the general movement of many in politics over the last few decades, especially at the national level.

If information about the candidates is a desire, this video will supply more than is easily absorbed in a single viewing.

- - -

Pollsters and Decepticons

Many people throughout the world have been exposed to the “Transformers” movies, cartoons, toys, and action figures. The Transformers are a divided race of autonomous robots, split into warring factions called Decepticons and Autobots. Can you tell them apart?



These are their symbols:





The truth is that both are decepticons. They both work through deception. They both hide who they really are when they deem it to be expedient. They change their very shapes for the purpose of concealment while they pursue their agendas.

They can be distinguished from one another, however, through several attributes that cannot be hidden. They differ in the color of the light of their eyes, one red the other blue, matching the color of their life spark. They differ in the shapes of their heads and appendages, one very sinister and animalish the other softened and more anthropomorphic. Moreover their ultimate agendas and interaction with others, especially with humans, differ greatly.

When a pollster calls our house, I assume that I am being contacted by a Decepticon. I know that not all pollsters are Decepticons, but I almost never hear from the honest ones. And the ones that are commonly reported in the media are nearly always Decepticons.

The Republican Decepticons won’t even talk to me anymore. They call and ask for my wife, by name. When I tell them that she does not want to speak with them but that I will speak with them, they hang up. They already know who I am and what I will say. I don’t change my form or appearance for the sake of expediency, and I don’t allow myself to be polled in a manner that misrepresents me.

Most polls are absolutely deceptive in their design. For example:

“Do you agree with Obama on healthcare? Yes or No.”

In some parts yes and some parts no. This is not a valid yes or no question. It is designed so that it can be interpreted in ways that completely misrepresent my opinion.

“Do you believe that all Americans should have health insurance? Yes or no.”

Yes, I believe that with the current abusive health care costs that all Americans should have health insurance because the system is designed so that those who pay cash are overcharged exorbitantly. But I do not believe that all Americans should be forced to pay for health insurance and I especially do not believe that those who take the responsibility should be forced to pay for those who do not.

“Do you believe in climate change? Yes or no.”

Yes, of course I do, you idiot. It changes constantly, moment to moment. It changes daily. It changes weekly. It changes seasonally. It changes annually. It changes cyclically. It changes with solar flares. It changes locally. It changes regionally. It changes from day and night. It changes globally. But do I believe in the Algorist propaganda? That is an entirely different matter.

When pollsters call, I first ask whom they represent. If they will not tell me then I refuse to partake of the poll. I usually give pollsters a chance to ask a few questions so as to learn the type of questions. If the questions are rigged, I end my participation. Very few pollsters prove to be honest. Most whom I encounter are Decepticons.

Often these polls have far reaching impact. The interpretation of the results are used by many. Usually those who use these interpreted figures do not investigate to learn the basis of the interpretations, but rather, simply use the interpretations in accord with their own agendas.

Is this honest? No. But it also is not always deliberate dishonesty, or at least, it is not always planned dishonesty. We do not always evaluate our own motives to determine whether or not we are being honest, and so we proceed as if honesty can be presumed from ignorance.

Christians are notorious for this. Taking a minimalist view toward the doctrine of the Bible has led to horrible dishonesty and misrepresentation of that doctrine. Who can even count the number of different Christian religions who ultimately profess to believe in the same God, even though they interpret the words of the Bible differently from one another, usually differently than they actually stand written and apart from their proper context, and to very different ends?

Many other religions are misrepresented from their actual writings and doctrines as well. For example, I know a very nice Muslim gentleman with whom I have occasional conversations. From him I have learned some very disturbing things about the USA’s actions in Iraq. Yet this man is glad for the good things that the USA has done as well. He simply openly acknowledges the other things as well. But regarding Islam, when I responded to some of his comments about what the Quran actually teaches, his response was that one has to read between the lines. In other words, he picks and chooses, interpreting the religion according to what he considers to be expedient, just like most Christians. So he is really no more Muslim than most Christians are Christian.

In case you are wondering, this does all relate to the issue of the Decepticon pollsters.

I recently read a blog post entitled, “Comparing Least Religious Countries With Most Religious - Do We Need Religion to Thrive as a Society?” If you wish to read it, you’ll have to find it for yourself, because the article is not my focus. Rather, the quoted poll interpretation is my focus. The intent of the article is very plain from the title. Reading this article led me to investigate further. Of the countries reported by this Gallup poll is Estonia, a country of which I knew nothing. So I decided to learn about this country that Gallup reports to be the world’s least religious country, listing it as only 14% religious.

