American Rights and Jesus

Americans really get wound up and wrapped up in our demand for our ‘rights’ as outlined by the American founding fathers nowadays. There are so few today in America and even the world at-large that understand that this is not necessarily a biblical concept. It is an American concept that got its ideas from other farther back in time (think Magna Carta, 1215). Rights or natural rights (inalienable rights) are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom and/or an entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or supposedly owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. This does not mean that all systems afford them and frankly, the Scriptures do not insist that anyone has entitlement to them in this life. Conversely, what we are entitled to is condemnation, punishment and judgment if we do not repent of our sin. Man in effect is ‘entitled’ to nothing. So, what did Jesus have to say about ‘rights’ in His words or what did He display in His actions?

“Higher rights guide our duties, that is, our right to abandon our rights.... Duties are always greater than rights. In the highest sense, rights are truly rights only when they are duties.’’ Sir William Blackstone; Commentaries on the Law of England Book 1: The Rights of Persons

In his writing, Sir William Blackstone the famous English jurist, judge and politician of the 18^th century divides rights into two classes, absolute and relative. Jesus suggested a radically different division; namely, rights which we have no right to yield, and rights we have a right to surrender. Concerning the temple tax, Jesus said to Peter…

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?” “From others,” Peter answered. “Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. Matthew 17:25-27

When Peter said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to Peter, “Therefore the sons are free”. Therefore, based on this logic, Jesus did not have to pay the temple tax (as they were children of the Temple/God) but He did and yielded His right to not have to pay and paid anyway. Why? Jesus’ concern was that their behavior would not, “cause them (others) to stumble.” Jesus chose the right to forfeit a ‘right’ and to act as an upright example for others morally and ethically. It was the ‘right’ thing to do because…He could.

The idea of right or authority was prominent in Jesus’ teaching…just not for man. It was for Him. “The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Matthew 9:6), and He declared solemnly at the end of His earthly mission, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). He had authority over all flesh, even before He met and conquered death (John 17:2). Nevertheless, Jesus did not see Himself as one entitled to special privilege. He was the Son of the Father, and the Father made Him master of all human life (John 13:13; Matt. 25:31, 32; 7:21; John 5:22-27).

Jesus did not surrender some of His rights. He could not waive the right of self-direction in His life. “No one takes it from me (His life), but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” (John 10:18; cf. Matt. 8:32, 33). Nor could He lay down His rights to spiritual freedom (John 10:38, 39), His self-declaration as God (John 8:54-59), and His just treatment before a court (John 18:19-23)—Jesus did not surrender these rights. Further, He claimed the right to reign over the will of people (John 7:17; 14:15; 15:14), to give life (John 5:40), and to comfort weary hearts (Matt. 11:28,29).

Nevertheless, Jesus freely surrendered other rights. In His incarnation, Jesus surrendered His divine right to rule with absolute power. Paul wrote in Philippians 2:1-8 that He did not consider equality with God something to grasped. He gave up His right to a comfortable home in heaven where He was worshiped day and night (Luke 9:58). He submitted Himself to ignominy, shame, betrayal, torture and to the shameful death on the cross (Matt. 26:24; 17:22; 20:18; Heb. 12:2). Jesus gave up many rights.

He even willingly surrendered His rights to His enemies (John 18:1-2). He told Pilate that he was mistaken in thinking he had power over Him (John 19:11). Jesus had the right to avoid everything leading up to the crucifixion and to the cross itself, but for the noble glory of redemption He gave up His rights. This, in fact, was the essence of His rights. Scottish author, poet and Christian Congregational minister George Macdonald rightly declared, “…the grandest thing in having rights is that, being your rights, you can give them up.”

There is no sacrifice when there are no rights to surrender. The greatest sacrifice is the self-surrender of rights. If I have no authority to give something up, I cannot waive anything. The Father loved Jesus because He willingly gave over His rights to accomplish His plan of redemption, even when it meant surrendering His right to life (John 10:17)…and so he did.

Likewise possessing rights does not mean we have to exercise them. In fact, some of our rights may be better to surrender. It was once said by Theodore Dwight Woolsey, one of Yale's greatest teachers of Greek before being elevated to the presidency of Yale, “It can never be too often repeated in this age, that duty is higher than freedom; that, when a man has a power or prerogative, the first question to ask is, ‘How and in what spirit is it my duty to use my power or prerogative?’ What law can I lay down for myself so that my powers shall not be a source of evil to me and to others?”

