Bitterness

Have you ever had anyone by design try to slight you, impugn your character, sully your reputation, cut you out, or ignore you when you had really done nothing to deserve it? Then they justify it by concluding you deserved it. Therefore, they feel virtuous in doing so.

In may be that in the past they tried to do something you knew wasn’t right. The operative word is “knew.” They wanting to do it and you preventing them made you villainous in their thinking. You deserve punitive treatment.

The reason I am writing this is we all have been subject to such belittlement. There have been times I have gotten the full treatment. Though it is painful the accuser doesn’t have to be successful in this duplicitous game.

Some persons profess to being thick skinned and not bothered by abuse. The rest of should be honest and admit it, it hurts.

At a time of being maliciously treated a game plan is needed.

Step one is to evaluate whether you have done anything to deserve such treatment. Learn from it.

There is a little couplet I have carried in my mind for years that helps resolve any anguish.

“Bitterness does more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to the one on which it is poured.”

Forgiveness is the only therapy for bitterness. You many never be able to excuse the abuse or forget the incident. You can forgive the person without justifying the act. A study done by Mayo Clinic regarding forgiveness shows discernable benefits such as:

Less hostility, stress, and anxiety. Lower blood pressure. Fewer symptoms of depression. A stronger immune system. Improved heart health.

There is a spiritual component involved in ridding your life of bitterness. The Mayo study indicates ridding one’s life of bitterness results in greater spiritual and psychological well-being. Forgiveness gives birth to love, joy, peace, and hope.

One of the best teachings on this travesty is contained in what is known as the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus taught on forgiveness. In summary it is: “The unforgiving are unforgiven because they are unforgivable.”

The model prayer taught by Jesus contains this petition, “Forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors.” This is not a reference to finances, but conduct.

Consider these benefits of forgiveness and the blessing of avoiding bitterness.

Bitterness is a controllable emotion. You either control it or it controls you. If a person causes you to be bitter they are determining your emotion. I don’t want anyone controlling me, that is, my emotions. I want to be in charge of them.

Emblazoned in my memory it this dictum.

“Let all bitterness, wrath,, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you.” (Ephesians 4: 31, 31)

The rhyme quoted notes bitterness does more harm to the one in which it is stored that to the one on which it is poured. I have deep concern for a false accuser because Scripture says, “

Democracy

(In the following quotation the person speaking of our government referrs to it as a “democracy.” Actually it is a “republic” form of government. The correlation between church and state as he notes is the same.)

Clayton Christensen, Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School, shared this experience.

“Some time ago I had a conversation with a Marxist economist from China. He was coming to the end of a Fulbright scholarship here at Harvard and I asked him if he had learned anything that was surprising or unexpected, and without any hesitation he said, ‘Yea, I had no idea how critical to democracy religion is. The reason why democracy works,’ he said, ‘ is not because the government was designed to oversee what everybody does, but rather democracy works because most people most of the time voluntarily choose to obey the law. In your past most Americans attended a church or synagogue where they were taught there by people they respected.’ My friend went on to say, ‘…most Americans followed these rules because they had come to believe that they were not just accountable to society, but that they were accountable to God … if religion loses its influence over Americans what will happen to our democracy? Where are the institutions that are going to teach the next generation of Americans that they too need to choose to voluntarily obey the laws? Because if you take away religion you can’t hire enough police .’”

This man from China has studied our Founders. In support of his thesis let’s let Thomas Jefferson and John Adams speak on behalf of the Founders. As you read these conclusions evaluate them in light of the present practices of our federal government and the behaviors of the general population of America.

In a letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, dated October 11, 1798, Adams wrote:

“…we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of others.” Are we now a moral and religious people?

On various occasions Jefferson said the following.

“[It is a] happy truth that man is capable of self-government, and only rendered otherwise by the moral degradation ….”

“The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training.”

“[Without becoming] familiarized with the habits and practices of self-government,… the political vessel is all sail and no ballast.”

The self-government of which I am writing is not anarchy, but voluntary obedience to the moral and civil law as defined in our Constitution. Without teaching them the self-willed conduct now in progress will lead to anarchy and consequent in tyranny.

Churches and synagogues are so in decline they are not reaching the broad base of society. Public schools are so encumbered by unruly students they are failing in efforts to teach and insist on self-control. Homes are so fractured many youth are left without an example of moral self-government. The Federal government wants to control everything we do, even what we eat or drink, and does nothing to encourage self-governance. We have lost these things because we have lost our sense of accountability to God.