I found another article entitled Estonians least religious in the world. I share this one because it quotes the question that was used to reach this determination. I will quote the first three paragraphs from this article:

     Five EU members figure among the world's top 10 least religious countries, with Estonia leading the list, a new poll has shown.

     Just 14 percent of Estonians answered positively to the question: "Is religion an important part of your daily life?" according to a poll released by Gallup earlier this week.

     Estonia is followed by Nordic countries Sweden and Denmark, where 17 and 18 percent of those asked answered positively to the same question.

The question presented to those polled was:

“Is religion an important part of your daily life?”

From this Gallup then determines that 14% of the people of Estonia are religious! What a Decepticon move!

How many different ways can this question be understood or misunderstood?

Is this the same as asking people whether or not they count themselves as being religious?

How can anyone know how people would have responded if they had been asked, “Do you consider yourself to be non-religious?” Or how about, “Do you consider yourself to be a religious person?” Or how about, “Do you consider religion to play any role in your life?” Or how about even, “Do you consider religion to be important in your life?”

This Gallup question was designed to allow for the interpretation that was presented. It was not designed to be objective and to obtain data that truly represents the issue being evaluated.

At Visitestonia.com a person could very easily reach a very different conclusion. On the first page of the site, one of the currently highlighted articles is Tallinn Christmas market praised as one of the best in Europe. From the following featured photograph, would one assume this to be promoted as a secular or non-religious festival?



On their Estonian Culture page one of the highlighted links is Religion in Estonia with this featured photograph and information as the link.

Again, from that page on their web site:

Religion In Estonia

Since the 16th century, Estonia has been a predominantly protestant (Lutheran) country.

According to them, this predominance has survived the attempts of the Soviets to discourage all religious activity.

Short of a total ban, the Soviets did everything possible to discourage religious activity during their occupation of Estonia. Open believers were banned from most senior jobs.

Services are held in English every Sunday in the Lutheran Holy Ghost Church in Tallinn.

Here the tourism industry seems to take pride in the religious activities of their people, advertising it as a point that they want visitors to notice. They openly declare their country to be a “predominantly protestant (Lutheran) country.” They say that it has been this way since the 16th century.

Does this cause one to wonder about how honestly Gallup’s question and interpretation represent reality? Do Gallup’s question and interpretation honestly reflect how Estonians view themselves and desire to be represented? I certainly do not get that impression from their tourism web site.

Perhaps people should take into account the ways of the Decepticon pollsters before forming conclusions like the one suggested by the title of the article that moved me to take up this investigative endeavor: “Comparing Least Religious Countries With Most Religious - Do We Need Religion to Thrive as a Society?”

Even if the pollsters were not Decepticons and the people of various countries were as nonreligious as the Decepticons present, would that actually lead to the conclusion that the centuries of religious influence on people and their views and their ways has been erased? Has the influence of the teaching of the Ten Commandments been completely eradicated in the United States by the agenda of the activist judges who have removed them from government schools and other public places where they were displayed and even taught? Is it really true that what we have today in the way of morality can be counted as a non-product of the centuries of religious activity and influence? Even if the majority of people now counted themselves to be nonreligious, would that necessarily mean that the positive and beneficial views that they hold do not have ties to the influence that the religious have taught previously?

From the other perspective, does the obvious hypocrisy of many who counted and do count themselves as religious negate what has been taught through their religions? Who can honestly examine the Ten Commandments and not count their precepts to be good? Who can hear the doctrine of “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and not see how that benefits society?

Anyone who has ever heard of the Christian faith has heard this doctrine as well as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

What would you expect the results to show of a poll asking: “Does atheism teach love for neighbor?” or “Does the removal of all religious influence lead to more kindly relations between people in society?” And if your poll showed that the majority of people held one of these views, would it mean that it was so? Or vice versa?