Higher rights guide our duties, that is, our right to abandon our rights. The apostle Paul taught us this in 1 Corinthians 9:4-27. The duty to give up rights to serve others is greater than exercising one’s legitimate rights for selfish means. Duties are always greater than rights. In the highest sense, rights are truly rights only when they are duties. It is in the idea that we see Jesus supreme act of duty being played out in the forfeiture of His right to life by being crucified, buried and rose from the grave in accord with Scripture. By willing giving over His right to life he denied death its finality over man. Thereby He gave man a right and righteousness to live eternally. They only needed to acknowledge and believe that He did it.

To see just how far off track America and American's have gotten in our understanding of our 'rights' we only need to observe the evidence in the media and in our own lives. So few actually practice this in or outside the church. If it was being practiced there would be much more evidence of charitable giving, giving of one’s time to the disenfranchised and larger displays of compassion for the poor. Instead we see rampant homelessness, rampant drug addiction, intense ideological division and a general coldness of heart towards others. That was not Jesus’ attitude towards these types of problems. Our attitudes as a nation are merely a symptom of the ubiquitous diseases consuming America…selfishness and entitlement.

American Politics and Jesus

The political situation of a citizen in the Jewish state in Jesus’ day was peculiar if not sometimes precarious. The days of the Israelite's dreariest darkness were during the centuries of captivity in Babylon. Now it’s liberties temporary won by the Maccabees, just prior to the coming of Christ were forever gone. Palestine was subject to imperial Rome, but Claudius allowed the Jewish people considerable autonomy. They had their own king, Herod; but they also had an appointed governor from Rome to manage civil strife named Pontius Pilate.

Still this situation was not satisfactory to many of the Jews. A large contingent followed the Zealots who were patriots longing for the independence of Israel as in the days of the Maccabean revolt started in 166BC (Ref: Josephus, Antiquities, 17:3:4). A smaller faction supported the family of Herod, most of who were in favor Roman rule with all its attendant benefits. Into this political patchwork/circus, our Savior Jesus entered the world. To make His position more diffi­cult, He was not only a Jewish citizen and a Roman subject, but the long expected Messiah. Albeit a highly misunderstood Messiah even by the religious scholars of His day.

Unfortunately, due to the recent past history of the Maccabees, the Jews, especially the Zealots, ex­pected the Messiah to assume Herod’s throne and de­liver the nation from the yoke of foreign domination in a militant manner. Furthermore, He had the power to stop all the paltry strife and could have lifted Himself over it…but He did not.

Jesus in-fact steered clear of political squabbles and pat­riotic zeal. He was not a civil agitator advancing His agenda to reform civil government. He didn’t need to. His ideas and modus operandi to bring Scriptural salvation to men did plenty to intensify political strife regardless. In the attempt to bring righteousness to men we see why political divisions and conflict formed instead. We see clearly to the heart of why Jesus always attempted to steer clear of the human politicking. At the root of the political strife, division and contention lies demonic ideology which itself will always fight against the righteousness of God. Those that rabidly pursued their political ends or political power were and are nearly always driven by a demonic engine. This should be brutally apparent today. One needs good spiritual discernment to see through the intrigue and subterfuge to the root of the problem. A demonic political cleaver that can and will cut down the middle of all relationships; societal, ecclesiastical and familial.

Jesus was a law-abiding citizen. He violated no ordinances of the state, whether the Jewish state or the Roman Empire. All the testimony against Him at His trials broke down (Mark 14:56, 59). At His civil trial, He was falsely charged (Luke 23:2). Pilate ignored the findings of the Jews, and after he examined Him he judged Him innocent (Luke 23:4; John 18:38; Matt. 27:24). Jesus was a good citizen. He told all to render to Caesar what was Caesar’s and to God what was God’s. Any astute student of Scripture understood what he was saying.

He encouraged obedience to civil laws, and stifled all disorder. The Pharisees and Herodians sought to entrap Him on several occasions with questions about civil ordinances (Mark 3:6; Luke 11:53, 54; John 7:32; 11:47, 57). At last, they proposed the problem of hated taxation, “Should a Jew pay taxes to Caesar” (Matt. 22:17-21)? If He said, “Yes,” He was not a patriot to the Jewish state; if “No,” He was a traitor to Rome. Jesus answered, “Yes” because it was the law of Rome. He told His accusers the truth without fear of consequences. Jesus also demonstrated lawfulness by leaving Jerusalem quickly to prevent civil unrest (John 6:15). Jesus respected the civil laws of Rome and was not a revolutionary regardless of how His spiritual enemies painted him otherwise.

