You see, this is the God of illogical predestination. He randomly chooses some to have a good purpose in life, and randomly chooses some who will not. And, you will / can never know which one he will choose for you. We are simply pawns on some divine chess board.

Now, we may not have the ideal life by human standards. I am sure that Jim Elliot was not planning on being speared to death, leaving his family behind at such a young age. But was his purpose still good? Sure. Hundreds came to the faith. And, if you ask Elisabeth Elliot if she has any regrets over the situation, she would probably tell you the same. His life had a beautiful purpose. Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. was probably not planning on being assassinated. But the good and blessed purpose of His life has left ripples in eternity. For those that follow the Lord, there is a great purpose for our lives (and Rick Warren would agree that following God is the prerequisite for having a good purpose in life).

If course, the ironic thing is that most of the people who would hold to this view probably believe that they all have a good purpose in life. This poster and ideology would only apply to anyone other than themselves and their pack of Christian friends.

Now the plummer’s got a drip in his spigot
The mechanic’s got a clank in his car
And the preacher’s thinking thoughts that are wicked
And the lover’s got a lonely heart
My friends ain’t the way I wish they were
They are just the way they are

And I will be my brother’s keeper
Not the one who judges him
I won’t despise him for his weakness
I won’t regard him for his strength
I won’t take away his freedom
I will help him learn to stand
And I will, I will be my brother’s keeper

Now this roof has got a few missing shingles
But at least we got ourselves a roof
And they say that she’s a fallen angel
I wonder if she recalls when she last flew
There’s no point in pointing fingers
Unless you’re pointing to the truth

And I will be my brother’s keeper
Not the one who judges him
I won’t despise him for his weakness
I won’t regard him for his strength
I won’t take away his freedom
I will help him learn to stand
And I will, I will be my brother’s keeper

I will be my brother’s keeper
Not the one who judges him
I won’t despise him for his weakness
I won’t regard him for his strength
I won’t take away his freedom
I will help him learn to stand
And I will, I will be my brother’s keeper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afgwvO5GI4Y

I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.  And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;

the whole earth is full of his glory.”

At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”

Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar.  With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

It made the front-page of FARK, probably the only news-blog I read with any regularity (though I try to avoid many of the comments threads, which are long, nasty and brutish, to be nice). It was also FARK that picked up Ingrid’s attack on VeggieTales a couple years back that brought SoL briefly (and sadly) into the secular public eye.

Now it’s Ray Comfort and his banana act.

Which is pitiful.

It seems that an atheist site took hold of this and ran with it, and it’s been posted to FARK (which has also been demonstrated to be the #1 source for comedy writers of late-night TV and talk radio). So, don’t be surprised if this shows up in embarrassing places in the coming week or so. With some luck or providence, there will be better things out there to make fun of.

Here’s the running commentary on FARK on the article in question. To be clear, though, I don’t endorse anything that you’re likely to find there - it was already pretty bad 10 comments in - so proceed with caution.

—UPDATE 8:00 a.m. 7/3—

After sleeping, praying and reflecting on it, I should not have submitted this article in the shape that it’s in.  The key message I was trying to get across -

that when we purposely engage the public square, we should do so in ways that are not offensive (even though the message of the gospel may bring offense) or pathetic

- was completely muddled and ill-thought-out in its presentation.  A lot more thought and prayer should have been engaged before hitting ’submit’.  However, since we do not try to cover up mistakes here by deleting things and pretending they didn’t happen, please feel free to stop by and say “Chris, you should have been much more considerate and reflective before hitting ’submit’” because, if you were to say this, you would be correct.

You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

In the list of the Ten Commandments, this one, more than any other, seems a bit out of place - particularly in its most used context. However, when examined in the light of its full context in scripture and its originally understood context, I think there is a lesson for all of us to grasp.

Vows and Oaths and Empty Words

Probably the way this verse is most often interpreted is that we should not use God’s (or Jesus’) name as an expletive, or otherwise extraneous manner. This is very wise, and I am sure a part of what is covered by the command. However, if we stop there, we completely miss the heart of this command.

To ‘misuse’ God’s name, or to take in vain (i.e. to ‘make it nothing’) is to attach it to something that to which it does not belong. It is claiming that God has blessed or cursed something, someone or some activity based on your own purposes. Or, as Andy Stanley notes, “the original intent of this command was to prevent people from attaching God’s name to purposes that are not His.”

