Faith That Can Be Seen
Luke 5:2, 20, "I will let down the net. ... And when he saw their faith..."
WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?
• Simon and those with him (including James and John, and likely Andrew) were told, "Let down your nets," but only Simon responded, and Simon agreed, but only to letting down one net,c which he then let's down and is astonished by the miracle.
• The men who brought the sick of the palsy, on the other hand, weren't even asked of Christ to bring this man. And Christ is said to have so seen their faith... that He responded to it, and healed the man.
WHAT DOES THE TEXT MEAN?
• God didn't ask to perform miracles by then, He commanded them to "launch out" and "let down the nets." In truth, because he commanded, and not asked, He expected them to obey, and then planned to perform a miracle. He did perform a miracle, even though they didn't really, fully obey.
• When God didn't ask nor command these men, but they sought Him out in faith in order to happily find Him and see Him perform a miracle. It wasn't for the sake of the miracle that they sought Him, but because only He could do what this man needed and they believed that He would.
WHAT DOES THE TEXT REQUIRE?
• When God asks, what will I do? Less than is required of me? Or will I obey? 2 Corinthians 9:6–7; James 4:17.
• When God doesn't ask, what will I do? Less than He is able? Or will I trust Him? Hebrews 11:1, 6; Romans 14:23.
Luke 5:2, 20, "I will let down the net. ... And when he saw their faith..."
WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?
• Simon and those with him (including James and John, and likely Andrew) were told, "Let down your nets," but only Simon responded, and Simon agreed, but only to letting down one net,c which he then let's down and is astonished by the miracle.
• The men who brought the sick of the palsy, on the other hand, weren't even asked of Christ to bring this man. And Christ is said to have so seen their faith... that He responded to it, and healed the man.
WHAT DOES THE TEXT MEAN?
• God didn't ask to perform miracles by then, He commanded them to "launch out" and "let down the nets." In truth, because he commanded, and not asked, He expected them to obey, and then planned to perform a miracle. He did perform a miracle, even though they didn't really, fully obey.
• When God didn't ask nor command these men, but they sought Him out in faith in order to happily find Him and see Him perform a miracle. It wasn't for the sake of the miracle that they sought Him, but because only He could do what this man needed and they believed that He would.
WHAT DOES THE TEXT REQUIRE?
• When God asks, what will I do? Less than is required of me? Or will I obey? 2 Corinthians 9:6–7; James 4:17.
• When God doesn't ask, what will I do? Less than He is able? Or will I trust Him? Hebrews 11:1, 6; Romans 14:23.
Who's Controlling You?
"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. ... AND TAKE THE HELMET OF SALVATION..."—Ephesians 6:10–19
Why the helmet of salvation?
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations..."—2 Corinthians 10:3–6
Because the battle is primarily in the mind...
He who controls the mind controls the man.
"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night."—Psalm 1:1–2
"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. ... AND TAKE THE HELMET OF SALVATION..."—Ephesians 6:10–19
Why the helmet of salvation?
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations..."—2 Corinthians 10:3–6
Because the battle is primarily in the mind...
He who controls the mind controls the man.
"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night."—Psalm 1:1–2
Searching to Find
Joh 5:38, "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Jesus was speaking to Jews (v18) that were religious (v39) but they weren't actually obedient to God's Word from the heart, because they didn't really believe the Scriptures, literally (v40, v45). And because they did not believe God's Word literally, they did not believe Christ and His words (vv40–46, esp v46).
These Jews read the Scriptures, but didn't really take the Word of God seriously. For them, the Bible wasn't as necessary as bread (Proverbs 2; Matthew 4:4). Their lack of searching the Scriptures seeking to find God Himself demonstrated their lack of love for God's Word (2 Thessalonians 2:10). And because they loved not God's Word, how could they believe it?
They read the Scriptures as a part of some religious activity, but not in order to find the God of the Scriptures.
Loving God's Word is a choice; believing God's Word is a choice. Having a casual approach to God's Word is a religious activity—having a passionate approach to God's Word leads to life, because it leads to Him. Reading the Bible is something anyone can do. Studying God's Word is something few actually do.
Are you reading the Bible as some religious activity? Or are you searching the Scriptures to find Him?
https://www.wayoflife.org/publications/abss/understanding_the_bible.php
Joh 5:38, "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Jesus was speaking to Jews (v18) that were religious (v39) but they weren't actually obedient to God's Word from the heart, because they didn't really believe the Scriptures, literally (v40, v45). And because they did not believe God's Word literally, they did not believe Christ and His words (vv40–46, esp v46).
These Jews read the Scriptures, but didn't really take the Word of God seriously. For them, the Bible wasn't as necessary as bread (Proverbs 2; Matthew 4:4). Their lack of searching the Scriptures seeking to find God Himself demonstrated their lack of love for God's Word (2 Thessalonians 2:10). And because they loved not God's Word, how could they believe it?
They read the Scriptures as a part of some religious activity, but not in order to find the God of the Scriptures.
Loving God's Word is a choice; believing God's Word is a choice. Having a casual approach to God's Word is a religious activity—having a passionate approach to God's Word leads to life, because it leads to Him. Reading the Bible is something anyone can do. Studying God's Word is something few actually do.
Are you reading the Bible as some religious activity? Or are you searching the Scriptures to find Him?
https://www.wayoflife.org/publications/abss/understanding_the_bible.php
Way of Life Literature
Understanding the Bible for Yourself
Understanding the Bible for Yourself, Way of Life Literature
The Fine Line of Faith
"The [Disciple's] ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water."—Matthew 14:24–28
A friend asked me, "Matthew 14:22-32
Was Peter waking on the water an act of faith or doubt?"
After a bit of deliberation, I responded, "I'd say faith, both times." Maybe I'm wrong, but here's why I would say faith both times...
Peter said, "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee ON THE WATER."
Jesus said, "Come."
Verse 29, "And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked ON THE WATER, to go to Jesus."
There is a fine line between faith and foolishness, for sure, but generally Christians don't try the impossible, even if they believe it is God's command, unless they're operating by faith.
Examples: Gideon, Jericho, Jonathan and his armor bearer, David and Goliath, Hebrews 11:32–34.
Well, that's the first trip. What about the return?
I say faith again, because in the middle was doubt, but God I don't think let Peter sink so much because of Peter's doubt. I think it was so that God could restore Peter's faith. God often upholds us and sustains us even when we doubt, because He is faithful, it's not about us being faithful. However, when He lets us fail, it's usually either a chastening or to get our attention, or both; so, that we run back to Him in faith (Proverbs 18:10).
So, a couple of questions for us: first, does God have your attention, or has He been working to get it? Second, are you even trying to do anything for the Lord? Is what you're trying to do 'impossible'? And if so, are you operating by faith?
(PS: Operating by faith is operating in response to God's commands, and God's commands are found in God's Word [Romans 10:17]. Remember, Peter walked on the water in response to Jesus word: "Come.")
"The [Disciple's] ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water."—Matthew 14:24–28
A friend asked me, "Matthew 14:22-32
Was Peter waking on the water an act of faith or doubt?"
After a bit of deliberation, I responded, "I'd say faith, both times." Maybe I'm wrong, but here's why I would say faith both times...
Peter said, "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee ON THE WATER."
Jesus said, "Come."
Verse 29, "And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked ON THE WATER, to go to Jesus."
There is a fine line between faith and foolishness, for sure, but generally Christians don't try the impossible, even if they believe it is God's command, unless they're operating by faith.
Examples: Gideon, Jericho, Jonathan and his armor bearer, David and Goliath, Hebrews 11:32–34.
Well, that's the first trip. What about the return?