Jesus did not attempt to obtain through political methods what He knew could only be accomplished by spiritual forces. He was not a civil reformer; He was a redeemer of life. Redeemed life would express itself in a desire to purify the government. Satan tempted Him to seize power first, and rule people with an iron fist second (Matt. 4:8). This was the way of Rome and the desire of the zealous Jews. Jesus sought in society and in politics what He sought in each person’s life, redemption and restoration (Matt. 12:36; 23:26; Luke 6:45; John 10:10). Not depravation and destruction. Jesus was a true reformer, using spiritual forces, not political power to establish His platform...His Kingdom.

He laid the foundations for a true state. We need to remember that there was no such thing as popular government in Jesus day with majority vote. Government was totalitarian; it was top down. Jesus set forth principles reversing this unilateral tyranny. In our country, we have a far greater role to play than citizens or subjects during Jesus’ day. During Jesus’ day, people endured because they had no power to change things. Now if things are wrong, we are accountable because we possess the ability to reform. We are building the kingdom Jesus started and laying the foundation for a true state to come.

Some think that Jesus’ declaration that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36) deprives His disciples of duties in civil government. If all Christians stand aloof from political duties, the very people preventing Christ’s rule and the advancement of His Kingdom will rule in its stead. The duties Jesus urged on His disciples are present human duties that encourage neighborliness, lawfulness, and order—this is a summary of the virtuous state (Matt. 18:15, 35; 19:17-21; Mark 9:42; 10:43-45; Luke 6:38; Luke 10:25-37). Christ’s disciples are to use their gifts, and if they are political in nature, the civil government is the sphere to use them.

The wretched qualities of some politicians then and now...manipulation, lying, compromise, and the exaltation of expediency above principle, Jesus despised. These are not the character traits of a Christian politician. These types of behaviors should never be tolerated of an elected official. If they are it is more a statement of the spiritual decrepitude of the voter or constituent majority than the elected official. People do in fact get the leaders they deserve. That example was shown repeatedly in Scriptures. No one has ever equaled Jesus in the exercise of humanitarian efforts, constructive achievement, noble management of people, and the use of compassionate and spiritual forces to strengthen, purify, and advance society. Although Jesus was not a politician, He teaches us the true goals of government, which are the true foundation for political wisdom and power. It is wisdom and power sorely lacking in a majority of American politicians and their constituent acolytes today. This is why America is under judgment and on the decline.

American Hedonism and Jesus

So, what was Jesus’ attitude toward the so-called pleasures of life? What would His take be on American hedonism and excesses in and outside the church nowadays? This question requires another... what are the pleasures of life? 

Some understand pleasure to be sensual gratification, the indulgence of appetites, or those things that gratify the senses. Jesus used this meaning in Luke 8:14, where He explains the Parable of the Sower. He says, “The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life's worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.” Jesus has in mind, putting worldly pleasures in the place of God. This is a bad place to be, Christian or not. Jesus' parable clearly frowns upon this.

People absorbed with frivolous, light-minded, superficial activities, and wasting time and strength merely to please the senses, this is what Jesus condemns. The people “choked” are those focusing solely on entertainment, sports, games, parties, eating for the sake of eating, dress, and etc.—these people are drunk with the cares of this world, and, therefore, bring no spiritual or worthy fruit to perfection. They're hedonists.

Did Jesus condemn everything that was not solemn or serious? No. He went to a marriage-feast with His disciples (John 2:1, 12). He told His disciples what to do when they celebrated feasts (Luke 14:13). He accepted invitations to social functions (Luke 5:29; John 12:2; Matt. 9:11; Luke 13:26). Indeed, Jesus attended celebratory events and dinner engagements so regularly, that the Pharisees called Him “a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber” (Luke 5:30; 7:34). Although He ate and drank joyously, He went to events to fellowship and used them as an occasion to discuss spiritual matters (Luke 7:36-50; 11:37-40; 14:1-14). Jesus did not seek to indulge the appetites or senses, however; He even neglected food on occasion (John 4:31-34; Mark 3:20, 21). He practiced restraint. He fasted. He overcame temptation.

