Thursday, March 09, 2006
News Of the Day/Week
Here Are not all the news items, but the most interesting to me.
Ports Deal
More On Ports
Wall-mart, Target, Cosco, Kroeger Etc. Look Out!
Africa News
Isreal's Fight Continues
How Many Times Will This Have to Happen?
An Ounce of Prevention Saves Lives
World Magazine On SD Abortion Law
Portugal's New Prez
Mozambique Economic Growth (In Portuguese)
Good Reviews of Portuguese Prez (in Portuguese)
Water Is Not Life, But...
Iran Bad, Then What?
Iran, Iran Who Is Picking the Fights?
French Going Postal
Transitional Life Form, Or Creative Designer?
China Banters With USA
Philippines Trouble
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
The Nature of Sin
Understanding what happens in Genesis three is extremely important to all of theology. Every Bible teacher has strong opinions on this passage, and every Bible teacher differs slightly with every other Bible teacher. The reason is that the manner in which sin came to earth is very important to the definition of sin and its consequences. I will attempt to introduce these themes today.
(All quotes MKJV) "Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made." I already dealt with some of that in the last time, but it is evident that this serpent was "cunning" in the sense that he had a scheme and a plan. His plan was to attack and overturn God's program for creation. "And he said to the woman, Is it so that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Here most Bible teachers agree that Satan is deceptively asserting a slight alteration of what God actually said. Grammatically, it is a little ambiguous as to whether or not Satan is asking how many trees are free or how many are prohibited. I think that is part of the point. By questioning God's revelation, the confusion began. Let me say this clearly: language started to be confused as soon as sin entered the picture.
Eve's response is likewise a little different from the actual revelation God had given. She said that They were free to eat all except the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." Of that tree she said, "God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die." This is another slight confusion. I do not know if Adam added that they would not touch it, if Eve added it, or if God added it. The historical record does not say. I doubt the latter, because God said they were to keep and tend the garden. At any rate, it was different from What God had said, and the serpent did not introduce the difference. Up to this point, we have a confusion introduced by the serpent and a confusion introduced by Eve.
The serpent's response is clear and not confused. "And the serpent said to the woman, 'You shall not surely die.'" This was a directly opposite claim to that of God. Then, the serpent alledged that God feared their wisdom reaching His level, and that they could reach God's wisdom by disobeying God. This is very contrary to what God had said and contrary to God Himself. As much as the temptation had confusion and deception, this was very clear. Eve was going to choose either based on God's authority or some other authority.
She chose the other authority. According to verse six, I believe that Eve used the authority of the serpent's "revelation" but ultimately her own selfish desires to choose. In the end, she set herself up to determine morality and truth. Much is made of the three aspects of fruit, eye-pleasure, and wisdom. Maybe so, but in the end, she chose based on rejecting God's revelation and authority. The same is true for Adam. Whatever his motive for eating what his wife gave him, he still had to reject God's revelation and authority to do that.
This is at the heart of what sin is. It is rejecting God's authority, and establishing another. Solomon said, (Pro 1:7) " The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge; but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Sin is foolishness that rejects the very foundation of truth. When men deny God's existence, when men choose to act in place of God and contrary to God, when men build philosophical structures to hide God from their science, culture, society, and every day life, they are at the heart of sin.
I forget the date, but I heard a reformed theologian (sorry), Dr Greg Bahnsen cited for this brief quote, speak about "the moral foundations of epistemology." On this point he was very right. He said that Eve's moral obligation was not just practical (to eat or not to eat), but also epistemic (truth based). Sin is not just doing something other than God says. It is fundamentally taking the right to judge the very truth itself apart from God. Adam, Eve, and the serpent were all guilty of this, and that is why God had to judge them.
(All quotes MKJV) "Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made." I already dealt with some of that in the last time, but it is evident that this serpent was "cunning" in the sense that he had a scheme and a plan. His plan was to attack and overturn God's program for creation. "And he said to the woman, Is it so that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Here most Bible teachers agree that Satan is deceptively asserting a slight alteration of what God actually said. Grammatically, it is a little ambiguous as to whether or not Satan is asking how many trees are free or how many are prohibited. I think that is part of the point. By questioning God's revelation, the confusion began. Let me say this clearly: language started to be confused as soon as sin entered the picture.
Eve's response is likewise a little different from the actual revelation God had given. She said that They were free to eat all except the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." Of that tree she said, "God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die." This is another slight confusion. I do not know if Adam added that they would not touch it, if Eve added it, or if God added it. The historical record does not say. I doubt the latter, because God said they were to keep and tend the garden. At any rate, it was different from What God had said, and the serpent did not introduce the difference. Up to this point, we have a confusion introduced by the serpent and a confusion introduced by Eve.
