RSS

Monthly Archives: February 2016

God Created His Way

Yesterday we had a comment from a person who has provided more to the Haworth-Roberts saga going on here and in his comment he added a few words that we felt would be a great jumping off spot for this post. He said:

Mr. Tee indicates that belief in creation necessary for salvation. He has also stated that people who believe in speciation may not be Christians. These two points are against what is taught by creation science organizations. I recommend that he examine their literature.

It isn’t really me who said those words first. Christ said, If you do not believe Moses how will you believe my words? (Paraphrase from John 5: 44ff) And this is the key. Those who opt for alternatives are not believing Moses and since Moses was inspired by God, they are in fact not believing God but doubting his word. The question we have asked over and over, not only here but on other websites, and which has never received a good answer, if one at all, needs to be asked again:

Where in the Bible do both God and Jesus give permission to their creation to take what science says over their words?

This is the key for those people who claim to be Christian yet take the words of secular scientists or those scientists who claim to be Christian yet state that Genesis was wrong, over God’s word. They are believing humans over the divine and that is never a smart idea. But they like science for it allows them to ‘investigate’ our origins whereas Genesis does not. The latter gives us the answer concerning where we came from without any work on our part. God reveals what he did but for some people that is not enough, they need an excuse to focus on science even if it causes them to disobey other passages in the Bible.

Then some people get the wrong idea of how God created all things and the following excerpt is just an example as we cannot find an exact quote at this time that we want to use but it will do for our purpose here:

If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang
some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a
trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life
could never have developed. (Argument from Design, Author and date unknown)

Just change a few words and we get the thoughts of many people who say the same thing about God and his creative work. They say: ‘If God had created one way and not the way he did we would not exist’ as if to say that God was given some task by some higher divine council to prove his godliness and worthiness to be considered God.

This type of thinking is far from the reality of how God created. God had an innumerable number of options to choose from when he created all things. he could have created us to be able to eat hot lava if he wanted to. Creation was not some task where the parameters  were already in existence and God had to meet a challenge to thwart those boundaries. No God created those boundaries and human limitations when he chose which world and set of life forms he wanted to exist.

Why he did so, we do not know but those boundaries and limitations serve his purpose not ours. God was not meeting a challenge but showing what he did for us to marvel at and praise him for. The boundaries and limitations we face are not eternal nor are they greater than God. They are a product of God’s design for this universe.

But does that mean that God created chaos and sin? No though there are many people who look at this present world and its corrupt condition and say that of all the options God had, this was the best world and universe for us. That too is erroneous thinking because the people who come to this conclusion do so without looking at Genesis 1 correctly.

God did not create a corrupt, sinful world. He did not create the mess that we live in. As we read in Genesis 1 God created a beautiful and perfect world that was like a paradise where no sin, crime or corruption existed. God created a better world than the one we now live in. Could he have designed a different universe and earth? of course he could. Would it have been better than the one he originally created? No of course not for that alternative universe and world would have been created as perfect and as good as declared this one to be.

God creates the way he wants to. He is not limited in choice, method, style or boundaries. Could God have used the Big Bang and an evolutionary process? of course he could but that option would not display God as powerful, creative, or as kind as he really is. It would show him to be as weak, unimaginative and murderous as he is accused of being by unbelievers today.

God created in a way that demonstrated his power, his character and his personality to his creation so that they would stand in awe of him and praise him for who he is and not the way some people fashion him to be.

This is why those of us who believe God and Moses say that we doubt the Christian claims of those who reject God and his demonstration and opt for those alternatives that make him worse than the most vile human. Those people want God to be inferior to them instead of having things the right way around, that we are vastly inferior to God. When we demote God we sin and sin is not of God thus we need to repent of those sins for they do tarnish any claim we make about being like Christ. Then if we do not repent of those sins but keep on making false claims about our origins then we are practicing sin and 1 John tells us those that practice sin are not of God.