I say faith again, because in the middle was doubt, but God I don't think let Peter sink so much because of Peter's doubt. I think it was so that God could restore Peter's faith. God often upholds us and sustains us even when we doubt, because He is faithful, it's not about us being faithful. However, when He lets us fail, it's usually either a chastening or to get our attention, or both; so, that we run back to Him in faith (Proverbs 18:10).
So, a couple of questions for us: first, does God have your attention, or has He been working to get it? Second, are you even trying to do anything for the Lord? Is what you're trying to do 'impossible'? And if so, are you operating by faith?
(PS: Operating by faith is operating in response to God's commands, and God's commands are found in God's Word [Romans 10:17]. Remember, Peter walked on the water in response to Jesus word: "Come.")
Prayer—It's Possibilities, by E.M. Bounds
"The possibilities of prayer reach to all things. Whatever concerns man's highest welfare, and whatever has to do with God's plans and purposes concerning men on earth, is a subject for prayer. In ['whatsoever ye shall ask'] (John 14:13) is embraced all that concerns us ... and God. And whatever is left out of ['whatsoever'] is left out of prayer. Where will we draw the lines which leave out or which will limit the word ['whatsoever']? Define it, and search it out and publish the things which the word does not include. If ['whatsoever'] does not include all things, then add to it ['ask any thing.' 'If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it' (John 14:14 KJV).]
"What riches of grace, what blessings, spiritual and temporal, what good for time and eternity, would have been ours had we learned the possibilities of prayer and our faith had taken in the wide range of the divine promises to us to answer prayer! What blessings on our times and what furtherance to God's cause, had we but learned how to pray with large expectations! Who will rise up in this generation and teach ... this lesson? It is a child's lesson in simplicity, but who has learned it well enough to put prayer to the test? ... The possibilities of prayer are unspeakable...
"The only limits to prayer are the promises of God and His ability to fulfill those promises."
"The possibilities of prayer reach to all things. Whatever concerns man's highest welfare, and whatever has to do with God's plans and purposes concerning men on earth, is a subject for prayer. In ['whatsoever ye shall ask'] (John 14:13) is embraced all that concerns us ... and God. And whatever is left out of ['whatsoever'] is left out of prayer. Where will we draw the lines which leave out or which will limit the word ['whatsoever']? Define it, and search it out and publish the things which the word does not include. If ['whatsoever'] does not include all things, then add to it ['ask any thing.' 'If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it' (John 14:14 KJV).]
"What riches of grace, what blessings, spiritual and temporal, what good for time and eternity, would have been ours had we learned the possibilities of prayer and our faith had taken in the wide range of the divine promises to us to answer prayer! What blessings on our times and what furtherance to God's cause, had we but learned how to pray with large expectations! Who will rise up in this generation and teach ... this lesson? It is a child's lesson in simplicity, but who has learned it well enough to put prayer to the test? ... The possibilities of prayer are unspeakable...
"The only limits to prayer are the promises of God and His ability to fulfill those promises."
One Reason for the Church: Exhortation
Isa 58:1 KJV Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.
The Lord is commanding Isaiah to cry audibly (to cause his voice to be heard), not to withhold or to hold back, to speak boldly a warning, an announcement from the King, for the purpose of exposing the transgression and sin of God's people. That they might genuinely repent, not feignedly.
God wanted His people, though they had heard many times before, to once again be confronted by their sin against a holy God. God is merciful, often patient, and long-suffering in His often reproof of sinners and His continual chastisement of saints. God rarely warns once. He desires to show mercy and yet He requires genuine repentance based on His Word, otherwise true fellowship cannot be restored (vv1–8a). God is specific about the issue and about the remedy. He is not ambiguous, but He is also not a God of formulas. Praying toward the temple in Jerusalem will not help me: I am not a Jew in Isaiah's dispensation (2 Chronicles 7:15–16); nevertheless, godly sorrow and genuine repentance in any dispensation will get God's attention (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7; 2 Corinthians 7:9–12; 1 John 1:6–9; James 4:7–10).
One of the purposes of the church to assemble is that saints would not only examine themselves, but, having done that, firstly, we might get right with the Lord ourselves and, secondly, that we would exhort one another as well (Matthew 7:1–5; Galatians 6:1–5; Hebrews 3:12–13; 10:24–25; Ephesians 4:11–16).
Have we lost this ability during Covid, because of restrictions upon in-person services? Yea—by and large, we have. But were we exercising exhortation of each other unto righteousness much before Covid? I perceive, by and large, nay, we were not.
Lord, help us not to desire church for the singing and the fellowship alone, though these are very important, but also for the exercise of godly exhortation, which is crucial for the perfecting of Your saints, for the work of Your ministry, for the glory of Thy Great Name (Psalm 29:2; 143:3).
Isa 58:1 KJV Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.
The Lord is commanding Isaiah to cry audibly (to cause his voice to be heard), not to withhold or to hold back, to speak boldly a warning, an announcement from the King, for the purpose of exposing the transgression and sin of God's people. That they might genuinely repent, not feignedly.
God wanted His people, though they had heard many times before, to once again be confronted by their sin against a holy God. God is merciful, often patient, and long-suffering in His often reproof of sinners and His continual chastisement of saints. God rarely warns once. He desires to show mercy and yet He requires genuine repentance based on His Word, otherwise true fellowship cannot be restored (vv1–8a). God is specific about the issue and about the remedy. He is not ambiguous, but He is also not a God of formulas. Praying toward the temple in Jerusalem will not help me: I am not a Jew in Isaiah's dispensation (2 Chronicles 7:15–16); nevertheless, godly sorrow and genuine repentance in any dispensation will get God's attention (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7; 2 Corinthians 7:9–12; 1 John 1:6–9; James 4:7–10).
One of the purposes of the church to assemble is that saints would not only examine themselves, but, having done that, firstly, we might get right with the Lord ourselves and, secondly, that we would exhort one another as well (Matthew 7:1–5; Galatians 6:1–5; Hebrews 3:12–13; 10:24–25; Ephesians 4:11–16).
Have we lost this ability during Covid, because of restrictions upon in-person services? Yea—by and large, we have. But were we exercising exhortation of each other unto righteousness much before Covid? I perceive, by and large, nay, we were not.
Lord, help us not to desire church for the singing and the fellowship alone, though these are very important, but also for the exercise of godly exhortation, which is crucial for the perfecting of Your saints, for the work of Your ministry, for the glory of Thy Great Name (Psalm 29:2; 143:3).
https://t.me/removingbarrierspodcast
RBP
A clear view of the cross
https://t.me/removingbarrierspodcast
RBP
A clear view of the cross
https://t.me/removingbarrierspodcast
Telegram
RBP
A clear view of the cross
THE TENDERNESS OF OUR GOD
1Co 10:1 KJV "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;"
I get how Abraham was, by faith, our father. But, in what way are we the children of Israel "our fathers"? In the same way as Abraham? Or another way?
It's likely this was just the language of the day. Yes, God inspired the words written, but He also used the personalities of the writers. Paul was Jewish and this phrase ("our fathers") was a common way to refer to those of venerable age or position, or those who had come before.
In this last sense we see those of Israel in the Pentateuch alluded to here by Paul. They walked before us and their account is written for us to teach us (Romans 15:14; 1 Corinthians 10:11). In the context, we see their walk and it should teach us. While this account is not an allegory, it actually happened to them, it also has principles which apply spiritually to us. They took certain steps in faith (verses 2–4). But then we also see in them our frailties, faults, fickleness, fornications, faithlessness, and failures... (verses 5–12). We see their idolatry and we should be warned. Howbeit, we are not left here without hope, for we see in verse 13 a solution. Does God not show us our weaknesses so that we might run unceasingly unto Him Who hath called us unto His marvellous light (Proverbs 18:10; 1 Peter 2:9)?