The serpent's response is clear and not confused. "And the serpent said to the woman, 'You shall not surely die.'" This was a directly opposite claim to that of God. Then, the serpent alledged that God feared their wisdom reaching His level, and that they could reach God's wisdom by disobeying God. This is very contrary to what God had said and contrary to God Himself. As much as the temptation had confusion and deception, this was very clear. Eve was going to choose either based on God's authority or some other authority.
She chose the other authority. According to verse six, I believe that Eve used the authority of the serpent's "revelation" but ultimately her own selfish desires to choose. In the end, she set herself up to determine morality and truth. Much is made of the three aspects of fruit, eye-pleasure, and wisdom. Maybe so, but in the end, she chose based on rejecting God's revelation and authority. The same is true for Adam. Whatever his motive for eating what his wife gave him, he still had to reject God's revelation and authority to do that.
This is at the heart of what sin is. It is rejecting God's authority, and establishing another. Solomon said, (Pro 1:7) " The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge; but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Sin is foolishness that rejects the very foundation of truth. When men deny God's existence, when men choose to act in place of God and contrary to God, when men build philosophical structures to hide God from their science, culture, society, and every day life, they are at the heart of sin.
I forget the date, but I heard a reformed theologian (sorry), Dr Greg Bahnsen cited for this brief quote, speak about "the moral foundations of epistemology." On this point he was very right. He said that Eve's moral obligation was not just practical (to eat or not to eat), but also epistemic (truth based). Sin is not just doing something other than God says. It is fundamentally taking the right to judge the very truth itself apart from God. Adam, Eve, and the serpent were all guilty of this, and that is why God had to judge them.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Freedom is Dangerous
I wrote a column once entitled "I Would Be a Liberal If It It Weren't For the Liberals." I have linked to a humorous fake article from a spoof website (caution advised) about how they seem to campaign on panic and despair.
Democrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness
I am reminded of that today with all of the news here in Portugal. They are fighting over a number of interesting issues. Someone is trying to outsource the government telephone company. The newly elected president is personally congratulated by former US President Bush (twilight zone music please). Gay marriage and abortion are at the forefront on social fronts, with pending court cases and Hollywood productions influencing the ideas. This week, a television company (in which Viacom has huge influence) launched a new program for news and views in the morning. We are all going to die of bird flu. As different as American culture and Portuguese culture seem on the surface, they really deal with the same things: morality, society, and justice.
One thing that really hits home, though is the issue of freedom of the press. Last night, there was a national debate over the prosecution of journalists and confiscation of investigative reports. The whole issue of this continues to be borne out of an ongoing fiasco with the infamous "Islamic Cartoons." A columnist in Britain was jailed, and an immigrant was expelled for speeches they made. Libel and innuendo seem to end up in courts easily. Prosecution for the stealing of "intellectual property," whatever that may be, is more active than any other crime area. As an aside, Charles Dickens lost a court case to block third party printing of his books because of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I defend the freedom of the press (even the right of Hollyweirders to make farces like "Brokeback Mountain" and "Transamerica") because I defend my own right to speak. The same power I would use to stop their anti-Christian messages could also be used to stop my Christian messages. At heart of the panic over issues and the freedom of the press is the heart of my disagreement with Democrats and Republicans and probably most other people is a fundamental disagreement over what society is itself.
A woefully poor use of language and logic is the ideal that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." This is so untrue that I am embarrassed to have to refute it. Whole is by definition the sum of its parts, nothing more, nothing less. The problem with society is that we band together to accomplish more, disagree, disband, fight, and fragment. Society only exists because of individuals. Without them it would not exist. Yet society by definition diminishes the role of the individual.
The idea that all of these issues but particularly the issue of the press is still being debated (will be after I am gone) is that people think that freedom is dangerous, and particularly freedom to inform or misinform. It is dangerous out there. Society has to protect us poor individuals from the liars and bad influences, from the mal-intented and the mis-informed?
People are saying all types of things. Christian speech has been progressively banned in America since before it began. Now, there is immense power being weilded to destroy any intellectual position that does not support the secularist religion. My response is not to ban secularism, as it seeks to ban Christianity, but to use my freedom of speech to speak out in favor of Christianity. The government cannot save us. Only the truth will set society free and protect it. Learn it, live it, give it.
I am reminded of that today with all of the news here in Portugal. They are fighting over a number of interesting issues. Someone is trying to outsource the government telephone company. The newly elected president is personally congratulated by former US President Bush (twilight zone music please). Gay marriage and abortion are at the forefront on social fronts, with pending court cases and Hollywood productions influencing the ideas. This week, a television company (in which Viacom has huge influence) launched a new program for news and views in the morning. We are all going to die of bird flu. As different as American culture and Portuguese culture seem on the surface, they really deal with the same things: morality, society, and justice.
One thing that really hits home, though is the issue of freedom of the press. Last night, there was a national debate over the prosecution of journalists and confiscation of investigative reports. The whole issue of this continues to be borne out of an ongoing fiasco with the infamous "Islamic Cartoons." A columnist in Britain was jailed, and an immigrant was expelled for speeches they made. Libel and innuendo seem to end up in courts easily. Prosecution for the stealing of "intellectual property," whatever that may be, is more active than any other crime area. As an aside, Charles Dickens lost a court case to block third party printing of his books because of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I defend the freedom of the press (even the right of Hollyweirders to make farces like "Brokeback Mountain" and "Transamerica") because I defend my own right to speak. The same power I would use to stop their anti-Christian messages could also be used to stop my Christian messages. At heart of the panic over issues and the freedom of the press is the heart of my disagreement with Democrats and Republicans and probably most other people is a fundamental disagreement over what society is itself.
A woefully poor use of language and logic is the ideal that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." This is so untrue that I am embarrassed to have to refute it. Whole is by definition the sum of its parts, nothing more, nothing less. The problem with society is that we band together to accomplish more, disagree, disband, fight, and fragment. Society only exists because of individuals. Without them it would not exist. Yet society by definition diminishes the role of the individual.
The idea that all of these issues but particularly the issue of the press is still being debated (will be after I am gone) is that people think that freedom is dangerous, and particularly freedom to inform or misinform. It is dangerous out there. Society has to protect us poor individuals from the liars and bad influences, from the mal-intented and the mis-informed?
People are saying all types of things. Christian speech has been progressively banned in America since before it began. Now, there is immense power being weilded to destroy any intellectual position that does not support the secularist religion. My response is not to ban secularism, as it seeks to ban Christianity, but to use my freedom of speech to speak out in favor of Christianity. The government cannot save us. Only the truth will set society free and protect it. Learn it, live it, give it.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Mission Work: The Worst Investment You Can Make
As I think over my life for the last several years, I wonder in disbelief. After arriving in America from Africa, I have farmed, worked construction, stocked and sold hardware, cut and hauled logs, worked in camps and VBS's, studied theology, missions, anthropology, linguistics, been to nearly every state in the USA (lower 48), traveled by train, bus, airplane and car, studied foreign languages, and invested literally hours of time and thousands of dollars in a future with little future. That is, I will yet have to invest more money in moving to Africa, and getting set up for work. The start up cost for this business is phenomenal. Well, that is how it is in all business. It takes a lot to get where you want to be. What makes missionary work such a bad investment is that it promises continuing financial failure. Rather than actually showing a profit from the time and money invested, the missionary continues to lose money by helping with healthcare and literacy programs, and paying for all sorts of things that the recipients will never be able to pay back. You may be asking yourself, "Arnie, if you cannot take it, why don't you just quit?" Well, you are right, I cannot take it alone, but I can do all things through Christ. Or worse, "Why don't you just dig a hole and pour your money into that? At least you can dig it up later, if you remember where you put it." Here is my answer.
That is where I have led you astray. I am not in this "business" for the business. I am doing this because all of this investment is worth the lives and future of a church that would not otherwise exist. I heard it once said that ministry is like this: "the pay stinks, but the benefits are out of this world." As cheesy as that may sound, I really agree. I am willing to risk the "wasting" of all that capital for the sake of the gospel. Rather than economic entrepreneurship or social entrepreneurship, I believe in spiritual entrepreneurship. It is like Paul said in Second Corinthians about motivation. He did not say that it was about the motivation of returns, but that "the love of Christ constrains us."
I do not know the details of my future. I do know this. I am so happy for having come this far, and I will keep trusting God to lead me into the future, and to keep me content no matter what the future holds. Right now, I am studying Portuguese for future use in Africa. I have found another hill to climb, which we call the subjunctive mood. But it is worth it. The gospel needs to be shared around the world, and I want to have an integral part in that.
Please pray for my Portuguese studies. Please pray for the continued work in Mozambique.
That is where I have led you astray. I am not in this "business" for the business. I am doing this because all of this investment is worth the lives and future of a church that would not otherwise exist. I heard it once said that ministry is like this: "the pay stinks, but the benefits are out of this world." As cheesy as that may sound, I really agree. I am willing to risk the "wasting" of all that capital for the sake of the gospel. Rather than economic entrepreneurship or social entrepreneurship, I believe in spiritual entrepreneurship. It is like Paul said in Second Corinthians about motivation. He did not say that it was about the motivation of returns, but that "the love of Christ constrains us."
I do not know the details of my future. I do know this. I am so happy for having come this far, and I will keep trusting God to lead me into the future, and to keep me content no matter what the future holds. Right now, I am studying Portuguese for future use in Africa. I have found another hill to climb, which we call the subjunctive mood. But it is worth it. The gospel needs to be shared around the world, and I want to have an integral part in that.
Please pray for my Portuguese studies. Please pray for the continued work in Mozambique.