Jesus didn’t desire worldly pleasure as an end in itself. The early Church understood this about Jesus, which is why the Church condemned the world so vigorously (Tit. 3:3; 2 Pet. 2:13; 1 Tim. 5:6; Jas. 5:5). Waste, extravagance, vulgarity, selfishness, prodigality, and exclusiveness are hostile to the spirit of communion and blessing in Jesus’ life and teaching (Luke 12:19-21).

Jesus’ constantly emphasized those things that were enduring. He told people not to focus on this present world with its trite pleasures but on the afterlife with its everlasting joy (Matt. 6:19, 20; 13:22; Luke 16:13). This does not mean Jesus did not enjoy the beauty of the world. He pointed to the creation often in His teaching (Matt. 6:28, 29; Luke 15:11- 32). He was pleased to have His disciples admire the beauty of God’s (His) creation (Matt. 18:1-3; 6:16). Yet He urged them to keep these things in the proper spiritual perspective.

Jesus taught His disciples about lasting and everlasting pleasures. Therefore, Jesus says, “It is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32). Paul spoke often about the pleasures of God (Eph. 1:5, 9; Phil. 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:11), and about our ability as His children to please Him (1 Thess. 2:4, 5; 4:1; Gal. 1:15; 1 Cor. 12:18; Col. 1:19). In some of these passages, the word translated please/ἀρέσκοντες, means to “think well” or to “choose.” What I/we think about and choose to do is what pleases me. Jesus lifts life’s tastes and desires to a new and higher plane of pleasure, to fill people with true joy—not of fleeting sense, but of spirit; not of the beauty of this world only, but also of the incomprehensible luxuriousness of the world to come in our glorification in spirit bodies.

Is this how American Christians approach pleasures? I fear not. Do American Christians reflect this in their words and behaviors? If not something is awry. We'd be well advised to course correct and do some deep soul-searching self-analysis. If not our pleasure will be fleeting and temporary and our condemnation may be eternal.

 

Scientific Accuracy of the Bible VI: God Created

Physics (φυσικός /phusikos). It is the science that studies matter, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force. Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines. Its main goal is to understand how the universe behaves. As the origin of the word implies, physics is the study of nature and speculation on the constitution of the natural world. It had its origin in the primal speculations of Thales of Miletus (640-546 B.C.), the founder of science and philosophy, who set forth two doctrines of fundamental scientific importance, first, that of a single elementary type of matter from which all other things are formed (atomist); and, second, that of motion or change inherently associated with substance.

His ideas of elementariness and changeability were both embodied in his choice of water as the primitive substance out of which endless modifications all else was made. Succeeding philosophers adopted his ideas but with the substitution of earth, air or fire, or all four of them, as the elementary substances. By the time of Aristotle the substances themselves were often replaced by the properties, cold, heat, moist and dry, to which he added the divine “quinta essentia,” or fifth essence, of which the refined and perfect substance of the heavenly bodies consisted. The doctrine of elements had previously been enlarged by Empedocles with the opposing principles of “love” and “hate,” later replaced by the non-emotional forms of “warmth” and “cold,” to account for the coherence and diffusion of matter.

The opposing ideas involved in the constitution of the world as One or Many originated another train of speculation which in the course of time developed into philosophy. Ultimately the world and human nature became comprehensively embraced in an all-inclusive scheme of mental philosophy, moral philosophy and natural philosophy.

When the separation of these great branches of knowledge into philosophy, ethics and physical science occurred their unity is lost, and it is even made to appear that they are mutually exclusive and often antagonistic to each other. Just as the metaphysical and physical and irrationalism and rationalism are viewed today. But of course this is philosophically incorrect when done by science and the atheist philosophers when they preclude the existence of a priori or metaphysical knowledge.

The enormous expansion of the study of nature in modern times, by establishing the sciences of astronomy, geology, paleontology, meteorology, chemistry and biology, has deprived physics of much of its primitive colossal empire, and the term is now used in the severely restricted sense of the study of the properties and laws of inorganic matter and energy under the titles mechanics, heat, radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism and radioactivity. The metaphysical elements or reality are diminished in importance and relegated to obscurity or irrelevance.

Physical science was developed in ancient Greece by attempting to establish uniform principles of nature by philosophical speculation, the only means then known, in opposition to the popular mythology which attributed the phenomena of nature to the capricious actions of the jealous and quarrelsome deities. The Greek philosophers though dimly perceived an ordered world through the operation of principles and laws which they struggled to formulate. Though God as revealed in the Bible bears no resemblance to the mythical deities of Greece, the process of separation of the ordered world of nature from a Creator God has been vehemently pursued in modem science by some of its exponents until it is often made to appear that the universe does not now require, nor has it at any time needed, a creating God. The truth is that unbelief is contrary to the principles of physics itself.