To take God’s name in vain - to make it nothing - basically is man’s way of pitting God against Himself.

Torah Organization

In the Torah, Jews recognize 613 commands, which are organized thusly:

1) The greatest command, according to Jesus, Hillel (the primary rabbinic school of thought followed by modern Orthodox Jews) and Hillel’s grandson, Gamaliel (Paul’s teacher) is the shema:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

2) The second greatest command is similar to the first, according to Jesus, Hillel and Gamaliel:

Love your neighbor as yourself

The other 611 commands all spring from these two

Out of these 611, the Ten Commandments summarize the remaining 601 commands. So, we can often find insight into the ‘heavier’ commandments by examining the ‘lighter’ commandments which fall under them. For instance, the Seventh Commandment, you shall not commit adultery, encompasses all of the commands listed in Leviticus 18.

So, for the case of the Third Commandment, we should examine some of the ‘lighter’ commands which have traditionally been tied back to it, with these being the primary three:

Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

if a person thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil—in any matter one might carelessly swear about—even though he is unaware of it, in any case when he learns of it he will be guilty.

Do not test the LORD your God

As we examine these, and as we understand the meaning of ‘in vain’, it should become more clear what is going on with this command, and that it is not simply saying God’s name as part of an expletive.

Example 1:

One of the primary modern examples of using God’s name in vain by pitting Him against Himself is found in the core doctrine of the Health and Wealth Gospel. They take the one exception to this command from Malachi:

“Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

And they pervert it (among other passages) by ascribing health and wealth as the ‘blessing’ promised by God. Basically, the teaching is that if you are being faithful to God, then He will give you good health and material blessings - or, to put it in a different way that better exposes the fallacy - If you are faithful to God, He HAS TO materially bless you with money, power and good health IN ORDER TO demonstrate His love.

Example 2:

Chances are, this one will hit close to home for many of us. How often do we, as Christians or as Churches enter into poor or risky financial commitments by saying “I have faith that God will give me a way to meet this commitment”. How often do churches buy/build lavish new buildings they cannot afford, “on faith that God will provide”? While I agree with the premise of ‘faith promise giving’, all too often, the way it is presented leads people to put God to the test, beyond what He allows for in Malachi.

This, again, pits God against Himself to keep a commitment that we make on His behalf…

Example 3:

For folks in the blogosphere or in leadership positions, it is probably much too easy to make claims of God’s ’stamp of approval’ through the way we communicate:

• You should not question me or my motives because Jesus called me to be his pastor-teacher
• Jesus gave me multiple websites from which to denounce …
• It seemed good to the Lord and me today to …
• Will he do it God’s way (a.k.a. the way I agree with) or (__________) way?

This is not to say that God does not speak to people today, but when we remove any doubt as to whether it is just our belief or the actual voice of God, we violate this basic command.

Example 4:

When going to war or into a fight (be it literal or figurative) claiming to be ‘on God’s side’ (or that ‘God is on our side’) in a particular human quarrel, is a basic violation of the Third Commandment. This doesn’t matter whether it is the Crusades, World War II, the Protestant Reformation or Iraq. While one side may have legitimate issues in which they are in more agreement with God’s direction in scripture, ascribing a “side” to God creates all sorts of moral dilemmas which would seem to pit God against himself.

Basically, let your disagreement/fight/war stand on its own merits (or lack thereof), but don’t bring God’s blessing or curses into it, as you don’t speak for Him.

In Conclusion

Perhaps it was some of the recent articles, or it was seeing Fred Phelps on TV saying “God Hates Fags” and picketing George Carlin’s funeral, or seeing the other abuses of God’s name in the recent press that prompted this article - I don’t know. But I do know that, if God was directing me to write it, He can have that credit, but since I’m writing it, I am sure there are bound to be mistakes…

The following is based on an unsolicited email I received here at Apprising Ministries. Please understand that I do not think any pastor-teacher is above reproach [insert typical Emerging Church whining here], etc. [emphasis mine]
What I wish to bring out is how easy, and I’ll argue arrogant as well, it is for people to simply disregard the teaching of someone like myself who has been studying the fields of apologetics, Comparative Religion and evangelizing non-Christian cults for 21 years….