1 Corinthians 10:13, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
What a gracious God we have Who calls us to run unto Himself at any moment and find mercy there and grace for every need (Hebrews 4:16; 1 Peter 5:17). He gave His only begotten Son for us, and to us. He has provided His Word and His Holy Spirit. Living in the light of the sacrifice of His Son for us, obeying His Word, and running to His throne of grace ARE our very routes of escape!
What a gracious God to call us unto Himself especially in our many times of need. He never wearies of our running to Him for help.
1Co 10:1 KJV "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;"
I get how Abraham was, by faith, our father. But, in what way are we the children of Israel "our fathers"? In the same way as Abraham? Or another way?
It's likely this was just the language of the day. Yes, God inspired the words written, but He also used the personalities of the writers. Paul was Jewish and this phrase ("our fathers") was a common way to refer to those of venerable age or position, or those who had come before.
In this last sense we see those of Israel in the Pentateuch alluded to here by Paul. They walked before us and their account is written for us to teach us (Romans 15:14; 1 Corinthians 10:11). In the context, we see their walk and it should teach us. While this account is not an allegory, it actually happened to them, it also has principles which apply spiritually to us. They took certain steps in faith (verses 2–4). But then we also see in them our frailties, faults, fickleness, fornications, faithlessness, and failures... (verses 5–12). We see their idolatry and we should be warned. Howbeit, we are not left here without hope, for we see in verse 13 a solution. Does God not show us our weaknesses so that we might run unceasingly unto Him Who hath called us unto His marvellous light (Proverbs 18:10; 1 Peter 2:9)?
1 Corinthians 10:13, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
What a gracious God we have Who calls us to run unto Himself at any moment and find mercy there and grace for every need (Hebrews 4:16; 1 Peter 5:17). He gave His only begotten Son for us, and to us. He has provided His Word and His Holy Spirit. Living in the light of the sacrifice of His Son for us, obeying His Word, and running to His throne of grace ARE our very routes of escape!
What a gracious God to call us unto Himself especially in our many times of need. He never wearies of our running to Him for help.
THE POWER OF PRAYER
2 Chronicles 14:8
And Asa had an army of men ... out of Judah three hundred thousand; and out of Benjamin, ..., two hundred and fourscore thousand ... [so 580,000 soldiers total] ..."
2 Chronicles 14:9
And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, ... [1,000,000 soldiers; double what Asa had] ... and three hundred chariots ... [in Bible times, "He who has the most chariots wins," essentially; they were like the tanks of their day]
So, Zerah has double the number of soldiers as Asa, and 300 tanks! Bad news for Asa... But wait!
2 Chronicles 14:11
And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee.
Guess who won?
Maybe Asa won because all of his men were "all these were mighty men of valour"?
Or was it because Asa was a good man?
1. Asa did right - "Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God" (v2)
2. Asa removed evil - "he [Asa] took away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places, and brake down the images, and cut down the groves" (v3)
3. Asa led well - "commanded Judah to seek the LORD God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandment" (v4)
4. Asa purged thoroughly - "he [Asa] took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places and the images" (v5)
5. Asa trusted completely - "because we have sought the LORD our God, we have sought him, and he hath given us rest on every side" (v7)
Or was it because Asa prayed?
"Asa cried unto the LORD his God ... So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled." (vv6–7)
The Bible does say, "Whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." (1 John 3:22) So, I don't think there is anything wrong with saying Asa being a good man certainly aided the Lord in hearing his prayer. After all, sin does hinder prayer: "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me..." (Psalm 66:18).
So, it was not in Asa's goodness, and neither was it in Asa's words. Asa's prayer was good, but not because of the words Asa used. Did not Christ say, "When ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking" (Matthew 6:7). Thus, the power laid not in Asa's words, but in Asa's God, the God Who heard.
The power of prayer is that a holy God will hear any person, even though we're all sinners—"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not," saith Ecclesiastes 7:20. God will hear His people when we humble ourselves and dependently (and often needing to repentantly) cry unto our God: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven..." (2 Chronicles 7:14).
God will even hear the vilest of men when they humble themselves and cry out to Him.
2 Chronicles 33: Manasseh was a very evil king, but "when he was in affliction, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed unto him: and he was intreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God." (vv12–13)
So, what is the power of prayer? It is certainly not in us, not in the goodness of our ways nor in multitude of our words. Is it not solely in the All Powerful God of the Bible Who has chosen to hear when we cry unto Him?
2 Chronicles 14:8
And Asa had an army of men ... out of Judah three hundred thousand; and out of Benjamin, ..., two hundred and fourscore thousand ... [so 580,000 soldiers total] ..."
2 Chronicles 14:9
And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, ... [1,000,000 soldiers; double what Asa had] ... and three hundred chariots ... [in Bible times, "He who has the most chariots wins," essentially; they were like the tanks of their day]
So, Zerah has double the number of soldiers as Asa, and 300 tanks! Bad news for Asa... But wait!
2 Chronicles 14:11
And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee.
Guess who won?
Maybe Asa won because all of his men were "all these were mighty men of valour"?
Or was it because Asa was a good man?
1. Asa did right - "Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God" (v2)
2. Asa removed evil - "he [Asa] took away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places, and brake down the images, and cut down the groves" (v3)
3. Asa led well - "commanded Judah to seek the LORD God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandment" (v4)
4. Asa purged thoroughly - "he [Asa] took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places and the images" (v5)
5. Asa trusted completely - "because we have sought the LORD our God, we have sought him, and he hath given us rest on every side" (v7)
Or was it because Asa prayed?
"Asa cried unto the LORD his God ... So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled." (vv6–7)
The Bible does say, "Whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." (1 John 3:22) So, I don't think there is anything wrong with saying Asa being a good man certainly aided the Lord in hearing his prayer. After all, sin does hinder prayer: "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me..." (Psalm 66:18).
So, it was not in Asa's goodness, and neither was it in Asa's words. Asa's prayer was good, but not because of the words Asa used. Did not Christ say, "When ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking" (Matthew 6:7). Thus, the power laid not in Asa's words, but in Asa's God, the God Who heard.
The power of prayer is that a holy God will hear any person, even though we're all sinners—"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not," saith Ecclesiastes 7:20. God will hear His people when we humble ourselves and dependently (and often needing to repentantly) cry unto our God: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven..." (2 Chronicles 7:14).
God will even hear the vilest of men when they humble themselves and cry out to Him.
2 Chronicles 33: Manasseh was a very evil king, but "when he was in affliction, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed unto him: and he was intreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God." (vv12–13)
So, what is the power of prayer? It is certainly not in us, not in the goodness of our ways nor in multitude of our words. Is it not solely in the All Powerful God of the Bible Who has chosen to hear when we cry unto Him?
What Is Wrong With America [and Your Nation and Mine]? What Can We Do?
The root of America’s problem [and any country's problems] is not politics or economics, it is sin. “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).
The only thing that can really help [our nations] is for Bible-believing churches to take the eternal Word of God seriously, stop playing games, stop partying, stop focusing on politics, shut down the gym and open up the prayer rooms, stop the feasting and start the fasting, start rebuking and disciplining sin, start building godly homes, start requiring serious Christianity of anyone who serves in any ministry, get serious about the requirements of church membership, GET REALLY ZEALOUS ABOUT GETTING THE GOSPEL TO EVERY SOUL ..., training leaders, starting new churches, emphasizing the imminent return of Christ, preaching the judgment seat of Christ, caring more about God’s feelings than man’s, fearing God more than man. (Emphasises mine)
To read the entire, unedited article, click here: https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/what_is_wrong_with_america.php
The root of America’s problem [and any country's problems] is not politics or economics, it is sin. “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).