It is amazing how blindly we can pursue a presupposed notion. In this particular connection, do people completely forget history? When people look to polls and even statistics regarding wealthy and powerful nations and societies that migrate from their previous following of religion and the ideals of that religion, do they forget that this has been the pattern displayed throughout history? Have not all of the nations begun as the poorer nations who looked to religion and the established precepts? As these goodly precepts promoted peace and unity the nation prospered, even when in some the precepts were not all good. As the prosperity and power increased, the people became less and less convinced of the necessity of devotion to their religion. Eventually the nation or civilization no longer resembled itself and the unity disintegrated and it fell, only to start over again as a poor and powerless people who focused again upon the precepts of religion. With one exception, new gods and religious systems were established. In the one case, each time the people returned to the same God and Scriptures and instead of inventing a new religion, returned to the constancy of what had been passed down from generations before. That religion has circumscribed the world.

Interestingly, the poll that is quoted in the references above is from the Gallup article of February 9, 2009, What Alabamians and Iranians Have in Common.

A more recent report from 2009 is listed at the August 31, 2010 article Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations.

The most recent report that I have been able to find is at Gallop Global Reports. To view it one must scroll downward and click on Religion. This report is dated 2010.

It is certainly interesting to observe that according to these successive reports the percentage who answered yes to the question has increased each year from 14% in the earlier poll to 17% in the most recent poll. While this should not be taken too seriously, especially on account of the nature of the question, it certainly does not support the conclusion that the country is becoming less religious and that the people are counting themselves less dependent upon religion in their lives. It does seem to indicate one thing: that those who are thinking of themselves as religious may now be answering in a way that would indicate that they think of it more in terms of daily importance rather than general importance.

But it is just a poll and a statement of opinions utilizing a very faulty system of data gathering and analysis. In my evaluation we would be better off simply to say “No” to pollsters and deal directly with one another as loving neighbors and brethren.

+ + +

You lied to me by telling me the truth?

In the movie Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides there is an amazingly perverse but true to life conversation. I quote it below but it can also be read here or heard at POTC: Angelica lies to Jack by telling him the truth.

Angelica: I need years, Jack. Not for me. For my father. I am truly the daughter of Blackbeard.
Jack Sparrow: You've fallen for your own con, love.
Angelica: No. He is my father. The lies I told you were not lies.
Jack Sparrow: You lied to me by telling me the truth?
Angelica: Yes.
Jack Sparrow: That's very good. May I use that?
Angelica: I'm sure you will anyway.
Jack Sparrow: Mmm, of course I will.

Another quote reflecting perverse reality is when Jack says: “The Black Pearl in a bottle? Why is the Black Pearl in a bottle?”

If one desires it can be heard at: POTC: Ship's in the bottle .


It is astounding to realize how often the truth is misused in the manner that Jack discovers through Angelica’s use of the truth to deceive him. When the truth is spoken apart from its context it misleads and deceives. When the truth is spoken in connection with people’s false presuppositions so as to allow them to form their own conclusions regarding the statement based upon their false presuppositions, deception is the result. This is true also when a false presupposition is first stated or alluded as truth and then the true statement is made.

The devil boldly attempted this with the Lord Jesus. It worked on other humans with great success. But Jesus is the Truth. The Truth cannot be deceived or overcome by misuse of true statements. The Truth is more than the sum of the many and various articles and particular true statements. And so, Jesus did not argue with the devil. He did not try to prove the truth. He simply countered the misuse of a true statement with another true statement that showed the false and wrong use of the first statement. (Matthew 4:1-11)

If the first Adam had done this, his wife would not have been deceived. Instead, he stood by and allowed her to defend the truth with her own reason. He listened as she added to the Word that he had taught her and did not interject with a loving and gentle corrective. Good intentioned people have added their own presumptive reasoning to the Word ever since. Once this occurs, the Truth is lost to them and they move ever farther from it in their own deluded perception.

The woman, whom her husband later in the loving response produced by the Gospel renamed Eve, or Life, imagined that she had to overcome the misuse of God’s Word with additional requirements or restrictions. The devil spoke the truth deceptively. God did say not to eat of every tree of the garden, but He did not say it in this way. Moreover, by presenting it as a question, the devil craftily inferred that it was something to question. He challenged the woman’s understanding, to which she responded defensively rather than simply responding in faith. She could have simply responded saying: “Yes. That is correct. He told us not to eat of every tree. The one tree is not for us to eat.” But instead, she decided to add an additional restriction, she added that God said that they neither could touch it. Once she made this false addition, she was no longer protected by the Word of God. Now she had begun to rely upon her own self and her own reason.