You said: “I was very surprised to see your negative views on Christian meditation in the article CHRISTIAN MEDITATION WITH MANTRA: DOM JOHN MAIN.” So let me put it another way: I am very surprised to see you so quick in attempting to instruct someone like me whom Jesus has called as one of His pastor-teachers. [emphasis mine]

My dad always told me that you could tell alot about someone based on how they respond to correction or constructive criticism. This correspondence to Apprising was in no way instructional or a harsh rebuke. It sounded like an honest reader that was trying to understand where Silva was coming from. Most of the email was actually the reader asking him questions. But, Ken strikes back with his lofty credentials and how a man of his status should not be quickly instructed. How did Silva know that this reader had not spend some time looking at the Apprising articles and made an educated and simply inquisitive inquiry. On top of that, he sends such mixed statements: no pastor is above reproach, but people should not instruct someone who is a pastor-teacher in this manner.

Anyhow, this all too telling of the attitude of both Apprising and CRN:
We are educated, anointed and experienced, therefore we get to criticize whoever we want, whenever we want. And, you better not say anything about it.

This is the God of the gospel of grace. A God who, out of love for us, sent the only Son He ever had wrapped in our skin. He learned how to walk, stumbled and fell, cried for His milk, sweated blood in the night, was lashed with a whip and showered with spit, was fixed to a cross, and died whispering forgiveness on us all.

The God of the legalistic Christian, on the other hand is often unpredictable, erratic, and capable of all manner of prejudices. When we view God this way, we feel compelled to engage in some sort of magic to appease Him. Sunday worship becomes a superstitious insurance policy against His whims. This God expects people to be perfect and to be in perpetual control of their feelings and thoughts. When broken people with this concept of God fail, as inevitably as they must, they usually expect punishment. So they persevere in religious practices as they struggle to maintain a hollow image of a perfect self. The struggle itself is exhausting. The legalists can never live up to the expectations they project on God.
…….
In similar fashion a person who thinks of God as a loose cannon firing random broadsides to let us know who’s in charge will become fearful, slavish, and probably unbending in his or her expectations of others. If your God is an impersonal cosmic force, your religion will be noncommittal and vague. The image of God as an omnipotent thug who brooks no human intervention creates a rigid lifestyle ruled by puritanical laws and dominated by fear.

But trust in the God who loves consistently and faithfully nurtures confident, free disciples. A loving God fosters a loving people. “The fact that our view of God shapes our lives to a great extent may be one of the reasons Scripture ascribes such imporantce to seeking to know Him”.

-Brennan Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel

A mammoth Christian mobilization effort—with a goal of tapping the time and talents of a billion believers worldwide. Pastor Rick Warren developed the PEACE Plan and unveiled it during a three-day, invitation-only conference that drew 1,700 pastors and business leaders from all 50 states and 38 countries…

“The churches have become fragmented and segmented in a large degree, and there are a lot of silos,” [Warren] said. “When you travel as much as I do and you get not just a national picture, but an international picture, you realize that there’s enormous talent and enormous potential in the church, but it’s not connected”…

it was followed up with this snide remark

O whatever did God do before Rick Warren showed up?

And that was the extent of his article. This is just another example of how the ODMs are not really 100% concerned with defending the truth, proclaiming the gospel, etc. It’s about attacking their self-proclaimed false prophets and teachers as much as they can, whenever they can. This reminds me of the kid on the team that always made fun of the other kids who excelled at the sport. They would usually make some sarcastic remark like “oooohhh! John’s soooooo cool. He can hit a ball all the way out of the park. woooooowwww. What ever would we do without him?” In reality, it was just their way of putting on their pouty-face (what my mom still calls it when I get upset at the age of 24 :)).

I find it just a bit funny that they make that statement about Rick Warren when many of them feel it is their God-given responsibility to make sure that the faith stays pure. As if The Almighty was not powerful enough to do that. I mean, whatever did God do before the Christian Research Network came on the scene*?

*Please note that the following statement was a use of sarcasm. It was strictly used to prove the author’s point, and is in no way intended to be taken literally. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Here are some excerpts with my comments and/or rebuttals.

There is a lot of teaching that all men currently exist as God’s image and likeness., i.e. that “divine spark” is found in all men. There are those who teach God exists in all creation. Everything, and everyone, is essentially good. Everything is beautiful in its own way……….What exactly does that mean? - CP

Here we find the first flaws in the argument. It is sort of a straw-man. That some teach that there is a divine spark in all humans, that others teach that God exists in all creation, that still others teach that everything and everyone is essentially good is true. It is also moot to the question. The misapplication of a doctrine, the misinterpretation of a passage bears no weight on the doctrine or the passage itself. The Dispensational claim that Covenant Theology may lead to anti-Semitism neither argues for Dispensationalism nor against Covenant Theology. It is moot, and not a good start.