Persons involved in a church, synagogue, civic, social, or service organization would do well to evaluate what their group is doing or can to do help ameliorate the situation.

New Year

Two cartoons come to mind as we face the new year. One depicts a group of little fuzzy yellow ducklings walking through tall grass with their necks stuck out above it. The caption reads, “Go forth and conquer.” Even if the condition of the ducklings seem to represent you, courage like they depict can make you a conqueror.

The other is a poster picturing a caterpillar looking of his cocoon at a beautiful butterfly flying overhead. The caption, “You can fly, but that cocoon has got to go.”

The dawning of a new year often makes us aware of some things that have “got to go.” It is a grand time to shed some old things in our life that keep us from being our best.

This new year places at your disposal 8,756 hours. If you are average you will sleep 2,920 of them. That leaves you 5,836 hours in which achieve your best and obtain your hearts desire.

Don’t be like the goof who used this logic.
You work one third of a day, 8 hours; that totals 122 days a year.
There are 52 Sundays a year; that leaves 70 work days.
There are 52 Saturdays a year; that leaves 18 work days a year.
You get two weeks, 14 days, vacation. That leaves only 4 work days a year.
The average worker takes 3 days sick leave; that leaves 1 work day a year.
That is not a fuzzy duckling mentality.

There is so much uncertainty in our world that venturing into a new year is a precarious challenge. At a time even more daunting than this King George VI of England, facing the approaching dark hours of World War II, quoted Minnie Louise Haskins in his 1939 Christmas broadcast to the Empire.

“I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year, ‘Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.’ He replied, ‘Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God. That shall be to you better than the light and safer than a known way.’”

Though often lamentably overlooked there is a spiritual dimension to life. When it is properly figured into the equation of life a new perspective is gained. It affords assurance we are not in this life alone. There is a spiritual resource as Haskins noted.

Twelve months ago another new year was set before us. It has rolled into eternity carrying with it broken hearts, shattered dreams, personal losses, and unanticipated anguish. Though it is as much history as 1776, it has also archived accomplishments, achievements, joys, successes, and dreams fulfilled. Don’t be so overcome by the former list of negatives you fail to reflect on the positive ones.

Accept the council of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow who advised, “Look not mournfully into the past, it comes not back again. Wisely improve the present, it is thine. Go forth to meet the shadowy future without fear and with a manly heart.”

Make that the heart of a fuzzy little yellow duckling.

With your hand on the doorknob of a new year you can enter the maze of days with boldness. The strength needed is not something, but Someone.

That can result in what I wish for you a – – – – HAPPY NEW YEAR

Jesus: Was He A Historical Person?

The attacks on Christmas has been expanded to claiming Jesus never existed. To millions He is a “real live historical personality.” Some current critics assert He was “just a folklore character.” They falsely claim there is no historical evidence outside the Bible that He lived. They discount the fact there were at least six writers who without collusion wrote of Him and their works were compiled as part of the Bible.

One evidence He really existed is that during the first seven hundred years after His life no critic said He never lived. Who would have wanted most to discredit Him? The priests and Roman governor who opposed Him. Not one of them wrote to deny His existence during the time of the emerging church.

There are extra-Biblical records of His existence. Cornelius Tacitus, (55/56 – 118 AD) is considered by most historians to have been the best historian of the time who never wrote carelessly. His last classical work entitled “Annals,” was a biography of Nero. In writing of Nero’s defense of himself against criticism that he was responsible for the burning of Rome Tacitus wrote:

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts — whom the crowd called ‘Christians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”

Supporting the authenticity of this statement as being authored by Tacitus is the fact it is in the distinctive style of writing for which Tacitus is known. He is also known not to report as real executions of nonexistent persons.

Josephus, a Jewish commander in Galilee, surrendered to the Romans and became a historian for them receiving patronage form three different Roman rulers. He wrote two works, “The Jewish Wars,” and “Jewish Antiquities.” As a Jew, secure in Roman imperial patronage, he wrote in such as way as to show pride in his Jewish heritage and extol Judaism.

In the”Jewish Wars,” reference is made to Jesus, but the passage is questionable, believed by many to have been added later by scribes. However, in “Jewish Antiquities” there are two accepted references to Jesus. In writing of the high priest Ananus efforts to have James executed Jospehus wrote: “Ananus … called a meeting of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah … James by name, and some others.”

The only reason James is mentioned is to show that his death resulted in Ananus being deposed as high priest. Jesus is mentioned to help identify James from others named James. Jesus was a common name of the era so to identify which Jesus, Josephus identifies Him as the one “who-is-called-Messiah.” This passage could not have been added by Christians because in their identification of James they always called him the” brother of the Lord,” or “brother of the Savior,” never as “the brother of Jesus,” as did Josephus.

Josephus was in a position to know if at the time Jesus was a folklore character and surely would not have used such a fictitious character as proof of a known historical event.

Josephus confirms Christianity endured through the first century. Tacitus attested it continued during the second century. During these first centuries of the faith there is no record of any person who opposed Christianity denying the existence of the historical Jesus.

He lived and He lives.

Calvinism: Why I Am Not A Calvinist

 

WHY I AM NOT A CALVINIST
By NORMAN L. GEISLER

(These are notes I made listening to Dr. Geisler. I have augmented them slightly. – Nelson Price)

There were two lines in heaven, one marked PREDESTINED and the other FREE WILL.

A man got in the one marked PREDESTINATION and was why are you here. He said I got here because I chose to be here. They told him he belonged in the other line.

When he got to the head of the FREE WILL line they asked why he was there and he said they told me I was predestined to be there.

The acrostic regarding the five points of Calvinism are called T-U-L-I-P. The modern day doctrine was started in the Netherlands where tulips grow freely. The points are:

TOTAL DEPRAVITY
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
LIMITED ATONEMENT
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

I. TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Calvinists believe man is so totally depraved he no longer has the capacity to comprehend God’s grace. As a result man can’t believe and be saved. Therefore, they believe God has to regenerate them, that is save them and give them a new nature, with which they can believe. Regeneration means to give a dead person life. For them regeneration precedes faith.

How is “dead” to be understood? It either means separation or annihilation. Calvinists interpret it to mean annihilation. Correctly understood it means separation. Adam and Eve are examples. Genesis 3:3 God said that in the day they would eat of the tree in the midst of the garden they would “surely die.” They did not die physically, but they were separated from God, dead to the truth. The image of God was still in them. It was effaced, but not erased.

Unsaved people, that is those who have not been regenerated can know the truth.

Romans 1: 19 says they can see and understand the things of God.

I Corinthians 1: 14 notes they can perceive the truth of God and still not believe the truth.

Ephesians 2: 1 is their basis for this belief.

“You He has made alive who were dead in trespasses.” The death spoken of was spiritual not physical.

Ephesians 2: 8 says, “For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God.” In this text faith comes before salvation.

Romans 5:1 confirms this. “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with Go through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

II. UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Calvinists believe election is unconditional on God’s part. There is no condition for Him giving it. There is no condition for receiving it. It is given by grace.

They believe you don’t have to believe to receive. God gives salvation regardless of what a person believes. After receiving His regeneration then the person believes.

Extreme Calvinists believe God chooses who will believe. In reality God chooses them because He foreknows who will believe.

I Peter 1: 2 “…elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father….”

Romans 8: 29 “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son….”

To foreknow does not mean to make to happen.

Suppose a person is sitting on a mountain side from which he can see running along another mountain a roadway. From his vantage point he can see just around a curve in the road a bridge out. He can see a car speeding down the road. He knows that traveling at that speed the car will go off the bridge. He foreknows it, but he does not make it happen. The fact God foreknows something does not mean He makes it happen.

Texts often referred to are:

Ephesians 1: 3,5 “Blessed be the Lord God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ…. having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ.”

“Predestination” means predetermined destiny. The Greek word translated predestination is “proorizo.” It was a surveyors term which meant to mark out a boundary. For example years ago surveyors marked out a boundary and decided all within that territory would be called Georgia and/or Georgians. Spiritually before the dawn of creation God marked off a boundary and predetermined all within that boundary would be saved. The boundary is defined in Ephesians 1 as being “in Him” (vs. 4, 7,10) and “in Christ” (vs. 10).

“As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the sons of God” (John 1:12).

We believe and they we receive. Salvation does not come out of our will, but it comes through our will. To God be the glory. If a person gives another $1,000 the giver gets the credit. We receive salvation, but it is given us. We, the receiver, the beggar, God is the giver deserving all the glory.

III. LIMITED ATONEMENT
Calvinists believe Christ did not die for all men, He died only for the elect. That is in conflict with many Scriptures.

“God so loved the world….” John 3:16

“Christ died for the ungodly” Romans 5:6 That includes everyone for “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23

“…One died for all…” II Cor. 5:14

Calvinists interpret “all” and the “world” to mean all the elect of the world only.

All, all means is “all,” the whole world, everybody.

“…God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” I Timothy 2: 3,4 It does not say “some.”

Hebrews 2: 9 “…that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for “everyone.”

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promises, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” II Peter 3:9

John 1:29 “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”

I John 2:2 Calvinists interpret this to mean the Christian world.

I John 2: 16 defines the world as something more that the Christian world: “For all that is in the world — the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life — is not of the Father, but is of the world.”

I John 4:8 “God is love.” is nature being love, He must love all people. He is pictured a being all loving. Therefore, God does not love just the elect.

Imagine a farmer has a large pond around which there is a fence with such signs as: “No Trespassing,” “Stay out,” “Danger, Keep Out.” One day he drives by on his tractor and saw three boys in the pond in danger of drowning. Three responses are possible. He might say,

“I warned them. They are getting what they deserve.” Is this a loving person?

He could have lassoed one and call out, “You in the blue shirt, I am throwing you a rope I going to save you.” The other two he willingly leaves to drown. Is this a loving person?

He could throw all three a rope. One accept and the other two decide they can do it themselves. Each of the two determine on their own free will if he will grasp it and be saved.

IV. IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Calvinists believe God is all powerful and can save anybody, even against their will. However, He chooses to use His power to save only those He chooses to save. If the choice is God’s and He is all loving He must love everyone.

In Matthew 23: 37 Jesus is depicted as saying of Jerusalem “I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”

Love will not force them to love Him against their will. Forced love isn’t love. God works persuasively, but not forcefully.

Either a person says, “Thy, will be done O God” or God says, “Thy will be done.” He will not force anyone against their will.

The grace of God can be resisted. Acts 7: 51 describes persons who resist God’s grace as “stiff-necked” saying, “You always resist the Holy Spirit.”

Romans 9 poses several questions. It notes God loved Jacob and hated Esau.

God did not hate Esau in the sense of cursing him or deliberately being hostile to him personally without cause. Esau was a blessed man (Gen. 39: 9 & 36: 1 – 42).

In his letter to the church in Rome (9: 13) Paul quoted a passage from Malachi (1: 2, 3).

In these texts the word “hate” is used hyperbolically, that is in an exaggerated sense, as it is in other Bible passages. It is used in a relative sense such as when Jesus said we are to “hate” our father and mother. In using it in a relative sense, He was saying compared to the love for God our love for our parents is as though it were hate. This does not discourage love for parents, but it encourages stronger love for God.

“Hate” as used in the case of Jacob and Esau is not used in a positive sense, but in a relative sense to simply express a strong preference for the conduct of Jacob. It was a result of moral resentment. God has a strong distaste and disgust for sin. Therefore, He disapproved of the sin of Esau. If God had acted otherwise He would have been acting contrary to His very own holy nature.

Based on Romans 9: 10-13 some have concluded God loved Esau and hated Jacob before their births. Not so. It is logical that God should have responded negatively to Jacob as a result on his sins.

God did not, and does not, arbitrarily, capriciously, temperamentally, or impulsively make any judgment contrary to traits of His character, some of which are: love, grace, knowledge, and mercy.

God’s perspective is different from ours. He knows things we can never know. In His foreknowledge He knew what the mind set of the two would be. He did not make them chose as they did, but He knew what they would choose. God’s “hate” toward Esau did not cause Esau’s conduct, Esau’s conduct caused God’s aversion to him because of his own willful mind and heart set of“hate” God preceded God’s”hate” for Him and was the consequence of Esau’s free willed hate not the cause of his “hate.” Esau hated God and the kind of hate he had is a sin. God has a form of hate that is righteous indignation which causes Him to “hate” sin. Esau having hated God it was inevitable that God must hate him because of the unrepentant sin in his life or be untrue to His holy and just nature.

God, in His foreknowledge, knew before their births Jacob would love Him and Esau “hate” Him. He did not dictate that Jacob would love Him and Esau hate Him, but He knew each would respond as they did. The fact He foreknew does not mean He made them act as they did. The term “hated” is a relative term meaning, “loved less.” It is the term used to in Genesis 29: 30, 31 to describe Jacob as loving Rachel, but he loved Leah less.

Why did God love Jacob more and Esau less? Because He foreknew Esau’s evil deeds.

The same sun that melts wax hardens clay. He loved them both.

V. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
For the Calvinist the only way a person knows they are saved is to die. If you are one of the elect you will hold out.

“I know whom I have believed and that He is able to keep that which I have committed….” II Tim. 1:2

GOD IS LOVE, GOD LOVES ALL, CHRIST DIED FOR ALL