The only thing that can really help [our nations] is for Bible-believing churches to take the eternal Word of God seriously, stop playing games, stop partying, stop focusing on politics, shut down the gym and open up the prayer rooms, stop the feasting and start the fasting, start rebuking and disciplining sin, start building godly homes, start requiring serious Christianity of anyone who serves in any ministry, get serious about the requirements of church membership, GET REALLY ZEALOUS ABOUT GETTING THE GOSPEL TO EVERY SOUL ..., training leaders, starting new churches, emphasizing the imminent return of Christ, preaching the judgment seat of Christ, caring more about God’s feelings than man’s, fearing God more than man. (Emphasises mine)
To read the entire, unedited article, click here: https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/what_is_wrong_with_america.php
Hebrews 6:18 KJV That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?
• That there are immutable (unchangeable) things. There are things that are unable to be changed.
• That God secured His promise by two immutable things—He did sware by His Person and He confirmed by His oath (His Word)
• It was therefore impossible for God to lie.
• This was done so that those who would come thereafter would have unshakeable security in the promise that was given.
• All that is required on their part is that they "have fled for refuge" in order "to lay hold upon" God's very promise (cf. vv19–20).
WHAT DOES THE TEXT MEAN?
• The Lord and the promise He has given are the rope that bind us to Him our Hope, our Anchor (cf. 1 Peter 1:2–6, 21; Romans 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:16–17; 1 Timothy 1:1).
• These promises are unchangeable and, thus, irrevocable and indestructible to those "who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us"
• What is the "Hope set before us", but this promise God has confirmed by two immutable things and demonstrated that He cannot lie.
WHAT DOES THE TEXT REQUIRE?
• The only question that remains is, "Have you fled for refuge"?
• If you have, the promise is "a strong consolation" for you.
○ How strong? Immutably strong—impossible to change or be broken.
○ As strong and as sure as God Himself.
• If you haven't fled to this promise, there "remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26).
○ There's no other hope.
○ There's no other way.
○ Why wait? Flee to His promise today!
• November 9, 2008, at around 10:30 at night I fled to this Refuge. God saved my wretched soul and secured my soul to Himself forever by His unchangeable and unchanging Person and Promise. Praise be to God!
WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?
• That there are immutable (unchangeable) things. There are things that are unable to be changed.
• That God secured His promise by two immutable things—He did sware by His Person and He confirmed by His oath (His Word)
• It was therefore impossible for God to lie.
• This was done so that those who would come thereafter would have unshakeable security in the promise that was given.
• All that is required on their part is that they "have fled for refuge" in order "to lay hold upon" God's very promise (cf. vv19–20).
WHAT DOES THE TEXT MEAN?
• The Lord and the promise He has given are the rope that bind us to Him our Hope, our Anchor (cf. 1 Peter 1:2–6, 21; Romans 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:16–17; 1 Timothy 1:1).
• These promises are unchangeable and, thus, irrevocable and indestructible to those "who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us"
• What is the "Hope set before us", but this promise God has confirmed by two immutable things and demonstrated that He cannot lie.
WHAT DOES THE TEXT REQUIRE?
• The only question that remains is, "Have you fled for refuge"?
• If you have, the promise is "a strong consolation" for you.
○ How strong? Immutably strong—impossible to change or be broken.
○ As strong and as sure as God Himself.
• If you haven't fled to this promise, there "remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26).
○ There's no other hope.
○ There's no other way.
○ Why wait? Flee to His promise today!
• November 9, 2008, at around 10:30 at night I fled to this Refuge. God saved my wretched soul and secured my soul to Himself forever by His unchangeable and unchanging Person and Promise. Praise be to God!
CALLED TO BE COURTEOUS
1 Peter 3:8-9 (KJV) 8 “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, BE COURTEOUS:” 9 “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto CALLED, that ye should inherit a blessing.” (emphasis mine)
As there is no conjunction (and, but, etc.) before the phrase “be courteous,” the former list of principles (“be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful”) begins with “be ye all of one mind” and then is further elucidated (expounded or explained in more detail) by each subsequent phrase. In other words, “be ye all of one mind” includes (or is further explained to be or mean) “having compassion one of another.” “Having compassion” means to join someone and to walk their path WITH them, to exercise good will toward someone who cannot return the favor. And to have “compassion one of another” is further explained to actively “love as brethren”—to have an uncommon affection, a deeper bond than just friends. In turn that means to “be pitiful,” which means to pity (or to look on someone with compassion). Now, having compassion has already been mentioned; so, why mention it again? Because the former is the action of “having compassion” and our current phrase (“be pitiful”) is regarding our thoughts. Thus, we are told not only to act toward one another with compassion, but to think on one another compassionately. Our thinking will affect our state of being, which is what the “be” in “be pitiful” means. If you genuinely think with compassion upon your brother or sister, you will be compassionate, you will “be pitiful” toward him or her. And, lastly, being “all of one mind” includes “be courteous,” or to prefer another before yourself. This is why it is considered courteous to hold the door for another and allow them entrance BEFORE you. Philippians 2:1–8 expresses a nearly identical truth. As does John 13:1–17. God is concerned that His children develop, foster, and live out the same love toward one another that He has for each of them.
Being all of one mind would mean that all of us would act with compassion towards each of our brothers and sisters in Christ, to choose to love each other as fellow heirs of Christ, to think with compassion upon one another, and to prefer each other before preferring ourselves. Thereby shall His church be edified (Ephesians 4) and His name be glorified (Matthew 5:16).
1 Peter 3:8-9 (KJV) 8 “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, BE COURTEOUS:” 9 “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto CALLED, that ye should inherit a blessing.” (emphasis mine)
As there is no conjunction (and, but, etc.) before the phrase “be courteous,” the former list of principles (“be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful”) begins with “be ye all of one mind” and then is further elucidated (expounded or explained in more detail) by each subsequent phrase. In other words, “be ye all of one mind” includes (or is further explained to be or mean) “having compassion one of another.” “Having compassion” means to join someone and to walk their path WITH them, to exercise good will toward someone who cannot return the favor. And to have “compassion one of another” is further explained to actively “love as brethren”—to have an uncommon affection, a deeper bond than just friends. In turn that means to “be pitiful,” which means to pity (or to look on someone with compassion). Now, having compassion has already been mentioned; so, why mention it again? Because the former is the action of “having compassion” and our current phrase (“be pitiful”) is regarding our thoughts. Thus, we are told not only to act toward one another with compassion, but to think on one another compassionately. Our thinking will affect our state of being, which is what the “be” in “be pitiful” means. If you genuinely think with compassion upon your brother or sister, you will be compassionate, you will “be pitiful” toward him or her. And, lastly, being “all of one mind” includes “be courteous,” or to prefer another before yourself. This is why it is considered courteous to hold the door for another and allow them entrance BEFORE you. Philippians 2:1–8 expresses a nearly identical truth. As does John 13:1–17. God is concerned that His children develop, foster, and live out the same love toward one another that He has for each of them.
Being all of one mind would mean that all of us would act with compassion towards each of our brothers and sisters in Christ, to choose to love each other as fellow heirs of Christ, to think with compassion upon one another, and to prefer each other before preferring ourselves. Thereby shall His church be edified (Ephesians 4) and His name be glorified (Matthew 5:16).