This is also why those of us who believe God and Moses can doubt the Christian claims of those who reject Genesis 1 and seek after secular alternatives. They are disobeying God’s word to adopt something that God has said never taken place.When one claims to follow and believe God then they need to believe God despite what others say and when one rejects Genesis 1 and Moses then they are not following and believing God but going their own way.

It is not those who accept and believe God and Moses who are in error and need to change or repent of their beliefs; that is something that those who reject those truths need to do.

 

 
Comments Off on God Created His Way

Posted by on February 29, 2016 in academics, astronomy, Bible, creation, education, faith, Genetics, history, leadership, science, theology

 

A Plug

We do not mind helping other websites out especially when they are very good  and focus on information we may not get to on our two sites. The following is a very thorough and well organized website on biblical archaeology and biblical topics:

Bible History Online– http://www.bible-history.com/

Check them out and hopefully you will find information there that will help you in your lives and Christian faith.

 
Comments Off on A Plug

Posted by on February 29, 2016 in academics, archaeology, Bible, history, leadership, science, theology

 

The Right Explanation

What follows are the main ideas from my most recent sermon.

 

Introduction:

 
This past week I was working on my 10th issue of the magazine and I was dealing with the issue of contradictions in the Bible. Many unbelievers claim that God cannot write, that he cannot make up his mind and that he confuses his people because these supposed contradictions exist in scriptures.
The big problem in this issue is that the unbeliever does not accept two facts. First, they do not accept the fact that they are deceived and blind. This attitude comes from their rejection that evil (satan) exists. Since they refuse to acknowledge the source of their deception, they also do not accept the reality that they are the ones who are deceived.

 
They like to say that it is those who bring the light to this world who are in error and deceived.

 
Second, they refuse to accept the correct, rational, logical, and realistic explanations for these supposed discrepancies. These explanations do exist and they do clear up the matter of contradictions in the Bible. The explanations are not made up, they are not excuses, they are not in error but the unbeliever will say anything to avoid hearing and listening to the truth and the reason for this comes from point 1. They are deceived by evil.

 
We can use these explanations to protect our faith and keep us from stumbling. So today we will address 3 of these supposed contradictions about God.

 
I. God be seen?

 
Can God be seen? Well it all depends upon which definition of the word seen you use. If you use the one that supports a physical sighting of someone or something then you would be using the wrong definition for this issue.

 
“And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts.” (EXO 33:23)

 
“And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.” (EXO 33:11)

 
“For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (GEN 32:30)

 
No man hath seen God at any time.” (JOH 1:18)

 
“And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.” (EXO 33:20)

 
“Whom no man hath seen nor can see.” (1TIM 6:16)

 
These 6 verses are used by unbelievers to claim a contradiction exists in scripture but as we shall see if you look at the whole picture you will get a different story.
When people get too literal they make all sorts of claims. In the first 3 verses we see the words ‘see my backparts’, face to face’ for I have seen’ and when people get too literal they think that these statements refer to what is happening today—you see me standing in front of you, we are face to face, and since I am behind a pulpit, you only see a part of me.

 
But those words are not describing a very literal encounter. You can have a face to face talk with someone without seeing them. Back when Richard Nixon was president there were two investigative reporters who had several face to face meetings with a man who called himself deep throat. But in those encounters, they never saw his face and did not know what he looked like.

 
You can have a face to face encounter with someone and not see them. Moses had a face to face encounter with God but God appeared to Moses in a cloud, a burning bush and other disguises. Being disguised does not mean a face to face encounter did not take place.

 
When someone says ‘for I have seen God’ they are not talking about seeing him but seeing the results of his actions. When a miracle occurs we have seen God but we have not seen him physically, we see him at work. Thus we see the reality when we look for the true explanation and accept it.

 
II. CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

 
“I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy.” (JER 13:14) “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”

 
“The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” (JAS 5:11)

 
“For his mercy endureth forever.” (1CH 16:34)

 
“The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.” (PSA 145:9)

 
“God is love.” (1JO 4:16)

 
Now you may say along with the unbeliever that those verses are in contradiction with each other. But when you examine the Jeremiah verse again, you will find that the unbeliever leaves a word out in order to make their claim that God contradicts himself in the bible.