Notice that the devil did not come to tempt the Man, but the woman who heard the Word through the Man. Moreover, the devil did not present his temptation directly as an mighty angel, but through a lesser creature, a very beautiful creature, one that would not have caused alarm. This was one of the creatures that Adam named, one that had been placed under Adam’s province. Through it the devil could speak without being obvious. A simple question coming from a lower creature would not seem out of place., especially since this command was not given to the lower creatures but only to Adam and all who were generated through him and of him.

In the movie Jack Sparrow says: “The Black Pearl in a bottle? Why is the Black Pearl in a bottle?” If Adam had known who was in the serpent, he would have asked what an angel was doing in the serpent. Jack is a wicked man who surrounds himself with deception and acts deceptively and wickedly. It is no surprise that he would encounter a deceptive use of the truth and then want to use make use of that himself. Adam was innocent and naive to such things, yet once he became a son of the deceiver, he, too, turned to more deception, trying to hide his nakedness, that is, his openly manifested sinfulness, with inventions of his own, namely, fig leaves sewn together.

The Truth, spoken honestly and forthrightly, ends the facade. It shows God for who He really is, and in contrast, sinners for who they have become. The Truth shows the depths of God’s love, how far it reaches, how far it moves Him on our behalf. His sunshine does not shine only for believers, but for all. His rain falls upon both as well. He came to the world, born as a man, to give Himself to us and for us, taking our sin and our consequences. He rose again with the same humanity still as His own, so that the renewed relationship or communion would be absolute. He established His Church so that this Truth would be proclaimed and received. Through His means of grace administered in this Church people continue to be called out of the darkness into His light of forgiveness and restoration and healing and peace.

The devil hid himself in a creature in order to deceive. The Lord manifested Himself in Jesus to make the Truth known. The devil continues to deceive through convincing mankind that the truth can be found through a microscope and through conjecture. The Lord comes to us visibly as a man and openly declares the Truth, leaving no room for conjecture. And to those who hear Him and are moved to believe His Word again, they find that things really are just as they have been told.

      And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

+ + +

Have a Farcical Christmas — Not

Merry Christmas!

What does this mean?

Some add, “Keep Christ in Christmas!” or “Jesus is the reason for the season!”

Do these really give a more clear definition and better understanding?

All of these are good sayings. But do those who use them even understand what they mean?

Below is a video that was produced by an atheist. It contains the words “damn” and “hell” as expletives. When I first viewed it on the website of a recent blogger acquaintance, I had to turn it off because of the anger that I experienced regarding the farcical perspective from which it displays faith in God.

But then I asked myself, “But who is presenting this farcical perspective?”

I myself cry out against this as I observe it amongst those professing to be believers. I will explain this further below the video.

Be warned that this video is offensive. It attacks religion and religionists and especially targets Christians. It also contains offensive expletives. It is about the same as watching David Letterman or a typical TV sitcom, or at least from what I remember of these from when I watched TV.

If God Were a Car


There are plenty of fallacies in the presentation of this attack on Christians and the God of the Bible that I could address, things that are dishonestly presented because they misrepresent what the Christian faith actually teaches. Sadly, however, those who prepared this video are accurately representing what they have experienced and observed. They are not the ones responsible for this farcical representation but are merely recording what they have observed from people claiming to be representatives of this faith.

I read on the profile page of one convert from Fundamentalistic Christianity to the religion of Atheism how badly she suffered under the pretense of Christian faith that she experienced. She shares how badly she still suffers from the abuses that she experienced from these charlatans. I know these abuses myself. I have witnessed others who have suffered them. Moreover, I, too, have been severely abused by those pretending to be representatives of Christ and His faith and Church.

As this video very vividly portrays, the so-called Christian Church that predominates the landscape has no unity of doctrine, except to say that in some way or other Jesus is believed in.

The most farcical of the representations of the Christian faith are those made by the so-called Conservative Christians. They pat themselves on the back for their self-purported faithfulness to the true faith while they do not adhere to it. They write marvelous expositions of what the Bible says, but then deny it within their fellowships and church bodies and synods.

As one who grew up within that which calls itself the Elsie Mess, or the LC-MesS, the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, I will use my own experience as the example.

The LC-MS claims to be a stalwart bastion of the Christian faith. She prides herself on the fact that she demands that her pastors give a quia subscription to the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. She boasts of unity in doctrine and practice.

As one example of this farcical claim, I heard today of a congregation of the LC-MS in which on the altar/table of the Lord’s Supper the pastor and congregation set two sets of chalices and of the individualistic communion trays. One set has wine. The other set has grape juice.

This is the Sacrament and particularly the portion that the Lord Jesus named as The New Testament in His blood. (1 Corinthians 11:25) This is the very definition of the Church of the New Testament. Yet even within one congregation there are FOUR divisions/schisms regarding how they partake of it. Where is the unity of which the apostle speaks in the preceding chapter? Even within the same congregation there exists no unity regarding how to partake of the blood of Christ?!

What does this say of those who say “I believe”? What does this say of them when they say that they are one in the faith? What do they believe together as one? How will anyone observe oneness among them?

And what of the LC-MS? Where is the unity? Their president says that he believes that it may someday be possible to achieve 80 percent unity, and the conservatives and confessionals applaud him for this. 80 percent unity? What does this mean? What honest person speaks of such? This is what one expects from those seeking political office. Where does the Bible in which they claim to believe speak of 80% of anything? Yet this stalwart bastion of faithfulness to the Bible admits that even 50 percent unity is not even a reality but only a goal.

From this, then, the landscape broadens to the many schisms that are so vast that the various confessions do not even resemble one another. Yet they all claim to be Church. Not only this, but they generally even acknowledge one another as Church.

So what is the person from the outside to conclude?

This video very aptly shows what is concluded.

Who can effectively argue against their conclusion?

This evening, throughout the world, Christmas will be celebrated. By most it will be entirely a farcical observance.

But Christmas is very real. The Christ who gives Himself in the Mass is real. His gifts are real. His gifts are real gifts, given freely, without charge. The peace on earth and goodwill toward men heralded by the angels is real, when it is received where it is promised, in the Christ Mass, administered as it was ordained by the one who performs what He promises.

The needy do receive what their hearts long to receive. The poor are blessed in their spirits and bodies. They gather to the One who comes through gentle means that can be tasted and felt and seen. Though He has ascended far above to do for His beloved what He has promised and so cannot be seen with the eyes in the bodily form in which He walked with His disciples and touched the sick with healing and the hurting with comfort and then gave Himself bodily to suffering and death on their behalf, nevertheless, He has provided means by which He does come today bodily to work the same miracles. In His true Church the saints do gather to these means and they do receive healing and comfort and forgiveness and regeneration and peace and justification and sanctification and true unity and goodwill.

If those who have been injured by frauds and those who have been deceived into believing that no-god is all there is, if such souls desire more, this God offers Himself freely for the everlasting blessing of all who will hear and receive Him. The price tag is far greater than the $15,000.00 demanded in the video, but the price has already been paid by this God Himself. This is what the babe born in Bethlehem is, the price of our everlasting blessedness. This is God’s only-begotten Son, given for the sake of the redemption of the world from all that is awry. This is the price that only God could pay. And it has been paid.

This truly is cause for rejoicing. This is cause for celebration! This truly is Joy to the Word, for the Lord IS Come. His blessings flow far as the curse is found. In this person, this little baby, the power to drive the farce back into the darkness is with us in flesh and blood. The table is prepared. All is ready. He stands and calls to one and all to partake freely, in accord with His promise and Word. Come and see that the Lord is good and His mercy endures forever!

+ + +

Honestly

If a person is said to be the most honest person that one knows, what is really being said about that person?

Can a person that is mostly honest be trusted?

If a person declares that lying is sometimes appropriate, can that person ever be trusted?

If a person declares that lying is sometimes appropriate, is that person not declaring that lying is always appropriate, if that person determines the circumstance to warrant it?

If a person is said to be the most honest person that one knows, is this not equal to saying that the person is dishonest?

+ + +

Meaning of Mormon

At another blog, christian-with-a-view, is posted an article entitled: RESPONSE TO A READER.

Here is the opening section:

Monday, October 10, 2011
RESPONSE TO A READER
The reader said: "So what would you do if I told you that, having read both several times, and having prayed about them both, the Book of Mormon is truly the word of God, and it does not contradict the teachings of the Bible........"

The author of the blog proceeds to give a series of quotations from the Book Mormon, showing valid examples of how the Book of Mormon directly contradicts the doctrine of the Bible. To see the examples that he gives, please visit the post at his site. He also gives a quote from the Mormons’ Doctrine and Covenants, demonstrating one example of how this Mormon book of doctrine additionally contradicts the Book of Mormon.

In this post, I do not intend to try to disprove the Book of Mormon. Rather, I want to address the issue raised by the questioner regarding praying to God regarding knowing the truth. Certainly we are to pray to God with this request. However, is this to be prayed as the Mormons presume? For that matter, is it to be prayed as most Christians presume?

Before I address this, however, I would like to exercise and stretch some learning.

For the moment, I draw attention to the meaning of the word mormon.

At Mormon Meaning and Definition Thinkexist.com has the following:

Mormon Meaning and Definition

1. (n.) A genus of sea birds, having a large, thick bill; the puffin.
2. (a.) Of or pertaining to the Mormons; as, the Mormon religion; Mormon practices.
3. (n.) One of a sect in the United States, followers of Joseph Smith, who professed to have found an addition to the Bible, engraved on golden plates, called the Book of Mormon, first published in 1830. The Mormons believe in polygamy, and their hierarchy of apostles, etc., has control of civil and religious matters.
4. (n.) The mandrill.
5. (n.) A member of a sect, called the Reorganized Church of Jesus of Latterday Saints, which has always rejected polygamy. It was organized in 1852, and is represented in about forty States and Territories of the United States.

I searched the Internet for “meaning of mormon,” wanting to see whether perhaps the word had any meaning besides that of the person invented by Joseph Smith and the apparition that approached him with this amazing revelation. Lo and behold, I learned meanings to the word that I had never imagined.

The first listed meaning is “A genus of sea birds, having a large, thick bill; the puffin.”

I am an Animal Science bachelor, and I did not learn this in my undergraduate studies. But I am pleased to be made aware of this fact now. (I suppose that if I had read ALL of the material in my textbooks that perhaps this genus was listed somewhere that I overlooked. But then again, perhaps not.) At any rate, I believe that it would be reasonable to assume that Joseph Smith did not know this either.

Even more curiously I noted the fourth definition: The mandrill.

I had to look this up as I had NO idea what a mandrill is. Do you know? If so, Wow!

Oxforddictionaries.com has mandrill listed.

mandrill(man·drill)

noun

a large West African baboon with a brightly colored red and blue face, the male having a blue rump.

* Mandrillus sphinx, family Cercopithecidae

Origin:
mid 18th century: probably from man + drill

This was a surprise to me. Interestingly enough, this word existed at the time of Joseph Smith’s encounter with Moroni. It seems that he would have been surprised to know this.


I have a copy of the Book of Mormon, ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ (Something that St. Paul specifically and vehemently condemns)(Galatians 1:6-9). I cannot currently find my copy as it must be buried in one of my many piles. However, it is available on-line, a resource which I will utilize in connection with this posting.

Returning to the question of praying to God to reveal the truth, how do the Mormons actually pray this? How one prays makes a difference, as James says in Chapter 4:

Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. (James 4:3)

So how do the Mormons pray concerning this issue? They state this in their Introduction to the Book of Mormon.

We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10:3–5.)

Here is what is written in Moroni 10:3-5:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

There are two very important points to consider in reading this admonition.

First one should realize that the answer to the prayer has already been determined by the one praying. The person has already determined that this Other Testament of Jesus Christ must be from God and that God will therefore make it manifest to the praying one that it is indeed the truth.

The second thing to consider is that this admonition declares that this manifestation of this truth is dependent upon the intent of the one praying. That is, if the person prays this prayer believing that the Book of Mormon is true, then the answer that will be received is that the Book of Mormon is true.

The second is really a reiteration of the first.

Another way of saying this is to say that a person should pray to God to show one that the Book of Mormon is true, being convinced that God will show that the Book of Mormon is true, and to keep praying this until one is convinced that his desire to believe that the Book of Mormon is true is a desire that the Holy Ghost is working in the person so that the person will be convinced that it is God’s will that one should believe that the Book of Mormon is true.

Does this sound circular?

When Moses presented the two tablets of the Ten Words or Commandments, did he tell the people to pray to God to show them that this really was the Word of God and that it is true and to be received as true? No, in fact, Moses had to tear down the idolatrous notions and punish them for their false prayers so that they could receive the words that God wrote with His own finger. The Lord already made it manifest that this was His doing. For the forty days that Moses was on the mountain the mountain trembled and caught on fire! Nothing was done in secret! No one had to ask afterward whether or not this was truly from the Lord.