A GROWING FEAR OF THE LORD
Proverbs 2:1-22 (KJV) 1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; 2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, [and] apply thine heart to understanding; 3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, [and] liftest up thy voice for understanding; 4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as [for] hid treasures; 5 THEN SHALT THOU UNDERSTAND THE FEAR OF THE LORD, and find the knowledge of God. … {and the rest of the chapter, actually}
This is presently my favorite chapter in the Bible. I am in need of a greater fear of the LORD. And to willfully sin is an evidence of a lack of the fear of God.
There are two ways of sinning described in the Bible—omission (sinning through not doing) and commission (sinning through doing)—and two types of sin outlined in the Bible—sin through ignorance (not a willful act, but one done accidentally or incidentally, rather than intentionally) and sin done presumptuously (i.e., willfully, that is, intentionally, to knowingly violate God’s law). Instruction on both is given in Numbers 15:22–29, 30–31 and both are referenced in 1 John 5:16–18. Again, to willfully sin against God is an evidence of a lack of the fear of the LORD. That’s why the man in Numbers 15:32–38 who was merely gathering sticks on the Sabbath was stoned to death—he willfully sinned against the LORD. His “small” sin was a demonstration of his distinct lack of the fear of God. He had already been warned, numerous times, through exhortation and through the example of others (e.g., Exodus 16:27–30, Exodus 20:8–11, Numbers 14). And God used this opportunity to establish yet another reminder to the children of Israel not to sin willfully against Him (Numbers15:39–41). Let us learn from all these things (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11). For while salvation cannot be lost, sin will cost us more than we want to pay in so many ways. Remember, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 3:23a). This was an admonition written to believers, not to sinners in need of salvation, even though we use an application from that verse in soul winning.
1 John 4:18 (KJV) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
When I read 1 John 4:18, I often think to myself, “Until my love is perfect, I need a continual growing fear of the LORD.” Friend, my love for the Lord is so imperfect… so very imperfect… how often, God help me, that I have sinned, and do sin willfully against Him… and my prayer is that I sin against Him less as my fear of Him grows (Proverbs 16:6). And praise the Lord, there is coming a day when I will sin against Him no more(John 21:15–17; 14:15; 1 Corinthians 13:10–13; 1 John 3:2).
Until then, O LORD, help us to continue to learn to fear Thee as Thou oughtest to be feared.
Proverbs 2:1-22 (KJV) 1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; 2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, [and] apply thine heart to understanding; 3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, [and] liftest up thy voice for understanding; 4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as [for] hid treasures; 5 THEN SHALT THOU UNDERSTAND THE FEAR OF THE LORD, and find the knowledge of God. … {and the rest of the chapter, actually}
This is presently my favorite chapter in the Bible. I am in need of a greater fear of the LORD. And to willfully sin is an evidence of a lack of the fear of God.
There are two ways of sinning described in the Bible—omission (sinning through not doing) and commission (sinning through doing)—and two types of sin outlined in the Bible—sin through ignorance (not a willful act, but one done accidentally or incidentally, rather than intentionally) and sin done presumptuously (i.e., willfully, that is, intentionally, to knowingly violate God’s law). Instruction on both is given in Numbers 15:22–29, 30–31 and both are referenced in 1 John 5:16–18. Again, to willfully sin against God is an evidence of a lack of the fear of the LORD. That’s why the man in Numbers 15:32–38 who was merely gathering sticks on the Sabbath was stoned to death—he willfully sinned against the LORD. His “small” sin was a demonstration of his distinct lack of the fear of God. He had already been warned, numerous times, through exhortation and through the example of others (e.g., Exodus 16:27–30, Exodus 20:8–11, Numbers 14). And God used this opportunity to establish yet another reminder to the children of Israel not to sin willfully against Him (Numbers15:39–41). Let us learn from all these things (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11). For while salvation cannot be lost, sin will cost us more than we want to pay in so many ways. Remember, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 3:23a). This was an admonition written to believers, not to sinners in need of salvation, even though we use an application from that verse in soul winning.
1 John 4:18 (KJV) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
When I read 1 John 4:18, I often think to myself, “Until my love is perfect, I need a continual growing fear of the LORD.” Friend, my love for the Lord is so imperfect… so very imperfect… how often, God help me, that I have sinned, and do sin willfully against Him… and my prayer is that I sin against Him less as my fear of Him grows (Proverbs 16:6). And praise the Lord, there is coming a day when I will sin against Him no more(John 21:15–17; 14:15; 1 Corinthians 13:10–13; 1 John 3:2).
Until then, O LORD, help us to continue to learn to fear Thee as Thou oughtest to be feared.
LORD, teach us to pray!
“Lord, teach us to pray...” (Luke 11:1)
They could’ve asked anything of Him: Lord, teach us to preach; Lord, teach us to perform miracles; Lord, teach us to… anything other than pray. Prayer is communion, prayer is asking, but prayer is also… work, it is warfare.
LORD, teach us to pray!
“Lord, teach us to pray...” (Luke 11:1)
They could’ve asked anything of Him: Lord, teach us to preach; Lord, teach us to perform miracles; Lord, teach us to… anything other than pray. Prayer is communion, prayer is asking, but prayer is also… work, it is warfare.
LORD, teach us to pray!
BUT GOD COMMENDETH
“… give me my price; … So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.” (Zechariah 11:12)
“So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley:” (Hosea 3:2)
“But we are all as an unclean thing, ...” (Isaiah 64:6)
Zechariah spoke prophetically of Judas betraying Christ for thirty pieces of silver, the price of a common slave. Gomer, on the other hand, who was a fitting picture of Israel in her spiritual adultery against the Lord, was purchased for half that and some change. Gomer too is a fitting picture of us (Romans 3:10–23; James 4:1; Isaiah 64:6).
Despite being such “unclean” things, so worthless, so undeserving, God brought the brightest Gem to purchase our redemption (1 Corinthians 6:19–20; 1 Peter 1:18–19), and He showcased it, He put it on exhibit, He set off the brilliance and the worth of, He contrasted His great Gem, His Son, and Its infinite value against our great awfulness…
“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:6-8)
“… give me my price; … So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.” (Zechariah 11:12)
“So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley:” (Hosea 3:2)
“But we are all as an unclean thing, ...” (Isaiah 64:6)
Zechariah spoke prophetically of Judas betraying Christ for thirty pieces of silver, the price of a common slave. Gomer, on the other hand, who was a fitting picture of Israel in her spiritual adultery against the Lord, was purchased for half that and some change. Gomer too is a fitting picture of us (Romans 3:10–23; James 4:1; Isaiah 64:6).
Despite being such “unclean” things, so worthless, so undeserving, God brought the brightest Gem to purchase our redemption (1 Corinthians 6:19–20; 1 Peter 1:18–19), and He showcased it, He put it on exhibit, He set off the brilliance and the worth of, He contrasted His great Gem, His Son, and Its infinite value against our great awfulness…
“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:6-8)
Taking God Lightly
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish.” (Exodus 19:21)
WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?
• Soon, the LORD would give the Law to Moses (Exodus 20), but, first, the LORD had a warning for the people (Exodus 19:22ff).
• The LORD had just called Moses to the top of Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:20) and then the LORD (to us somewhat oddly, perhaps) said, in effect, “Moses, go back down to the bottom and command the people with authority that they should not disobey and cross the boundary I had you set up, in order to catch a glimpse of me, and, as a result, many of them will perish.”
WHAT DOES THE TEXT MEAN?
• God had Moses warn the people in verses 12 and 13. And now a second time God had Moses warn them again. The former warning was before, and the latter warning after the Lord’s presence descended upon the Mount. God must have been very serious about the consequences He spelled out; moreover, He must not have wanted the people to perish.