 
The missing word is ‘allow’. By leaving that word out, the unbeliever presents to the believer an erroneous picture of what God actually said. When you put the missing word back into the verse you find that God is not contradicting himself about his character and nature but that he is stating that those parts of his character and nature will not interfere with his upcoming actions.

 
There is a big difference between not being merciful and not allowing one’s mercy to interfere with the punishment coming. The other verses mentioned here do not record lying about himself but describes accurately who he is. An unbeliever will take them out of context and distort their meaning in order for them to make their false claims about God and the Bible.

 
To receive God’s mercy, to experience his grace there are actions we must do but the unbeliever does not want to acknowledge those actions because their intent is to discredit God not verify who he is. Too often people think grace is permission but that is not what grace is. Grace comes when we are pardoned from our sins and does not exist to allow us to practice sin.

 
Yes God’s mercy endures forever but one must give up their sin and ask for mercy in order to receive it. Mercy does not exist to condone sinful actions and call those sinners good. It also is granted when one repents of their sins and is not permission to do as one pleases.

 
One should not count on grace and mercy to be automatically given when one chooses to disobey as you see in the verse in Jeremiah that God will get angry and withhold it if he sees fit.

 
The word ‘allowing’ tells us that granting of grace and mercy are voluntary not mandatory and that God can choose to use it or not. it is up to his desires not ours if we receive those acts of mercy or not. How we live determines a lot about this issue.
III. Tempts?

 
“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.” (GEN 22:1)

 
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (JAS 1:13)

 
The key to this problem is in which translation you use and how lazy or thorough you are in your study of God’s word. Again unbelievers will stop at the face value of the word ‘tempt’ and distort what is being said because they are lazy in their study and use of God’s word.

 
They will take the meaning of the word that they want, one that supports their ideas even if that definition does not apply to the word or this context. When one does a thorough study they will find that the word ‘tempt’ really is not the correct word to use h=in the passage of scripture and most good English translations do not use that word, nor do they infer that definition of the word. God does not tempt but he does ‘test’ and the word test is the word found in most good English translations in that passage of scripture.

 
BUT the word ‘test’ or its definitions do not fit the passage we read in James. There the word tempt is correct as is its most obvious definition. We do not read ‘god does not test people’ but ‘God does not tempt’ people and if you want an example of what the word tempt means in James we only have to go back to when Jesus was tempted by Satan. Then we get the correct definition and use of the word tempt in the book of James.

 
IV. Conclusion

 
The Bible tells us to study to show ourselves approved unto God and this is the reason for that verse. We study and follow the Holy Spirit to the truth in order to not have our faith ruined by the work of the unbeliever who serves evil not God.

 
We study to know the real explanations and then we accept those reasons so that our faith is built upon the rock as Jesus said it should be constructed. We study thoroughly, not lazily so that we can learn the truth and be able to rebut the arguments of those who do not believe maintaining our faith and not letting doubt undermine it.

 
We cannot rely upon others to tell us the truth all the time. Sometimes we need to double-check what they have said so again we another valid reason why we study the word of God. There are many Christians who are lazy or do not follow the Holy Spirit to the truth thus they get the meaning of the biblical passages wrong or they are influenced by outside mitigating factors or influences which lead them away from the truth.

 
So we do not leave our study up to other people. Sometimes we have to correct those who error, and those that error may have done so innocently and not purposefully and that is another reason why we study. We need to develop discernment so we know who needs correction and who does not.
Aquila and Priscilla in the book of Acts are prime examples of this need as they took Apollos aside and gave him correct instruction so that he could tell the truth to others and make a great impact for God.

 
We cannot be lazy in our Christian lives because so much depends upon us learning and knowing the truth. Not only will our study keep us from mistake-filled ideas like contradictions, it will help us to teach our friends, relatives and our children the correct way to go and keep them on the straight and narrow path to salvation.

