A few more things on my mind...

• First, A general comment about movies. Movies like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings don’t bother me at all, and I have no trouble letting my 12 year old see them. The battle is over and the good guys won: … greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. (1 John 4:4).

I do want to mention one awful movie: Arnold Schwarzenegger’s apocalyptic End of Days. I saw that movie because I read the book, which was just as bad. But the book had one great line that I wanted to see in the movie. And guess what—they didn’t put it in the film. I watched it for naught.

The line I really loved (and this will be from memory so don’t quote me) was in the scene where Arnold’s character fights the devil in his (Arnold’s) high-rise apartment, which is on at least the 20th story. Eventually Arnold pushes, or throws, the devil out and he falls from this great height and lands spread-eagled on a car, smashing it. Of course, he gets up, unharmed, and walks away. In the book, there was a man standing by the car and when the devil gets up the man is astounded and says “That was some fall!” The devil, nonplussed, wipes dust off his shirt and replies, “I’ve had worse.” Great line—and they left it out. Must have thought nobody would get it. Maybe they didn’t get it.

• Just a clarification from yesterday’s post. I wrote about a bible study public school text book from 1954. I didn’t actually use the text book, I bought it at a church book sale. Even though I have clothes older than some of my fellow moderators at blogs4God, I’m not that old. (Not that there is anything wrong with being that old.)

• I also wrote a bit about lust yesterday, and in thinking about it some more I decided to add some comments regarding this famous verse:

but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:28, NASB)

This verse is often misinterpreted as teaching that lusting after a woman is the same as committing adultery. It doesn’t say that, and it doesn’t mean that. It’s not my intention to diminish the fact that lust is a sin, and the scriptures liken it to committing adultery in your heart, but that is not the same as committing actual adultery. A man who has lusted after five women in the course of a marriage is not the same as a man who committed actual adultery with five women. If lusting, vile as it may be, were truly as heinous as adultery, then it too would be legitimate grounds for divorce and most likely all Christian marriages could be terminated with impunity.

The Witch of Endor

We read in 1 Samuel, chapter 28:

³ Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had removed from the land those who were mediums and spiritists. ⁴ So the Philistines gathered together and came and camped in Shunem; and Saul gathered all Israel together and they camped in Gilboa. ⁵ When Saul saw the camp of the Philistines, he was afraid and his heart trembled greatly. ⁶ When Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by prophets. ⁷ Then Saul said to his servants, "Seek for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a woman who is a medium at En-dor." ⁸ Then Saul disguised himself by putting on other clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, "Conjure up for me, please, and bring up for me whom I shall name to you." ⁹ But the woman said to him, "Behold, you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off those who are mediums and spiritists from the land. Why are you then laying a snare for my life to bring about my death?" ¹⁰ Saul vowed to her by the LORD, saying, "As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing." ¹¹ Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" And he said, "Bring up Samuel for me." ¹² When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, "Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul." ¹³ The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth." ¹⁴ He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage. ¹⁵ Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" And Saul answered, "I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do." (1 Sam. 28:3-15)

This passage is always troublesome. If there is a majority position on this it is: it wasn’t really Samuel but either trickery or the work of Satan. I am not so sure.

Reading the passage carefully it does appear that the so called “Witch of Endor” saw Samuel, but Saul did not. That is compelling evidence of a hoax.

On the other hand, in the conversation between Saul and Samuel that ensues, the scripture reads as if the words are Samuel’s, as in verse 15 above. And the converstion is meaningful, and Samuel's words appear to be accurate. Why didn’t the writer clarify that it wasn’t really Samuel?

Interestingly, Greek writers refer to her as a ventriloquist.

I would summarize that there are four possibilities:

1. The Witch of Endor was a fraud and this is garden variety trickery. But how did she “invent” such meaningful words for Samuel? Perhaps Saul’s desperate state, rendered unto him because of his sinfulness, was well known.
   
   
2. It was the work of Satan. Still trickery, but supernatural trickery. Maybe the Witch was also a fraud, which would liken her to Whoppi Goldberg in Ghost. Her own surprise at “Samuel’s” appearance would contribute to her agitated state. Or maybe she was not a fraud but a long term minion of Satan. However, why then is the scripture unclear, and why doesn’t the apparition appear to Saul?
   
   
3. It really was Samuel, whose spirit was summoned against his will by the power of Satan. There is no indication elsewhere that Satan has this power, and if he did you would think he would use it regularly.
   
   
4. It really was Samuel, and God, in His purpose, sent Samuel’s spirit. But again, why didn’t Saul see him?
   

To me, the last explanation is the best at fitting both the immediate data and the rest of scripture. It attributes whatever supernatural power was present to God. It also best explains the conversation between Samuel and Saul.

It is all rather confusing. But like I have written before (but not for a while), a wise pastor once told me: it’s not the things I don’t understand in the Bible that keep me awake, but the things I do understand.

One thing is for sure: do not mess around with spiritists and their ilk. Even if they (as is likely) are frauds, you are messing in an area in which God has explicitly forbidden us to tread.

---

On my mind...

• Sadly, there is still no recent sign of Jeffrey Collins or update on his condition. Last night we prayed for him at our church. I hope that many of you are doing likewise.

• The issue of public school antagonism toward Christianity is a recurrent theme in blogdom, most recently here. This reminded me of a book I have—which I may have written about before. However with no archive search feature (a serious flaw when combined with a failing memory) there is no palatable way to check. Anyway, this book is titled Bible Study Course (Old Testament) Here is a sample question: What was the last thing that happened to the Tabernacle and its furniture? Now, the punch line of this story is the intended audience for this book: it was a text book for the Dallas Public Schools, at least as late as 1954. On the inside cover it is written: Authorized by the Board of Education, September 14, 1954. There is a preface from the Superintendent of Schools describing the history of the plan of offering an accredited course in Bible study. Dallas public schools—remarkable. My how times have changed.

• This next topic is not R rated, but it is about our old enemy, lust. Now I have never blogged about anything related to sex. Partly because my 12 year old son sometimes reads my blog and partly because my wife advised me to “stick to subjects you know something about.” Anyway, I was driving home yesterday, pondering a Ganns Deen post (I couldn't find the permalink, it's his July 30 post-- watch out for the bilnking man) that reminded us of the Biblical instruction to flee from temptation. Then my thought process stopped in midstream because my eyes caught sight of a very attractive jogger as she went past the car. A friend once told me that he feels “Okay” with seeing an attractive woman and admiring her beauty as long as the mental imagery stops there—no further speculation allowed. I guess that is reasonable, and that was the case with jogger, but I still feel uneasy. I am thinking about making a covenant with my eyes as in Job 31:1, but covenants are serious business. Any advice?

• The other thing I was thinking about was time. In this post Mark Byron writes:

God and Heaven are trans-time, existing outside of our space-time universe

Now I am not disagreeing with Mark, but I have a general question. I constantly read about God not being linear with respect to time, and being trans-time, etc. and I agree that it is quite likely true-- yet it is as if I am the only person for whom it is not manifest! Everyone seems to accept it uncritically, but I have not found any clear scriptural references. If you got ‘em, send ‘em. If God is longsuffering, then I think time and its passage is something in God’s universe. Not to mention that if we are to have physical bodies and walk around, well then our motion will still be governed by differential equations with time as the independent variable, won’t it? (That was mostly tongue-in-cheek.) Things will certainly be interesting. Our direction of time (just one way: we age) has a lot to do, so it seems, with the second law of thermodynamics which in turn is related to the irreversibility of processes. For example, if you see a movie of a glass of water on a table and ice cubes start forming in the water, you can be sure the movie is running backwards. (If it lasts six hours, you can also be reasonably sure it was an award winning Ingmar Bergman flick.) Time’s arrow is related to irreversibility-- which is related to decay, and there is no decay in heaven, so something will be wonderfully different about time. With this I agree.

• Finally, I have signed on with the good folks at Blogs4God as the moderator for apologia. As I told them privately, I feel like an interloper who joined up after all the work was done. Like Caesar’s son arriving at the scene of the completed battle at the beginning of Gladiator. I am truly delighted to be on board with this talented group of Christians.

---

Whither the Christian Blog

Over at bloggedy blog Andrew Careaga worries about the accessibility (actually the inaccessibility) of Christian blogdom’s content. The mysterious Bene Diction, whose identity is the topic of tremendous speculation (some have said, and I will not mention names, that he is actually a renegade non Y2K-compliant cobol program), gave a hearty second.

I have also wondered about whether blogs in general are effective ministries for reaching significant numbers of new believers or seekers. I know that my own blog is not. There is nothing, apart from providence, that would bring a seeker to my blog--- and if by some chance one trundles in, there is nothing compelling enough to captivate him. On the other hand, if my blog is used by God to reach just one seeker/new-believer/back-slider then its value would far exceed the effort spent on its production. After some initial angst about its ineffectiveness I have come to peace with the realization that I blog because (a) it is devotional, (b) the iron-sharpening-iron phenomenon, (c) I like to write, (d) I like the discussions, both friendly and heated (but respectful-- usually) and (e) it’s fun. We Calvinists don’t have too many problems with anxiety.

My gut-instinct tells me that the “uber pundit” Christian bloggers like Mark Byron and Joshua Claybourn (just to name two), with enviable links from the outside world, stand a much better chance of being effective ambassadors. I suspect a lot of people come to their sites unaware that they are about to be exposed to a Christian world view.

The blogs4god portal, as we native Pittsburghers say, is "a whole nother" story. If it succeeds like I think it will, it will soon place near the top of many seekers’ google searches. So it may be a good idea for blogs4god to have a prominent “seekers” area with appropriate, accessible content.

What do you think?

---

The Intermediate State

What happens to us after physical death? The ultimate answer is quite clear (details of timing depending on your eschatology):

1. Some will escape physical death if they are lucky enough to be around during the glorious rapture, wherein the living saints shall meet Jesus in the clouds.

   Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Th. 4:17, NASB)

   
   
2. For the rest of us, there will be a resurrection of the dead, where the dead will receive incorruptible glorified physical bodies, likened to our Lord and Savior.

   having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.(Acts 24:15, NASB)
   
   who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself. (Phi. 3:21, NASB)
   

   
   

The question before us: what happens in between death and the resurrection of the dead? The two possibilities are:

1. Soul Sleep. This is a state of unconsciousness. The effect would be a seemingly instantaneous transition from life on earth to the final glorified state, including your incorruptible body. Thousands of years may have passed, of which you will have no awareness.
   
   
2. The Intermediate State. In this view, your soul, immediately upon death, goes to heaven. There you are made perfect in holiness and enjoy a conscious relationship with Christ (and presumably other saints). In that state you await the bodily resurrection to come at the second advent.
   

In either case, your first conscious thought after death with be in glory. The intermediate state has the appeal of actual rather than perceived immediacy.

The majority of Christians believe in the intermediate state, but a sizable minority affirms soul sleep. While I am in the intermediate state camp, I would not, and I think most Christians agree, place this issue in the “essential” category.

The reason that there is some debate is that scripture does not speak at length on this subject and a literal reading of scripture sends some mixed signals. There are passages that refer to the dead as "sleeping" which some take to support the idea of soul sleep. However, taking scripture as a whole, with the hermeneutic approach being that the explicit guides the implicit, I believe the evidence favors the idea of the intermediate state.

One verse in support of the intermediate state is Jesus’ comfort to the repentant thief:

And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43, NASB)

Jesus states clearly that he will see the thief today. Yet even Jesus will be without a body for three days. Soul sleep supporters must argue that “it will seem like today to the thief" (who is actually still waiting to see Jesus) or that the comma in Luke 23:43 is misplaced and should be moved from its present location in front of the word "today" to after “today” so that it reads: "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Another, from the Old Testament, is:

then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it. (Ecc 12:7).

And, let us not forget:

⁶ Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord-- ⁷ for we walk by faith, not by sight-- ⁸ we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. (2 Cor. 5:6-8, NASB)

Which indicates that there is a state in which we are (a) absent from the body and (b) at home with the Lord. That is a description of the intermediate state.

---

Thank You

I want to thank everyone who prayed for me and my struggle of witnessing to my childhood friend. It was a great comfort knowing I wasn’t alone. Only time will tell if the seed will bear fruit. I hope to see him one more time before he returns to Arizona.

---

The Law

In the book of Romans (and elsewhere, especially Ephesians), the discussion of the law does not make for easy reading. We long for a simple statement that we can just forget about the law all together. However, Paul’s message is more complicated than that. It’s almost as if the question is “Is the law dead or are we still under it?” and the answer is “Yes.”

The law is part of the old covenant, a covenant of works. A contract with God that says if we do our part, which is to completely obey His law with no missteps, then God shall bless us with eternal life. God never has had to, and never will have to, “pay up” on the basis of this covenant. Only Christ fulfilled the law without blemish.

The old covenant, harsh as it may seem, was a gift from God. We are the creatures and He is the creator. We are obligated to obey Him on that basis alone without the promise of any blessing. He chose voluntarily to offer a reward for our perfect obedience.

With Adam’s sin, the old covenant became like one of those math challenges that promises a huge monetary reward for anyone solving a problem, but where the problem is in fact insoluble. When the prize is eternal life and failure means eternal damnation—well that is really bad news.

Man is still under the old covenant – it has not been abrogated. We are still obligated to obey God’s law. And God is obligated to keep his promise: If anyone perfectly obeys God’s law throughout his entire life, he will be the first person to merit his own salvation. The first person saved by works. Don’t hold your breath.

Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? (Rom. 7:1, NKJV)

So why then have the law? Why this covenant of works for which our compliance is unattainable?

The law teaches us what sin is. And that we are sin. And so, being the antithesis of what we must be, we are hopelessly lost. We need a savior who can fulfill the law and then die, under no condemnation, and endure our punishment. We need Christ. With faith in Christ, we die as far as the law is concerned. The law ends. We are reborn into a new covenant, the covenant of grace, a remarkable contract in which all the parts required of us are provided as gifts.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:4, NKJV)

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." (Rom. 7:7, NKJV)

²²But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. ²³But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. ²⁴Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Eph. 3:22-25, NKJV)

The futility of the old covenant—the hopelessness of living under the law, is in stark contrast with the freedom on living under grace and resting in the righteousness of Christ. As everyone knows, Gospel means “good news”. Knowledge of the law enables you to know just how good the good news really is. And what an understatement it is! Calling the new covenant “good news” is like saying McDonalds has sold more than 1 hamburger. True enough, but not exactly illustrative.

In Christ, we are reborn and are released from the law. And then something wonderful happens. The law, such a yoke before, becomes a blessing. Where we were hopeless in our previous state, where even one violation condemned us, we now take delight in doing our utmost to obey the law. When we fail we are grieved-- but we don’t despair. When we obey we praise God.

We hated the law. Yet when we are released from it, instead of discarding it, we begin to love His precepts. A struggle is transformed into a joyful mission. The law is still there, and perfect obedience is as fultile as ever, but it is now a friend rather than a stumbling block.

²For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. ³So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. ⁴Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. (Rom. 7:2-4, NKJV)

---

Dead Bones

¹ The hand of the LORD was upon me, and He brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones. ² He caused me to pass among them round about, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley; and lo, they were very dry. ³ He said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord GOD, You know." ⁴ Again He said to me, "Prophesy over these bones and say to them, 'O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.' ⁵ "Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones, 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. (Ezekiel 37:1-5, NASB)

We were all dead, bleaching bones-- scattered about the ground without even the dignity of a burial. Left to our own devices, nothing awaited us except further decay. Yet a merciful God, who loved us before we knew Him, breathed life into us, and through his grace, we were made alive in Christ Jesus.

When you witness to a non-believer, you are talking to a dead man. No matter how elegant your words, how persuasive your argument, or how moving your testimony, if God doesn’t quicken him he will remain dead. And if God does give him life, make sure He gets the glory. Take delight in the privilege of being used by God, but take not the credit.

Yet witness we must. God doesn’t tell us to get out of the way while He resurrects the corpse. We are to prophesy over the dead bones. And when the dead are reborn, if they are given life, we must continue to nurture the new believer. As has been said often: there are many evangelical obstetricians but few pediatricians, and that is a serious flaw.

I am thinking about witnessing because I will be doing it tonight, and I need prayer since it will be of the difficult variety. I friend I grew up with in Pittsburgh and went to school with from Kindergarten through college is coming to visit – a bolt out of the blue type thing. I haven’t seen him since before I was a Christian. He is going to encounter a much different "me" than he is expecting. Perhaps like some of you, I find it more difficult to witness to family and old friends than to strangers or coworkers. It is complete mystery to me, as common sense dictates that is should be easier to witness zealously to someone you know and care about. So pray for me also that I am not harboring some vestigial embarrassment about the gospel.

To paraphrase Spurgeon (I cannot remember the exact quote—maybe someone can help me) I am so grateful He chose me before the foundation of time, because if He waited to see how I actually turned out, I would be in big trouble.

---

Scientific Un-American

The most recent Scientific American cover story is on the possibility that there is no need for “Dark Matter”. (Dark Matter, thought to comprise up to 95% of the mass of the universe, is “invisible” mass needed to explain large-scale gravitational anomalies.) Yet inside the magazine, there is a small blurb in a different section about new evidence for its existence! This dissonance is good fodder for our critics (speaking as a scientist). Actually, the “no Dark Matter” article is a highly speculative suggestion that the anomalies are due not to undetectable mass but to an alteration in Newton’s venerable second law: F = m•a.

There is also a story about Ted Turner and his conservation efforts. That, in and of itself, is not bad. Still, it fits with a disturbing trend in Scientific American: A deemphasis on hard science in favor of the soft variety, including the social sciences. Furthermore, Sci Am doesn’t even try to disguise its political leanings: the social science articles will invariable reach left-leaning conclusions. Any article on missile defense will purport to demonstrate its futility. A story on global warming will likely confirm the worst case scenario, blame the U.S., and ridicule any naysayer such as Bjorn Lomborg. An article on evolution will contain requisite slogans on how evolution is “well beyond the theory stage and on firm evidentiary ground” and will also include mean spirited swipes at creationists. And to think the magazine's founder was a Christian! My current subscription will be my last—in fact, maybe I’ll cancel today.

---

What's that all about?

Does anybody understand what Mark Shea is talking about in this post? If so, please enlighten me.

---