• What would have caused the people to perish? But to cross when they had been warned not to cross; they apparently would only have done so to try and see God when they hadn't been invited into His presence as Moses had been. Their curiosity would have caused them to disobey and their disobedience would caused them to perish.
• The priests were invited at certain times to also come, yet again only at the LORD’s direction, and even then only when they had sanctified themselves, lest they also die (cf. Exodus 28; Leviticus 16:29–34; 10:1).
• Here at this fearful meeting at the base of Mount Sinai (v16), perhaps some of the people would have become so bold for some reason that their fear of God would be overcome by the curiosity of their mind.
WHAT DOES THE TEXT REQUIRE?
• Disobeying the Lord should be a fearful thing indeed. No matter how silly, insignificant, or small the disobedience might seem, nor how seemingly inconsequential the command (touching the border of the mount, seeing the similitude of God without His permission/invitation), it is still disobedience (cf. Numbers 15:32ff; cf. vv28–31). Moreover, it is the attitude that is the problem—rebellion vs. ignorance, stubbornness vs. contrition (Numbers 15; David vs. Saul [2 Samuel 12 & Psalm 51 vs. 1 Samuel 15:20–22). Hebrews 10:31.
• I am afraid that I do often take God far too lightly; I rarely fear Him asI ought; when I do fear Him, it seems to me to be momentary and fleeting. I do not have a deep, persuaded fear of the Lord (evidence: Proverbs 8:13; 1 Timothy 6:8; 1 Corinthians 9:14a, b).
• Is there any thing or any area in my life where I’ve crossed a boundary the Lord had established (transgression)?
• Am I doing anything that the Lord has expressly forbidden or commanded against?
• Have I not sanctified myself and prepared myself to enter into His presence?
• What evidences are there in my life of a lack of the fear of the Lord; what evidences are there that I take God too lightly?
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish.” (Exodus 19:21)
WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?
• Soon, the LORD would give the Law to Moses (Exodus 20), but, first, the LORD had a warning for the people (Exodus 19:22ff).
• The LORD had just called Moses to the top of Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:20) and then the LORD (to us somewhat oddly, perhaps) said, in effect, “Moses, go back down to the bottom and command the people with authority that they should not disobey and cross the boundary I had you set up, in order to catch a glimpse of me, and, as a result, many of them will perish.”
WHAT DOES THE TEXT MEAN?
• God had Moses warn the people in verses 12 and 13. And now a second time God had Moses warn them again. The former warning was before, and the latter warning after the Lord’s presence descended upon the Mount. God must have been very serious about the consequences He spelled out; moreover, He must not have wanted the people to perish.
• What would have caused the people to perish? But to cross when they had been warned not to cross; they apparently would only have done so to try and see God when they hadn't been invited into His presence as Moses had been. Their curiosity would have caused them to disobey and their disobedience would caused them to perish.
• The priests were invited at certain times to also come, yet again only at the LORD’s direction, and even then only when they had sanctified themselves, lest they also die (cf. Exodus 28; Leviticus 16:29–34; 10:1).
• Here at this fearful meeting at the base of Mount Sinai (v16), perhaps some of the people would have become so bold for some reason that their fear of God would be overcome by the curiosity of their mind.
WHAT DOES THE TEXT REQUIRE?
• Disobeying the Lord should be a fearful thing indeed. No matter how silly, insignificant, or small the disobedience might seem, nor how seemingly inconsequential the command (touching the border of the mount, seeing the similitude of God without His permission/invitation), it is still disobedience (cf. Numbers 15:32ff; cf. vv28–31). Moreover, it is the attitude that is the problem—rebellion vs. ignorance, stubbornness vs. contrition (Numbers 15; David vs. Saul [2 Samuel 12 & Psalm 51 vs. 1 Samuel 15:20–22). Hebrews 10:31.
• I am afraid that I do often take God far too lightly; I rarely fear Him asI ought; when I do fear Him, it seems to me to be momentary and fleeting. I do not have a deep, persuaded fear of the Lord (evidence: Proverbs 8:13; 1 Timothy 6:8; 1 Corinthians 9:14a, b).
• Is there any thing or any area in my life where I’ve crossed a boundary the Lord had established (transgression)?
• Am I doing anything that the Lord has expressly forbidden or commanded against?
• Have I not sanctified myself and prepared myself to enter into His presence?
• What evidences are there in my life of a lack of the fear of the Lord; what evidences are there that I take God too lightly?
Is Humanism a Religion?
(Part 1 of 2)
Before answering “is humanism a religion,” a more basic question is, “What is humanism?”
According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, among other less relevant definitions, humanism may be defined as “A system of thought that focuses on humans.” The Humanist Manifesto I “maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life.” The Humanist Manifesto II states that “As nontheists, we begin with humans not God…” The Humanist Manifesto III defines humanism as “A progressive philosophy of life [focused on] humanity.” In short, humanism is an atheistic doctrine that everything is for the benefit and use of humans. Humanism’s sole focus is man.
Now, as to whether or not humanism is a religion, I could argue for either “yes” or “no”; but I’m going with “no”.
Before you decry either answer, though, please allow me to elucidate what I mean by this seeming dichotomism.
Initially, let’s look at my “yes.” While dictionaries differ, religion is commonly argued to be the worship of something divine or as practicing a set of beliefs relating to or regarding the divine—of course the divine is typically further defined as a God, as gods, and/or as goddesses. However, according to non-biblical etymology and philology, religion is more simply the belief in and/or the worship of the supernatural.
So far, all is well, and likely no conflict has arisen.
Next, however, we discover that the “supernatural” is that which relates to anything outside of the natural order: the natural world, or, as some might say, the known cosmos (though, ironically and etymologically, cosmos means world), and others would say outside the observable universe (this is still somewhat ambiguous, but perhaps the least ambiguous term). Last of all, some will even say that the supernatural is that to which the scientific method cannot be applied.
Still, so far, so good (most likely). There are a few, however, that are becoming uncomfortable with this line of thinking. All I’m using is the logical application of the etymon (Greek for “the true sense of words”).
So, before we continue, we should define the scientific method as well as its purpose, function, and use. Francis Bacon, a young earth creationist and devout Christian, developed the scientific method, a process which is used to acquire knowledge (knowledge is the etymological meaning of the term “science”). Thus, this knowledge is gained through observable, repeatable, tests applied to natural phenomena in order to investigate and verify them. Of the scientific method, Brittanica.com states that it is “The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments…” in which a hypothesis is formed and then “tests [the hypothesis] … then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed [natural] phenomena.” Brittanica constantly also affirms that the testing should yield observable empirical results.
With this understanding in mind, if we pause to consider then that the “Big Bang” cannot be tested by the scientific method (it is not observable, empirically testable, or humanly repeatable) and thus it cannot be demonstrated to be natural phenomena, because it is not within the observable universe or the known cosmos, it must, if we are to be consistent, immediately move into the category of the supernatural—outside the natural order. (PS: A multiverse [a universe creating mechanism] would likewise be supernatural.)
Therefore, humanism (which encompasses agnosticism and atheism), by its very definition, must be a belief in the supernatural, plain and simple. We may wish to disagree, or return to the commonly argued definition of religion, but, frankly, we’d be both inconsistent and incorrect in doing so. Humanism, being a belief in the supernatural is therefore a religion, by default. It has no other logical choice.
(Part 1 of 2)
Before answering “is humanism a religion,” a more basic question is, “What is humanism?”
According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, among other less relevant definitions, humanism may be defined as “A system of thought that focuses on humans.” The Humanist Manifesto I “maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life.” The Humanist Manifesto II states that “As nontheists, we begin with humans not God…” The Humanist Manifesto III defines humanism as “A progressive philosophy of life [focused on] humanity.” In short, humanism is an atheistic doctrine that everything is for the benefit and use of humans. Humanism’s sole focus is man.
Now, as to whether or not humanism is a religion, I could argue for either “yes” or “no”; but I’m going with “no”.
Before you decry either answer, though, please allow me to elucidate what I mean by this seeming dichotomism.
Initially, let’s look at my “yes.” While dictionaries differ, religion is commonly argued to be the worship of something divine or as practicing a set of beliefs relating to or regarding the divine—of course the divine is typically further defined as a God, as gods, and/or as goddesses. However, according to non-biblical etymology and philology, religion is more simply the belief in and/or the worship of the supernatural.
So far, all is well, and likely no conflict has arisen.
Next, however, we discover that the “supernatural” is that which relates to anything outside of the natural order: the natural world, or, as some might say, the known cosmos (though, ironically and etymologically, cosmos means world), and others would say outside the observable universe (this is still somewhat ambiguous, but perhaps the least ambiguous term). Last of all, some will even say that the supernatural is that to which the scientific method cannot be applied.
Still, so far, so good (most likely). There are a few, however, that are becoming uncomfortable with this line of thinking. All I’m using is the logical application of the etymon (Greek for “the true sense of words”).
So, before we continue, we should define the scientific method as well as its purpose, function, and use. Francis Bacon, a young earth creationist and devout Christian, developed the scientific method, a process which is used to acquire knowledge (knowledge is the etymological meaning of the term “science”). Thus, this knowledge is gained through observable, repeatable, tests applied to natural phenomena in order to investigate and verify them. Of the scientific method, Brittanica.com states that it is “The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments…” in which a hypothesis is formed and then “tests [the hypothesis] … then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed [natural] phenomena.” Brittanica constantly also affirms that the testing should yield observable empirical results.
With this understanding in mind, if we pause to consider then that the “Big Bang” cannot be tested by the scientific method (it is not observable, empirically testable, or humanly repeatable) and thus it cannot be demonstrated to be natural phenomena, because it is not within the observable universe or the known cosmos, it must, if we are to be consistent, immediately move into the category of the supernatural—outside the natural order. (PS: A multiverse [a universe creating mechanism] would likewise be supernatural.)
Therefore, humanism (which encompasses agnosticism and atheism), by its very definition, must be a belief in the supernatural, plain and simple. We may wish to disagree, or return to the commonly argued definition of religion, but, frankly, we’d be both inconsistent and incorrect in doing so. Humanism, being a belief in the supernatural is therefore a religion, by default. It has no other logical choice.
Is Humanism a Religion?
(Part 2 of 2)
Besides my previous argument, and just as an interesting factoid, you know that Humanism is recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States as a religion and numerous humanist organizations are allowed to, and subsequently have filed for and have obtained religious tax-exempt status. These things were fought for and championed by humanists.
With the above aside, however, on to my “no” as to humanism being a religion. I have two reasons. First, humanists don’t like the term “religion” applied to their belief system, as demonstrably true as it might be if we were to use the common definitions of “religion”. At the same time, as a Bible believer, I don’t like being referred to as “religious” in this way either. Atheists and (little “c”) christians do it to me all the time. But they probably do not understand what they are doing when they do it. Remember, “religion” is defined in a secular way as “the belief in and/or the worship of the supernatural”. And I’d argue that the secular definition of religion is incorrect. This leads to the second reason.
My second reason for saying that humanism is not a religion, at least not in the biblical sense, is that the Bible clearly says there are two religions, and humanism isn’t explicitly mentioned in the text as one of those two. The two names the Bible uses are vain religion and pure (i.e., true) religion (James 1:26, 27). Vain religion is when a man says one thing and does another. His walk and his talk communicate different things. Either the way he acts or the things he says seem to suggest that he has pure religion (see below), but then the way he talks or the way he acts doesn’t line up. It says the opposite. Ironically, there are some “religious humanists” (according to the Humanist Manifesto); these would almost certainly practice vain religion. Pure religion, on the other hand, occurs when a man’s life is uniform to his professed beliefs and, moreover, that those beliefs are biblical (James 1:2–25). However, whether vain or pure, in both cases what is strongly inferred by the passage is that religion is externally obvious and it is not primarily about our worship of God, but rather religion is something that is related to the practitioner’s relationship to other people and as such it is to be lived out before other people. (It is certain though that the pure religionists lives and believes this way in response to their belief about God and about God’s Word, the Bible.)
In conclusion, since I could argue for or against humanism being a religion and because humanists don’t appreciate the term applied to them, I choose to merely agree with them, when and if it does not help them or me for me to argue with them.
* - By “little ‘c’ christian,” I mean two things: 1) those who practice “vain religion” (see above) as well as 2) those who are members of an aberrant “christian” sect (i.e., a member of a cult, or someone who practices things which are unbiblical and yet calls what they practice “christianity” or “the true christian church/religion/etc.”).
(Part 2 of 2)
Besides my previous argument, and just as an interesting factoid, you know that Humanism is recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States as a religion and numerous humanist organizations are allowed to, and subsequently have filed for and have obtained religious tax-exempt status. These things were fought for and championed by humanists.
With the above aside, however, on to my “no” as to humanism being a religion. I have two reasons. First, humanists don’t like the term “religion” applied to their belief system, as demonstrably true as it might be if we were to use the common definitions of “religion”. At the same time, as a Bible believer, I don’t like being referred to as “religious” in this way either. Atheists and (little “c”) christians do it to me all the time. But they probably do not understand what they are doing when they do it. Remember, “religion” is defined in a secular way as “the belief in and/or the worship of the supernatural”. And I’d argue that the secular definition of religion is incorrect. This leads to the second reason.
My second reason for saying that humanism is not a religion, at least not in the biblical sense, is that the Bible clearly says there are two religions, and humanism isn’t explicitly mentioned in the text as one of those two. The two names the Bible uses are vain religion and pure (i.e., true) religion (James 1:26, 27). Vain religion is when a man says one thing and does another. His walk and his talk communicate different things. Either the way he acts or the things he says seem to suggest that he has pure religion (see below), but then the way he talks or the way he acts doesn’t line up. It says the opposite. Ironically, there are some “religious humanists” (according to the Humanist Manifesto); these would almost certainly practice vain religion. Pure religion, on the other hand, occurs when a man’s life is uniform to his professed beliefs and, moreover, that those beliefs are biblical (James 1:2–25). However, whether vain or pure, in both cases what is strongly inferred by the passage is that religion is externally obvious and it is not primarily about our worship of God, but rather religion is something that is related to the practitioner’s relationship to other people and as such it is to be lived out before other people. (It is certain though that the pure religionists lives and believes this way in response to their belief about God and about God’s Word, the Bible.)
In conclusion, since I could argue for or against humanism being a religion and because humanists don’t appreciate the term applied to them, I choose to merely agree with them, when and if it does not help them or me for me to argue with them.
* - By “little ‘c’ christian,” I mean two things: 1) those who practice “vain religion” (see above) as well as 2) those who are members of an aberrant “christian” sect (i.e., a member of a cult, or someone who practices things which are unbiblical and yet calls what they practice “christianity” or “the true christian church/religion/etc.”).
CAREFULNESS IN HOLINESS
“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.” (Leviticus 10:1-2)
I always presumed their offense was merely that they “offered strange fire” - v1 (cf. Numbers 26:61), but I had never looked at why they might have done that. That is, until a friend caused me to look at the possibility that they were drunken…
My understanding has always been that instead of getting their coals from the brazen altar, in order to burn their incense before the Lord, that they took their coals from some other place, some common (that is, unhallowed) place. Moreover, it’s interesting that they both did it; not just one of them alone did it. So either they collaborated or one of them offered the other a coal as well, after getting theirs from the wrong source first. Therefore it’s possible that one was intentionally wicked and the other merely lacked the discernment (or the fortitude) to decline the bad offer. But “why?” was often my unanswered question, and (as verses 8–11 may suggest) drunkenness seems a fitting conclusion.
It is my understanding that the words “holy” and “sanctify,” in their most basic meanings, both refer to setting something apart for a special or unique purpose. Whereas something that would be “profaned” or “defiled” would things which had been holy or sanctified (had been dedicated or set apart for God’s service), but then had been taken and used for some common or base purpose. A simple example would that of taking a pitcher (a vessel for carrying water) which had “sanctified” (or set apart) for use in the service at the temple, and carrying it home in order to use it in the common use of drawing water for one’s family. Doing this would profane (or make common) the pitcher because it had been holy (set apart for use in only serving God). In a similar way, using God’s Name in a common or base way is profaning It.
With this in mind, consider then that the brazen altar was holy—it was sanctified for a particular (or peculiar, or special) purpose. And the incense likewise was holy; it had a particular (special or holy) use (Exodus 30:22ff).
But the coals (“fire”) that Nadab and Abihu used were “strange” (i.e., foreign: cf. Genesis 35:2; Exodus 30:9; Judges 11:2). This word seems to indicate that it came from the wrong source, a strange source, it was “strange fire”. Perhaps they were careless or lacked discernment about where they had obtained their coals (fire) due to drunkenness. It is plausible, and (in looking at the context) it seems that this may have in fact been the case. For in verses 8–11, the dual prohibitions are 1) the making of a clear distinction between the holy (set apart, sanctified, special) and the unholy (profane, common, base) and 2) that thus being holy (and sober), the priests could properly teach the children of Israel the Lord’s statutes.
So, it seems, they obtained fire from the wrong source due to carelessness, possibly caused by their drunkenness. And the Lord, consequently, burnt these two priestly men to death because of it.
What a fearful admonition as to our service, our worship, our offerings (even ourselves - 2 Corinthians 8:5; Romans 12:1), that these should be yielded prayerfully and very, very carefully.
“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.” (Leviticus 10:1-2)
I always presumed their offense was merely that they “offered strange fire” - v1 (cf. Numbers 26:61), but I had never looked at why they might have done that. That is, until a friend caused me to look at the possibility that they were drunken…
My understanding has always been that instead of getting their coals from the brazen altar, in order to burn their incense before the Lord, that they took their coals from some other place, some common (that is, unhallowed) place. Moreover, it’s interesting that they both did it; not just one of them alone did it. So either they collaborated or one of them offered the other a coal as well, after getting theirs from the wrong source first. Therefore it’s possible that one was intentionally wicked and the other merely lacked the discernment (or the fortitude) to decline the bad offer. But “why?” was often my unanswered question, and (as verses 8–11 may suggest) drunkenness seems a fitting conclusion.
It is my understanding that the words “holy” and “sanctify,” in their most basic meanings, both refer to setting something apart for a special or unique purpose. Whereas something that would be “profaned” or “defiled” would things which had been holy or sanctified (had been dedicated or set apart for God’s service), but then had been taken and used for some common or base purpose. A simple example would that of taking a pitcher (a vessel for carrying water) which had “sanctified” (or set apart) for use in the service at the temple, and carrying it home in order to use it in the common use of drawing water for one’s family. Doing this would profane (or make common) the pitcher because it had been holy (set apart for use in only serving God). In a similar way, using God’s Name in a common or base way is profaning It.
With this in mind, consider then that the brazen altar was holy—it was sanctified for a particular (or peculiar, or special) purpose. And the incense likewise was holy; it had a particular (special or holy) use (Exodus 30:22ff).
But the coals (“fire”) that Nadab and Abihu used were “strange” (i.e., foreign: cf. Genesis 35:2; Exodus 30:9; Judges 11:2). This word seems to indicate that it came from the wrong source, a strange source, it was “strange fire”. Perhaps they were careless or lacked discernment about where they had obtained their coals (fire) due to drunkenness. It is plausible, and (in looking at the context) it seems that this may have in fact been the case. For in verses 8–11, the dual prohibitions are 1) the making of a clear distinction between the holy (set apart, sanctified, special) and the unholy (profane, common, base) and 2) that thus being holy (and sober), the priests could properly teach the children of Israel the Lord’s statutes.
So, it seems, they obtained fire from the wrong source due to carelessness, possibly caused by their drunkenness. And the Lord, consequently, burnt these two priestly men to death because of it.
What a fearful admonition as to our service, our worship, our offerings (even ourselves - 2 Corinthians 8:5; Romans 12:1), that these should be yielded prayerfully and very, very carefully.
WOUNDED TO MAKE PEACE
“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: THE CHASTISEMENT OF OUR PEACE was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5)
I was reading the text of, and reading some commentaries on the peace offering in Leviticus 3. And I was pondering that the peace offering was burned upon the burnt offering. That is, the burnt offering was foundational to the peace offering because the peace offering was burnt upon the ashes of the burnt offering. In offering the peace offering, the one offering it would place their hands upon the head of the peace offering and they would personally kill the animal that would be their peace offering…
“And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it ...” (Leviticus 3:2)
In fulfillment of that Old Testament type, the Lord Jesus Christ was our offering. In fact, He is pictured in and is the fulfillment of all the offerings and sacrifices. Therefore, in that moment when I savingly repented (changed from my thinking, regarding my sinful condition, to see my sinful self from God’s vantage point, His Word), it is as if I placed my hands upon Christ’s gracious head… I was personally responsible for His precious death. He offered Himself that I might have peace.
Oh what mixture of abject sorrow and abounding joy! The thought of my hands upon His head when I have so wantonly sinned against Him—that He would willingly let me place my sin and my guilt upon Himself. Yea, He took them from me willingly! The Father took my sin, all my sin, not in part but the whole, and place it upon His Son, Who nailed it to the tree in His own body!
“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. … Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, …” (Isaiah 53:6, 10)
“But this man [Christ Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; … For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. … And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” (Hebrews 10:12, 14, 17)
“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: THE CHASTISEMENT OF OUR PEACE was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5)
I was reading the text of, and reading some commentaries on the peace offering in Leviticus 3. And I was pondering that the peace offering was burned upon the burnt offering. That is, the burnt offering was foundational to the peace offering because the peace offering was burnt upon the ashes of the burnt offering. In offering the peace offering, the one offering it would place their hands upon the head of the peace offering and they would personally kill the animal that would be their peace offering…
“And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it ...” (Leviticus 3:2)
In fulfillment of that Old Testament type, the Lord Jesus Christ was our offering. In fact, He is pictured in and is the fulfillment of all the offerings and sacrifices. Therefore, in that moment when I savingly repented (changed from my thinking, regarding my sinful condition, to see my sinful self from God’s vantage point, His Word), it is as if I placed my hands upon Christ’s gracious head… I was personally responsible for His precious death. He offered Himself that I might have peace.
Oh what mixture of abject sorrow and abounding joy! The thought of my hands upon His head when I have so wantonly sinned against Him—that He would willingly let me place my sin and my guilt upon Himself. Yea, He took them from me willingly! The Father took my sin, all my sin, not in part but the whole, and place it upon His Son, Who nailed it to the tree in His own body!
“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. … Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, …” (Isaiah 53:6, 10)
“But this man [Christ Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; … For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. … And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” (Hebrews 10:12, 14, 17)