God made man in His image and “likeness” by creating him as male and female, and then giving “them” dominion over creation. So man is like God in being male and female, and in asserting dominion, or rule, over creation. CP

Maybe. Genesis 1 describes how humans were created subsequent to God saying “Let us make man in our image…” - but it does not follow that the descriptions given (male, female, have dominion, etc.) define what “in our likeness” means. These may be descriptive; they may just be the order in which things happened. Therefore any argument built on this interpretation is only as strong as the interpretation itself.

God does not exist in the created things around us. He does not exist within fallen man. That is what Romans 1 is all about. God only exists in the new creation, i.e. Jesus Christ the head (chief authority), and in His Body, the ekklesia, and ultimately in the new heavens and new earth. - CP

The teaching that God exists in all creation, or that all creation is part of God is called panentheism (god in all) and pantheism (all is god), respectively. And it is false. But does God only exist within the new creation? Of course not. God exists separate from all creation – current or new. Jesus Christ is the head of the church and he will be the ultimate authority of the new heaven and new earth, but this is not another way (cf. the i.e.) of saying God only exists in the new creation. God is separate from creation, now and forever.

So death is the state of all mankind who are outside of Christ. Therefore Christ’s atoning death on the cross not only satisfies the requirement of the Mosaic covenant regarding sins, forgiveness, and deliverance,, i.e. the Passover, it also fulfills God’s (His Law) judgment on man, based on Adam’s transgression of the covenant, which is death. -CP

What death are we referring to in Adam’s transgression – physical, spiritual, both? It cannot be physical, i.e. that only those born again will be physically resurrected since all will be resurrection, those in Christ and those not… some to everlasting joy others to everlasting punishment. To say otherwise, to say only those in Christ are physically resurrected would be to embrace annihilationism.

The resurrection then is essential, which is why Paul defends it as fact so aggressively in 1 Cor 15. It is through the death and resurrection that we exit the old creation, and enter the new. Jesus said, in answer to the Sadducees trick question, that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so he is the God of the living not the dead. That would mean that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are participants in the resurrection and thus the new creation. (1 Peter 4:1-6)They are “the living”. So are we who are now called the Sons of God because of the second Adam.- CP

OK – no problem there… but I need to include it because of…

This would the mean that “imago dei” is found only in Christ, the new creation, and in His body the church. We, who are “born again” are imago dei. Imago dei is not found in unregenerate mankind. Unregenerate man is dead (literally) in the sins of Adam. (Romans 6: 4-13) He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God is only found in His Son, who is alive forevermore, Amen.

What’s that noise I hear? Oh, it’s your transmission fallen apart as you grind the gears shifting too fast from one thought to a supposed conclusion. Where is the connection between the need for the resurrection and the Imago Dei only being found in believers, in the new creation, in the church? That God is the God of the living proves that He is the God of the living. That the resurrection is necessary proves that the resurrection is necessary – no connection was made to the Imago Dei. I suspect no connection was made because there is no connection to these truths and the residence of the Imago Dei.

So, part one fails to prove that only the regenerate possesses the image of God. It fails because it is built on a spurious interpretation of the meaning of the Imago Dei. It fails because it relies on the buttresses of the false and straw-man doctrines of pantheism and panentheism both of which are moot to the argument. It fails because it claims God exists only in the new creation – which is not only false, but is itself panentheism in the future. And it fails because it never makes the connection between God being the God of the living, the need for the resurrection and the limited Imago Dei.

Maybe part two will be more convincing.

*** UPDATE *** June 30

Chris P. has posted part 2 of why the Imago Dei resides only in the regerate.  It consist with a list of Scriptures interspersed with commentary and “The conclusion is that Imago Dei is seen only in the new creation. Those who are born again from above, i.e. the Body of Jesus Christ.”  It was rather an odd process to read the Scriptures Chris P. posted, agree with a lot of his commentary on them, then reach the summation that it all proved his conslusion… maybe if I try a little harder I’ll see the link.  Usually I can follow an argument even if I disagree with it.

Bottom line, I am still unconvinced (but now confused at the flow of logic or lack thereof), and dissappointed that he never dealt with Genesis 9.

I think Chris P. confuses good works that reflect the Father and/or Christ with the Imago Dei… I’ll have to think about that.

HT to Marko