Although physics is concerned with the origin of matter, force and energy (origin of the universe) this cannot actually be studied by physicists. Why? Physics cannot study origin because there was no human there to observe it. Nor can creation or Big Bang be repeated. At best it is a subject for only physical speculation and theory. Four solutions of the problem of the origin of the universe may be proposed: 

1. The universe is an illusion
2. It spontaneously arose out of nothing
3. It had no origin but has existed eternally
4. It was created

The proposal that the universe is illusion has had and still has more adherents than one would initially believe possible. The theory generally asserts that there is no problem to solve except the metaphysical one of human consciousness. Recently the idea of the world as an illusion has been revived in physical science in the last century. The ideas of relativity, quantum physics and wave-mechanics, the constitution of the electron and proton, are so novel that sufficient time has not been available to obtain a full theoretical knowledge of their nature and relationship to each other. The semi-obscurity that veils them lends itself to metaphysical speculation on the fundamental nature of the world of matter, energy and space especially at the quantum level. I mean a majority of matter is indeed empty space.

Here’s the problem… if matter is merely a mental concept then energy and waves are mere abstractions. The works of an Architect are only an illusion for which no Architect is needed. In whatever way the universe is reduced to an illusion, the argument invariably abounds with contradictions. To offset these opinions it need only be stated that all the data on which these discussions and theories are based are obtained by experimental physics. To physical science it is undeniable that the world exists, and therefore the suggestion that it is an illusion isn’t worth pursuing further.

Did the universe spontaneously and autonomously appear from nothing on its own? It is unthinkable, that out of nothing, nothing of itself can come without having first being created. In an infinite void there is no conceivable way of differentiating one point either of space or duration from another in order that a spontaneous change can occur from nothing to something when no forces of any kind are in existence. This proposed solution of the problem of the origin of the universe is therefore summarily dismissed.

Has the universe always existed? These remaining two solutions of the origin of the world have one significant characteristic in common; something, either matter and energy or a Creator, must be eternal. No greater intellectual difficulty can therefore arise in one solution than in the other. We cannot escape from acknowledging an eternal Creator except by admitting the eternity of matter and energy. Since entropy exists in the universe we can dismiss the infinite universe theory also.

The assumption of an eternal material universe in the past leads to insurmountable difficulties. If the universe has eternally existed, then, since energy is being constantly dissipated, every event of which time is an element must already have taken place untold ages ago, and nothing could occur now. An eternal universe would now be a universe without events. Heat death of the universe should’ve happened at some infinitely distant point in the past. We know that since the time of Edwin Hubble in the 1930s that astronomy shows galaxies are slowly spreading out and retreating from each other with velocities increasing as they recede. In an eternal duration the expanding universe would already have expanded to infinity and invisibility leaving the exhausted sun with its desolated planets to wander aimlessly alone in space. The visible presence of the universe in its current state is therefore proof of its temporal nature.

It is generally recognized in physics that all types of energy can be transformed into other energy on the basis of strict equivalence. But this is not the whole of the universal picture. There is a steadily progressing degradation of energy in which all forms of heat are ultimately being dissipated into coldness at so low a temperature (heat death) that it can no longer be available. In scientific terms it is described this way. The universe and its energy is constantly tending toward a state of maximum entropy, which shows that all energy is gradually being degraded into heat energy at a uniform temperature near absolute zero or where no more work can be extrapolated from the universe. When the process is completed the universe will be dead. In an eternal universe such termination would long ago have been reached. 

The second law of thermodynamics points to the ultimate end of the world by cold. It is only while energy is passing from high to low potentials that work can be done. The motion even of even your eye reading this when traced to its ultimate origin (God) is therefore proof that the world is temporal and not eternal. Even if heat death or maximum entropy is the way the universe will end….it bypasses the divine intervention mentioned in 2 Peter. It doesn’t describe us freezing but rather burning up. Thermally, it hints towards just the opposite end of the thermometer.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

This leaves one plausible solution. The universe was created. The Bible and facts of science endorsed that the universe must have had an origin in time, and it is entirely proper to speak of a preexistent Creator since it is logically not possible spawn something autonomously from nothingness. There had to be a first cause. The account in Genesis seems to be the only story of creation which is free from the gross concepts of idolatry and mythology. In the very first verse of the Bible we see all the things needed for reality to exist physically. For reality to "be" in terms of scientific thought we have the following four statements…all of which are simultaneously scientific and theological.