 
Shall we pray…

 
Comments Off on The Right Explanation

Posted by on February 29, 2016 in academics, Bible, church, faith, leadership, theology

 

Updates

On http://www.dakotascha.com website. We have added 5 more pages and removed one today. Here are the links to the new additions:

http://dakotascba.com/The-Augsberg-Confession.php

http://dakotascba.com/Description-Of-Biblical-Books.php

http://dakotascba.com/Descriptions-For-Biblical-Books-2.php

http://dakotascba.com/Descriptions-of-Biblical-Books-3.php

http://dakotascba.com/Descriptions-of-Biblical-Books-4.php

we hope you can learn from them and glean out some helpful information. We will be adding more pages in the next week or so

 
Comments Off on Updates

Posted by on February 29, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Taking Back God – 2

For our last post this internet session, we will look at a few more quotes from Leora Tanenbaum’s book, Taking Back God. Her book, to sum up, basically is telling people to sin against God and that God’s rules do not matter. This is the problem with the feminist movement, both  secular and religious. The people who participate and support his movement only want to do what they want and do not care about what God wants for his creation.

Again we are not attacking Ms. Tanenbaum but looking at the information she has provided in her book. For the record, Ms. Tanenbaum is a married practicing Jewish woman and she is very misguided in her views.

#1. A pastor’s wife shares here abortion story and the ‘lonely secrecy’ of the experience. Her husband was the one who suggested the abortion: they already had one child, she was coping with the fallout from major surgery and taking heavy duty medication, and he was completing seminary. (pg. 276)

A few things are wrong with the thinking in that situation. First, a pastor should know better than to suggest abortion. I do not care who they are, this option should never enter the minds of a Christian.  Second, none of the reasons given are compelling enough, scriptural or even logical to support the decision to abort or even convince someone to abort their pregnancy. Human life is worth more than all those reasons.

Third, if they were in this situation, then they should have either curbed their sexual activity or taken measures to prevent pregnancy. We at this website are not totally against contraceptives and the moral or ethical issues surrounding them are too involved to discuss here at this time. If you are against contraceptives but need to use them one thing to remember is that their use is not the unforgivable sin and people can re-establish their relationship with God.

Also, they should have consulted God on their options before continuing their sexual activity. Sex is not more important than human life and some people really need to get this concept through their heads. Sex isn’t life nor the only thing in life to experience and people need to put it back into its proper place and priority. It is not wrong to control your sexual activity in marriage, both the husband and the wife need to discuss this and agree before implementing any controls or alternate behavior and neither should seek outside sources for sexual release. Porn is not the answer either.

Christians have got to stop letting the secular world influence their views on different issues including sex and marriage.

#2. The religious fight against gay rights, like that against women’s reproductive rights, unites conservative Catholics and evangelical protestants. Both groups believe that homosexuality is a violation of ‘natural law’ and God-given roles for men and women. (pg. 277)

The problem in this issue is the word ‘rights’. It is not the violation of natural law or God-given roles. the word ‘rights’ is now being used to demolish the standard of sin, or right and wrong. People actually use this word to achieve anarchy instead of a well-governed society that is safe for all. We do not have all the rights in the world to act as we please and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Thankfully God has drawn that line with his standard of right and wrong.

Sadly, too many people do not like that standard thus they use code words, such as the word ‘rights’, to achieve their sinful goals and allow for all sorts of behavior to be practiced. What most people fail to realize is that the ‘gay rights’ issue is not about rights but about the freedom to practice sin openly and call it good. The homosexual community already had the right to marry, they just did not like the rules governing those rights so they fought to change the rules but that fight was hypocritical as they only fought to change the rules to fit their desires and no one elses’.

Their fight is not about rights but about right and wrong and feeling ‘normal’. Of course people are going to resist because we know that God is real and that sin destroys a nation not make it a better, more diverse, or safe place to live. These people have the ‘right’ to a well-governed society and the ‘right’ to outlaw certain behavior if we want to apply the homosexual community’s and their supporters’ logic to the issue. The homosexual community does not have the right to force their alternatives upon a nation that doesn’t want that alternative practiced. They should consider leaving that nation and journeying to their own land where they can freely practice what they want.