The first Testament was given to keep the people in the Word that declared the coming of the Christ. All of the prophets pointed to this. The birth and ministry and sacrificial death of Christ was the fulfillment of that Testament.

Having fulfilled that Testament Christ instituted the New Testament, His own Testament. And what does He say is the New Testament? He says that it is the cup by which His blood is given for the forgiveness of sins.

Now, how hard will a person have to pray to fulfill this testament so that another testament should be instituted?

But this is the problem. Who is responsible for accepting this Other Testament? The person praying is responsible. The person must decide to accept this Other Testament so as to pray for God to manifest it as true. This is why it is impossible to present anything from the Bible that will convince a person who has so prayed that the Book of Mormon is not of God. The person has already convinced oneself that this is of God and has prayed it into oneself so determinedly that to deny it is to deny oneself.

And this denial of self is what the Bible teaches that Jesus says is necessary for one to be a true disciple of Him. (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23)

If a person is unwilling to deny oneself and one’s own prayers, how can a person hear when God says that one is praying wrongly? How can a person hear when God speaks a word of correction if that person has already determined to pray until God says that the truth that the person is praying to be manifested is true? If a person is convinced that the burning in one’s bosom that comes from praying so hard to be convinced that this is true is proof of its truth, how can this burning be distinguished from the burning that the Holy Spirit works when He convinces the person of being wrong?

If the person has already determined to count the burning in one’s bosom as proof that the Book of Mormon is correct and truly from God, will it be possible to hear what the Bible says to the contrary?

Doctrine and Covenants 9:8

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

Does the God of the Bible ever teach to pray this way? Does the Lord Jesus ever teach His disciples to pray this way? To what does Jesus tell people to look for evidence that His doctrine is true? Is it not to His works? Is it not to the fact that everything that He says matches perfectly with the will of God as it is taught in the Scriptures? Is this not the way of His apostles also?

To what does Jesus say that the Scriptures testify?

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:39)

Is this what the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants teach? Is this how they say to pray and to look to know the truth?

Is this the way that most Christians pray for understanding and knowledge of the truth? Or do most Christians approach the doctrine of the Bible in the same way as the Book of Mormon teaches?

By the way, do you know who else urges people to pray and to consider God’s Word in this way? Do you know who else teaches people to seek understanding through their own attempts at understanding God’s will and what is right and good and true?

     Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:1-5)

Do you see the problem here? How did the serpent urge the woman (and her husband who stood there allowing it instead of doing his duty in teaching the Word) to approach knowing what is true? He presented to her the notion that it is proper to examine the Word of God regarding its validity. Moreover, he tempted her to imagine that she needed to defend the Word with her own wisdom.

How many Christians approach understanding and knowing truth in this same way? How many imagine that they should interpret the Word that the Scriptures declare rather than seeking to hear the Word? How many Christians approach the doctrine taught in the Scriptures asking, “Did God really say?” Joseph Smith and his Moroni set an entirely other testament beside it. But how many Christians do likewise with their presuppositions, their doubts, and their worship? For example, how do people approach what the Scriptures teach concerning Baptism? Do they argue against the Scriptural doctrine that babies can have faith or do they accept the words of Acts 2:38-39; 1 Peter 3:20-21; and Titus 3:3-7? When they pray regarding what the words of the Scriptures say concerning this, how do they pray?

Now the Mormons pray to God to show them that the Book of Mormon stands along side of the Bible as being true. They assume that the Bible is true, but then pray concerning their Other Testament.

How do Christians pray regarding the Bible? How many Christians still even believe the Bible to be true? Of those who do still believe the Bible to be true, how many pray that they hear what the Bible teaches so as to deny themselves and their own faith so as to hear and be convicted of the faith that the Bible teaches? How many Christians even believe that God will do this? How many Christians want God to do this?

The Mormons decide what they want to hear from God and then pray that God will show them that they are right. They do not realize that this is what the Smith/Moroni team admonish them, but if they read their admonishments carefully and honestly they would realize this.

How about you? How do you pray? Who is leading your direction in your praying? Is it God? Is it a church body or church leader? Is it you? Is it someone even more fiendish? Have you even seriously pondered this so as to be sure?


+ + +

I was curious whether perhaps the site above could have made up the information regarding the genus mormon. I found a direct reference here.

+ + +

I also decided to double check the reference to mormon and mandrill. Here is one of the links that I found, which includes a black and white picture. Here is another.

Just to be thorough.

+ + +