• Time: In the beginning
• Force/Energy: God created
• Space: the heavens
• Matter: and the earth

The Creation account opens bluntly with little room for misunderstanding. God (Elohim-plural form) created the heaven (plural form) and the earth. No argument is introduced to demonstrate the eternality of God. If God exists, which this text assumes, He exists by His very nature eternally. No formal argument can possibly be framed to prove it but logic requires it. Logic dictates that if all other intelligence in the Creation are temporal, it would be using the temporal to prove the eternal. The eternity of God must therefore fundamentally rest upon the declaration of that fact by Himself, and secondarily by implication from the fact of His existence which Genesis 1:1 implies. The existence of God is self-evident in the statements above. All matter, energy, force apart from life, must therefore have come into existence by divine fiat at the same time. No differences in age, though many in state, confront us. This identity in age of all inanimate matter of the universe is in harmony with the basic assumptions of our current expanding universe. The Bible is therefore scientifically coherent and accurate about origin.

The Lunatic Fringe and Institutionalized Definitions

Institutional psychiatry, science, laws or truths provide a ritualistic affirmation for society's dominant ethic. This serves to control and align a populous to the dominant ethic...and if necessary sedate/tranquilize. Even when that ethic is immoral and clearly evil.

Politicized American 'psychiatry' and 'science' when it becomes overtly political seeks to destroy or invalidate individuals who do not share the psychiatric or scientific establishment's views.

He who is deemed mentally ill is the individual who has not compromised his individuality for the sake of functionality in that institutionalized society. Therefore, he is considered deviant even if he is normal and the society itself is abnormal. FDRs and LBJs 'lunatic fringe'.

The Propensity Gospel: Never in Isolation

I was thinking about the Prosperity Gospel and the idea that embedded in the Prosperity Gospel that wants us to have our best life now. I have always been adamantly against the whole idea of the Prosperity Gospel because it preaches mostly a health and wealth ideology and if you are not healthy and wealthy you are somehow inferior spiritually or are not praying hard enough or obedient enough. Because of my Pentecostal and Charismatic brethren, I’ve tried to temper my approach to this errant theology when it is taught in isolation.

Therein lays the rub. The Prosperity Gospel when preached in isolation without the balance of Scripture also brought into play is in fact a false teaching and heresy. We are to teach the full counsel of Scripture not just the parts we like. This goes for the 'God is Love' crowd too. Yeah, He is love…He’s also very much the 'God of Wrath' too.

So, look at John 10:10, where Jesus says, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” I have heard Reformed and Calvinist teachers say that life here is only salvation from sin, not earthly prosperity, as though one could prove from this text that the gospel has nothing to do with earthly prosperity or happiness. This isn’t solely and completely true…again, in isolation. People are strangely good at being in denial or prone to their own confirmation bias without seeing the full picture. Sometimes Christians just gather the facts they need to prove what they want to believe but not necessarily what the Scriptures authored by God seek to teach us.

Is there suffering in the teachings of Christianity? Absolutely! The broad underlying premises within Scripture speak to this fact, especially in the story of the Gospel itself. Yet that very Gospel offers us ultimate blessing and rewards…or prosperity. Is it all spiritual? Perhaps, but nothing in the Scriptures precludes the possibility of physical reward here, now. Becoming rich, is it possible? Yes. Probable? Not likely. If there is reward now, in a way it is the 'now but not yet' being brought into a form of physicality. 

Jesus does in fact promise earthly prosperity for his people, “with persecutions,” in this life, and prosperity in the life to come:

Mark 10:29-31~ Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” 

This was similar to God’s promise to Israel in the Old Testament also.

Exodus 3:8 ~ So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.

Exodus 3:17 ~ And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey.’