#3. Could the real fear be that – as with reproductive rights– women might recognize that the world doesn’t explode if they choose not to follow the conventional religious script? If gay and lesbian rights were legitimated, “the women must do this, the men must do that” blueprint would be meaningless. (pg. 277-8)

The world not exploding is not reason to allow for sinful behavior to be practiced unhindered or supported. Since there are many righteous and obedient people in the world, why destroy their obedience by punishing them with the evil doers? No that logic makes no sense and is not justification to alter the rights of people to allow for sinful activity, whether it be reproductive or alternative sexual rights.

God has left enough examples of what happens to those who sin against him and if that is not enough to sway their decisions to sin, then nothing will do it. The world will end someday and then when these people see the reality it will be too late to change their decisions to what is the right thing to do. What we see by this logic is a selfish attitude, one that seeks only their desires and to heck with anyone else.

#4. Conservative Christians  as well as Orthodox Jews have largely adopted the position of ‘loving the sinner but hating the sin’ in an effort to show compassion for gay men and lesbians and allowing them to be a part of their religious community while refusing to condone gay sexual behavior. What this means in practice is a demand that gay and lesbians remain celibate their entire lives. But sexuality is an integral part of the human experience, and to deny someone the right to be sexual seems to be cruel and even a denial of his or her full humanity. (pg. 279)

The first verse that comes to mind is the passage of scripture where Jesus tells us if our eyes or hands cause us to sin then we need to pluck them or cut them out. He said it is better to enter the kingdom crippled than got to hell fully formed. These words apply to homosexuals as well. Wouldn’t be better that they entered into heaven cutting off their homosexuality instead of practicing it and being thrown into hell?

The second verse is that if a homosexual truly repents, then they are made new creatures and their old ways have been removed and passed away. They are not homosexuals anymore in Christ thus their sexuality has been changed to something new. The converted homosexual should not be forced to be celibate as that is a choice reserved for them and God not the church congregation. With that said,though, the converted homosexual cannot be encouraged to return to their old ways and be allowed to practice homosexuality again. That would make them worse than they were before.

We do not allow converted people to practice sin, but that is what Ms. Tanenbaum advocates here and that is why we can say she is misguided. It isn’t a matter of being fully human or that sex is a large part of human life. People place far too much importance on sex and its practice and that is not the correct way to think. We can give up sexual practices if it means we are going to hell and we do not lose our full humanity. It means we are protecting it because we want to go to heaven instead.

Ms. Tanenbaum is confused about what makes up humanity and misleads a lot of her readers.

#5. Those of us who are heterosexual need to remember that their struggle is our struggle. (pg. 280)

Uhm…no. If there is any common struggle it is the struggle to be free from sin and learn how to resist temptation.  Homosexual rights are not our struggle at all. In this issue our struggle is to keep those selfish people from destroying civilization because their sins are accepted and called good. There is more to this issue than the homosexual marrying the one they ‘love’. But the homosexual community and its supporters are too blind to see the bigger picture or accept it if they have been shown it.

No we do not support sin nor call it good but be the light unto the world no matter how much the world complains. They are the ones who refuse to follow the rules not the believer.

 
Comments Off on Taking Back God – 2

Posted by on February 25, 2016 in academics, Bible, church, controversial issues, education, faith, family, General Life, history, Justice, leadership, politics, theology

 

Not Paying Your Workers

This problem came up a lot in Korea as many western teachers complained all the time about not receiving their contracted salaries on time. Some went months without receiving any pay at all. It is not a pleasant feeling. Employers should pay their employees a just and fair wage, especially Christian ones. The Christian employer represents Christ and if they value money over their employees’ contribution then they run the risk of turning their employees off of Christ and the Christian life.

The bigger picture here is that those caused to stumble may not be just the employees of the Christian employer. There are more people involved. These people are what can be called the silent and invisible observers who are made up of the family, friends and acquaintances of those employees. These people may not have any contact with the Christian employer but they are well acquainted with their practices and what the Christian does to their employees is well-known to them all.