Exodus 13:5 ~ When the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites and Jebusites—the land he swore to your ancestors to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey—you are to observe this ceremony in this month:

Deuteronomy 28:1-15 If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come on you and accompany you if you obey the Lord your God: You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country. The fruit of your womb will be blessed, and the crops of your land and the young of your livestock—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks. Your basket and your kneading trough will be blessed. You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out. The Lord will grant that the enemies who rise up against you will be defeated before you. They will come at you from one direction but flee from you in seven. The Lord will send a blessing on your barns and on everything you put your hand to. The Lord your God will bless you in the land he is giving you. The Lord will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the Lord your God and walk in obedience to him. Then all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they will fear you. The Lord will grant you abundant prosperity—in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your ground—in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you. The Lord will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands. You will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. The Lord will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the Lord your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom. Do not turn aside from any of the commands I give you today, to the right or to the left, following other gods and serving them.

What we can clearly see in the Deuteronomy passage is that prosperity is provisional or conditional on obedience/belief. After fourteen verse of blessing there are then fifty-four verses of curses for the disobedient and unfaithful. In essence, if you insist on doubling-down on stupid in your sin and disobedience God might forgive this time but eventually He's going to call you out. God's going to cut you down.

So, it appears that Jesus in Mark announces at least a provisional fulfillment of possible prosperity in the lives of his people.

Mark 10:29-31 ~ “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” 

We should therefore not doubt that such blessing is part of the “abundance” of life that Jesus offers in this world now in John 10:10…but I just wouldn't expect it because Jesus also told us to take up our crosses daily. In John’s writing throughout the entire Gospel of John's context is life in direct contrast with death, not with prosperity. I agree with the critics of the Prosperity Gospel that the true gospel always focuses on the forgiveness of sins. But I believe it is too simplistic to say that the Gospel is limited to just forgiveness. The prosperity preachers didn’t get their idea out of thin air. The prosperity of God’s people is a regular theme of Scripture. The prosperity movement misreads this promise though, without the balancing teaching of Mark 10. But the prosperity gospel needs to be addressed by a more discerning examination of Scripture than one finds in some of their broadly generalizing critics.

It is the propensity of human nature to want to simplify things but as we know with other topics in Scripture, a simple, direct or straightforward dogmatic statement about a non-essential is not always prudent. We should never form dogma around single statements in Scripture but use the 'Analogy of Scripture' as encouraged by the Reformers. Scripture interprets Scripture. If we’re honest, we’ll admit Scripture speaks to suffering now but not later in eternity unless one doesn't repent. It also speaks of rewards later and even occasionally…now. Just not like Jesse Duplantis, Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen are telling people about. That is because it is also a propensity for sinful men to gravely sin when it comes to greed also.

Redeeming the Time While Shrewd as a Viper

In my experience Christian theologians don't do enough to learn about current cultural phenomenon including nuances of science, genetics, foreign policy, economics, sex, racial theory, etc to properly engage the current world. I agree with Mark Nolls assessment in the Scandal of The Evangelical Mind. That is why I'm still constantly studying the world, studying new science like CRISPR tech, studying the beliefs of gender fluidity proponents, studying the errant racial socialist philosophy like CRT. Even my liberal friends will acknowledge that I've always tried to be balanced in my assessments. It's why I am still a Quality Engineer dealing with China daily. Its why I still acknowledge that, at heart I'm still the good ole boy that listens to Metallica and Iron Maiden and throws iron.

I learned the way the world learned and then later in life I learned the nuances and details of the Christian faith. In doing it this way I have the scientific and logic base provided by the world. I know pretty much how the world functions and thinks. Although some of its thinking processes and logic are at times horribly flawed I still understand where a godless culture comes from. The inverse is that I understnad where my proper theology engages and intersects with it. This point of transfer is critical to my method of  evangelism.

Instead of trying to hammer the square peg in the round hole I minimize the interferences and show how they can in fact both work together by shaving edges and making the square world peg more into a slimmed down triangle that will be able to integrate with the linear and level theology of the Bible.

We're to be shrewd as vipers and peaceful as doves. We're to go out into the world and engage it, but not become it. Paul when arriving in a new town would go to their synagogues first to engage the people 'where they were at' basically. Show he was one of them yet teach the Gospel. He was different but not above or better. He did those things that allowed him to related to them but not become them through sin or unrighteous behavior. The Unknown God speech at the Areopogus/Mars Hill is a great example of this. This is why I do what I do and how I do it.

We need to go out an engage the world where they are at, not jsut remain in cloistered sanctuaries. It is like the Parable of the Talents.

Matthew 25:14-29 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more. “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’ “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

If you just take the gift you're given and sit on it (bury it) and do nothing you have not utililzed the resources God gave to wisely. When the man came back, he gave rewards to those who increased the coins he lent them. But he took the coin away from the person who hadn’t tried to increase it. We only have so much time to do what God wants us to do with our gifts. We need to utilize the time we're given in this life to best effect (Ephesians 5:16). Time is a gift from God in this life and when it is gone in this world...it is gone forever. There are no second chances (Hebrews 9:27-28).

The Improbable Nature of Mathematics and Probability

Mathematics is a part of what should be considered beauty. Centuries ago, the great astronomer Johannes Kepler (d. 1630) found that math enabled him to predict the relative distances between the various planets and the sun. This finding made him feel “possessed by an unutterable rapture,” bedazzled by “God [thereby] signing his likeness into the world,” symbolizing “all nature and the graceful sky” by “the art of geometry.” Modern scientists, such as the pioneer quantum physicist Paul Dirac, were similarly struck. “The fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power.... One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

If mathematics has impressed many of its greatest theorists with its beauty, many scientists have been equally struck by the peculiarity of its ability to map nature with acute accuracy. The Nobel laureate physicist Eugene Wigner wrote a celebrated essay about how the ability of math to tell us about nature is “unreasonable.” Einstein said that our ability to make sense of the universe with mathematics is a “miracle,” for a universe arising from randomness would not be expected to be so rational as to correspond with such precision to the precise system that mathematics is. In his book The Mind of God Paul Davies registered his surprise at this correspondence. “Much of the mathematics that is so spectacularly effective in physical theory was worked out as an abstract exercise by pure mathematicians long before it was applied to the real world . . . and yet we discover, often years afterward, that nature is playing by the very same mathematical rules that these pure mathematicians have already formulated.”

Is there a link between the beauty of mathematics and its description of nature? There is—in music. Millennia ago, the Greek philosopher Pythagoras noticed that musical tones are in harmony if their tensions arc ratios of the squares of small whole numbers. These rules, translated into frequency, state that notes sound good together if their frequencies arc in ratios of small whole numbers. He was the first major thinker to see the connection between nature and music through the medium of mathematics. This “music of the spheres,” which Pythagoras thought was created by the harmonies among the sun and moon and planets, is the same “heavenly harmony” that Kepler described. The physicist Wilczek said they were on to something profoundly true. Atoms, he wrote, are tiny musical instruments. “In their interplay with light, they realize a mathematical Music of the Spheres that surpasses the visions of Pythagoras, Plato, and Kepler. In molecules and ordered materials, those atomic instruments play together as harmonious ensembles and ordered materials.”

So, mathematics links the world of nature and our minds by a kind of music. But do we comprehend it because we have created mathematics? Is it just another artificial human construct that we have imposed on the world? We have already seen that the fit between mathematics and the world is so close and precise that artificial imposition is unlikely. In fact, there is something about mathematics itself that suggests it has a life of its own completely apart from its use to describe nature. In other words, it seems to have its own existence and nature, quite removed from the physical world. 

As particle physicist Peter Bussey argued, mathematics is not physics, even though physics depends on math. “Mathematics seems to have a life of its own.” Musician and science writer Kitty Ferguson told of the day when it dawned on her that mathematics has an objective reality apart from its use in science. “I remember clearly when it first dawned on me those human beings might have discovered mathematics, not invented it; that it might lie waiting in nature; that mathematical truth might be a part of independent reality. It wasn’t in mathematics class, but in music theory, when I studied the harmonic series. It seemed to me that this pattern could not be a human way of sorting things out. It would have existed even if human beings had never existed.”

Astrophysicist Roger Penrose also noted that mathematics has a transcendent, objective character. “There often does appear to be some profound reality about these mathematical concepts, going quite beyond the mental deliberations of any particular mathematician. It is as though human thought is, instead, being guided towards some external truth—a truth which has a reality of its own, and which is revealed only partially to any one of us.”

Once again, then, we are faced with oddities. This world seems to have been fine-tuned not just with one or two parameters but with many. If a few or perhaps even one of them were different, we would not be here. These corroborations of fine-tuning are strange enough, but the fact that there is beauty at the deepest physical levels of the universe, and that it has been noticed by agnostic and believing scientists alike, is also odd. Why would a randomly formed universe be beautiful? Furthermore, why would the beautifully rational system of mathematics so perfectly describe the way this world works? If this world is finally irrational, which is what one would expect from a cosmic accident (as it is said to be by atheists such as Richard Dawkins), then one would never expect a rational system like mathematics to fit it so closely and usefully.