The Christian ‘witness’ may be and is marred by the employers actions making it tough for other believers to make an impact for Christ. But this aspect of paying a salary is not the focus of this post. The focus of this post is on those Christian organizations who force their employees to raise their own support. Due to certain circumstances, I have had to apply to different Christian organizations for employment and I have done this on two different occasions.

So far a couple of these have written back that I need to raise my own support, one in the most recent round of applying for employment. I stated in that application that I could not entertain any employment if I needed to raise my own support. That letter was sent to 8 organizations and at this writing only 1 has responded with the following words

I’m sorry but all of our opportunities do require you to raise your own support, we do not have any employment opportunities.

The other 7 have not responded yet, so I can conclude that they have not had time to read their mail or they are raise your own support type ministries.

These type of ministries are sad for several reasons. One. they place an undue hardship upon the friends, families and strangers contacted by the person wanting to work for those type of organizations. Those people already have enough bills of their own to take care of and adding part of the monthly salary of a Christian worker can be too much. This should not be expected by the Christian organizations.

Two, this type of financial support is not biblical instructed. Yes Paul worked as a tent maker but that example was not presented to us in the form that every Christian should follow suit. If you notice that in the OT, God provided for his priests and did not tell them to go and raise their own support to work in his service.

Three, the employer is abdicating his or her responsibilities to pay their workers. The Bible tells us that a worker is worthy of his hire and we can apply that verse in a couple of ways, including that they are deserving their pay. Even the biblical example of the owner of a field has him offering a wage to those he hired. It is unfair to demand that an employee pay their own salary. The employer should be counting his costs and including salary in that figuring and make sure he or she has enough money to cover the expenses related to having employees.

Fourth, this type of employment allows for the employer to avoid their civil fiscal responsibilities. In other words they provide no benefits to their employees as required by the government for other types of employers. This failure to contribute to these benefit structures is also unfair as it gives the Christian a free ride while others bear the burden of providing contributions to government programs, including taxes.

No, we disagree with this type of employment practice for it is dishonest and unfair to the people called of God into a certain type of ministry. The churches and para-church organizations should be like God and making sure the monetary needs of their employees are met instead of finding excuses to get slave labor or free labor.

Yes, slave labor is exactly what these organizations offer under the guise of ‘doing something for God’. They certainly are not following the example of God and they certainly are not taking the burden of ownership upon their shoulders but placing it on the shoulders of those they hire. It is wrong to do this.

If the para-church organization cannot survive without this type of arrangement then they need to question their own calling, their business skills or return to the umbrella of the church and receive money through scriptural means. They should not be demanding that their own employees support themselves. If I had the financial support that they require, I would not need to seek employment from them. We would not be selling our DVDs or other personal items to raise the money we need to meet our debts and obligations

Christians need to set a better example than the unchurched world especially when it comes to employment opportunities. Other believers should not be seen as a free labor pool existing only to serve the Christian employer. Believing in God does not mean that the Christian work is not deserving of a guaranteed, fair salary nor is God to be seen as someone who picks up the slack.

When one takes a long look at modern Christian practices then they see why the modern Church does not make a greater impact for God. Their behavior is worse than those they are trying to save. We really do not have much to be proud of when we treat our own kind worse than unbelievers treat them.

Faith includes being paid fairly and by our employers. It does not mean we work for free.

 
Comments Off on Not Paying Your Workers

Posted by on February 25, 2016 in academics, Bible, church, controversial issues, faith, General Life, Justice, leadership, theology

 

It’s Here

OUR 7th ISSUE  IS NOW ONLINE AND READY FOR PURCHASE.  Just click the link and follow instructions

http://feedingflock.com/Purchase-Options.php

Do not think we are going away, we have 2 more issues completed and ready to go online plus we have almost completed our 10th issue with research done for our 11th. Please pass the word about our work and hopefully people will begin to purchase it so we can continue to bring solid teaching to other believers.

 
Comments Off on It’s Here

Posted by on February 25, 2016 in Uncategorized

 
 
%d bloggers like this: