Exhortation – Page 2

A Sound Mind

Cognitive Bias is a systematic error in thinking which affects how we process information, distorting our perception and causing us to act irrationally. This bias is rooted in incorrect beliefs about ourselves, others and/or the world which cause us to want Reality to be different than it actually is, hindering our ability to rightly engage the world. This corruption in our minds makes us vulnerable to even more deception, causing more irrational behavior.

To the degree we’re free of Cognitive Bias, the healthier our mind is, the freer we are to think, reason and make good decisions. A sound mind honestly and (therefore more) accurately perceives the world and responds more rationally, coherently, consistently.

The challenge here is that we’re all limited and incomplete in our understanding (1Co 8:2); we’re unable to focus on everything we perceive all at once, and our world is also extremely complex, very difficult to interpret optimally. So, God has ingeniously designed our minds to focus our attention on what’s important, to categorize and generalize our perceptions based on past experience in order to simplify this complexity. We learn to develop mental shortcuts based on what we already know to help us efficiently process new information and make important decisions in real time — otherwise we couldn’t function well. This is God’s design, and might look like Cognitive Bias, but it’s different.

Cognitive Bias is when our internal agenda, what we want Reality to be like, causes us to deal dishonestly with the facts, to apply different rules of evaluation, different standards depending on the situation, in order to protect our own distorted version of Reality. It reflects a fundamentally dishonest worldview, a tendency to love deception rather than the truth. (Jn 3:19)

Cognitive Bias is the root cause of a reprobate mind (Ro 1:28), a corrupt mind (2Ti 3:8), a carnal mind (Ro 8:7); it’s a condition we build into ourselves over time which cripples our ability to understand and obey the truth.

The danger in Cognitive Bias is that what we believe about our world impacts what we can actually perceive about it; believing lies distorts our perception so we can no longer even see the truth. When we neglect to align ourselves with the Reality in front of us, we blind ourselves; this is self-deception, the worst kind of deception. (Ja 1:22) Yet it’s how we all start out (Ti 3:3), and it’s the natural state of most everyone we know. The masses of humanity are unaware, deluded, passively content in the darkness, thoughtlessly traveling the wide road to destruction. (Mt 7:13-14)

A sound mind isn’t actually very common; it’s the precious gift of God. (2Ti 1:7)

To deliver ourselves from Cognitive Bias and develop a sounder, healthier mind, while working within the limitations of our current mental framework, we must determine to love the truth and pursue it at all costs. (Pr 23:23) We must acknowledge that we very likely still have biases which cause us to react irrationally and be on the lookout for them, even inviting others to point out any hint of inconsistency in our behavior. This is the path to freedom. (Jn 8:32)

The key is to start paying attention (Ps 119:9), training ourselves to notice and carefully observe more of what is going on around us, and also within us, and train more of our focus on that part of Reality which appears anomalous, contrary to our world view, opposing our beliefs and presuppositions — our bias. We must be on the lookout for signs that we’re misinterpreting Reality.

When we notice an irrational response, a desire to believe a certain way which appears to be inconsistent with Reality, reactions which don’t align with the facts in front of us, we must ask God for repentance, to open our eyes to see and believe the truth, and deliver ourselves from the snare of deception. (2Ti 2:25-26)

articles ♦ blog

Be Ye Separate

God tells us we’re to separate ourselves from the world (1Co 6:17-18), to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (16) and to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them (Ep 5:11), yet we find Christ eating and drinking with sinners, and being very friendly with them. (Lk 17:34) God gives sunshine, rain and health to His enemies, effectively enabling them to continue in sin (Mt 5:45), and He tells us to love them and seek their good. (44)

It’s relatively easy to look down our nose at other sinners and separate from them in a spirit of pride and self-righteousness, but this isn’t Love. Yet it’s also unloving to encourage anyone to continue in sin. Where do we draw the line?

There’s a difference between treating sinners with respect and kindness and explicitly promoting perversion. There’s a difference between doing business with someone who self-identifies with sin and encouraging them to continue in their sin. There’s a difference between enabling a person to sin by helping them in non-sinful ways and actually participating with them in practicing their sin.

And there’s a difference between offering a gentle rebuke to a fellow truth-seeker (2Ti 2:24-25) and casting our pearls before swine. (Mt 7:6, Pr 9:7) Often, a godly example is sufficient reproof. (Mt 5:16)

How good does a person, organization or government need to be before we engage with them? What types of flaws, indiscretions or iniquities are acceptable before we withdraw and separate ourselves, or even rebuke and resist?

Rome was about as evil and corrupt as any nation, requiring its subjects to worship Ceasar as god, yet John the Baptist, in preparing the way for Messiah, didn’t advise publicans to stop collecting taxes for Rome (Lk 3:12-13) or soldiers to stop serving Ceasar. (14) Not only did he not resist Rome, he encouraged those who were providing a legitimate service on behalf of Rome to continue to do so with integrity.

Perhaps the rule of Love will help us clarify (Ro 13:10): how do we want others to handle this matter of separation? Do we appreciate fellow citizens standing up for godly principles and resisting those who are actively defrauding and harming others, when they are in a position to do so effectively and legally? Yes, we generally do.

Does it annoy us when the self-righteous get to meddling in the affairs of others they think are in sin, calling them out and harassing them, when they’re not deliberately harming anyone? Generally, yes.

When it’s within our power to prevent open injustice, to defend the vulnerable and the weak, and we don’t … we certainly are to blame (Pr 24:11-12, Ja 4:17), but we also must be careful not to suffer as a busybody in other men’s matters. (1Pe 4:15)

Every situation is different; we need wisdom, humility and love in each circumstance. God be merciful to us and lead us in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake. (Ps 23:3)

articles ♦ blog

Let No Man Deceive You

Let’s carefully consider the claim that king David’s sin with Bathsheba is proof believers can willfully commit terrible sins, still be forgiven and have confidence of Heaven. It’s common for sinners to comfort themselves with the idea that King David evidently sinned worse than they are, committing adultery and murder, yet he still made it. Is this reasonable?

It certainly is clear David committed terrible sins, he committed them willfully and persisted in them over a prolonged period, and he was also forgiven: he will be present in Heaven. But this does not prove the proposed claim; we don’t know for sure if David was a believer at the time he committed these horrible sins: it is conceivable he was regenerated afterward.

David did remarkable things in faith before his sin with Bathsheba, but this not necessarily an indication he was justified, regenerated by God. Some of Abraham’s great acts of faith were prior to his justification; he followed God’s call to leave his home country (Ge 12:4) before believing in God for salvation. (15:6) God doesn’t tell us exactly when David believed in God, having faith unto righteousness. It might have been after his sin with Bathsheba.

The Apostle Paul describes David’s understanding of salvation in no uncertain terms (Ro 4:6-8, Ps 32:1-2), yet this is likely (Spurgeon, vs 5) taken from David’s testimony after his sin with Bathsheba. Perhaps David’s sin is an indication he was not yet regenerated at the time.

Anyone living a life of willful sin who presumes they have eternal life from David’s example is banking on David committing his horrendous sins as a believer, but this presumption: it cannot be proven. What can be proven is what God tells us about believers and what they’re like. For one, no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1Jn 3:15); one who premeditates a murder and carries it out, as David evidently did, gives clear evidence of an unregenerate state.

The Apostle John tells us to be very careful here: “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (1Jn 3:6-10) John warns that false teachers will try to convince us we can live in sin and have eternal life; the Apostle Paul is also very clear here. (Ep 5:5-6, 1Co 6:9-10) It’s deception.

If we want to believe a lie, if we don’t love the truth, it will be nearly impossible to resist this one (2Th 2:11-12); it certainly appeals to the flesh. Let’s not fall for it, and gently warn those who are. (2Ti 2:24-26)

articles ♦ blog

A Spirit of Meekness

Meekness has been defined as strength under control. Picture a warrior capable of imposing immense harm who chooses to deescalate a situation rather than do battle. These shall inherit the earth. (Mt 5:5)

The weak-minded tend to use strength to exalt themselves and control others, whereas the meek serve, protect and defend those in need. Think of meekness as love trained to overcome hardness and difficulty, humble competence, the opposite of selfish ambition.

Humility moves us to check our motives before engaging in conflict, fighting only as necessary, whereas pride and presumption search out strife and contention and thrive in it. (Ja 3:14-16)

Conflict will certainly come; being strong equips us to resist and overcome it; being meek equips us to do so in wisdom and love, looking to heal and edify rather than causing unnecessary harm. Meekness uses minimal necessary force: do what’s needful, but don’t return evil for evil: overcome evil with good. (Ro 12:21)

We’re to offer instruction to others in meekness (2Ti 2:25), truth to those who are seeking in a manner that both honors (1Pe 2:17) and edifies them (Ep 4:29), considering their true needs as well as we can. (Php 2:4)

When we’re debating spiritual topics in a spirit of mutual edification, asserting other points of view to be in error postures us as the authority, which is presumptuous and offensive unless we’ve actually earned the right by repeatedly demonstrating a competence which is being acknowledged in community. In making such claims we’re also exposing ourselves to stricter judgment (Ja 3:1). Even if we are competent and others are indeed amiss, asserting this is generally unnecessary, violating a spirit of meekness, not the fruit of the Spirit. (Ga 5:22-23)

When another is overtaken in a fault, we’re to restore them in a spirit of meekness, using only minimal necessary force, considering ourselves so we won’t fall into the same traps. (Ga 6:1) When possible, we approach such challenges in community, not in isolation: we generally don’t correct others on our own; to keep ourselves in check, we engage others in restoring the wounded, the broken-hearted and fallen.

articles ♦ blog

Mark Them

God tells us to mark them which cause divisions and offenses in a manner contrary to the law of Christ and avoid them. (Ro 16:17) To do this, we must differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable differences within spiritual community.

Since the primary goal in the church is to edify one another (Ro 14:19), fundamental doctrinal differences related to the nature of God, Man, Salvation, etc., the authority of Scripture, even varying hermeneutics, shouldn’t be allowed: they become a constant source of disruption and frustration in spiritual discussions and applications, especially if some insist on imposing their views upon others.

Yet even when we’re doctrinally aligned on a functional level, the spirit in which one engages can be problematic; we’re to honor all people (1Pe 2:17), respect and value everyone in a spirit of mutual submission within the Body of Christ. (Ep 5:20) Respectful behavior is often culturally defined, and may vary within spiritual communities, comprising all types of cultures, races and backgrounds. As such, it’s important for believers to highlight and align on communication protocols which foster mutual respect, such as:

1. We defer any topic until we’re each ready to discuss it.
2. We use non-accusatory language: rather than, “You’re being illogical!” or “You’re taking it out of context!”, prefer, “I don’t see how you are getting there”, in a tone which is more respectful, meek, gentle, humble.
3. We don’t interrupt or talk over each other.
4. We present one key point at a time, giving ample opportunity for response and clarification, to counter and/or challenge before moving to the next point.
5. We re-state what we hear in our own words, when presented with a complex or difficult idea, to the speaker’s satisfaction before responding.

In submitting ourselves to such rules of engagement we’re exercising self-control, monitoring and evaluating our own behavior (Pr 25:28), more ready to hear than to speak (Ja 1:19), listening to one another, allowing all to participate and be heard (1Co 14:31), to promote our mutual edification. Those unwilling to control their tongues inevitably cause unnecessary strife (Ja 3:14) and discord. (Pr 6:16-19)

Finally, whenever an offense develops between believers in the church, resolving this promptly is imperative (Mt 5:23-25), this must not be allowed to fester. (1Co 5:6) To avoid pettiness, minor indiscretions should be overlooked in a spirit of charity. (1Pe 4:8) Major conflicts (as defined by community) should first be dealt with privately (Mt 18:15), and unresolved disputes brought to the brothers’ attention. (16-17a) The uncooperative and unsubmissive, intent on polluting the congregation with divisions and offenses, must be removed and loved outside the Body as friends or acquaintances, not permitted within close spiritual community. (17b)

articles ♦ blog

Let This Mind Be in You

Jesus Christ, being equal with God the Father (Php 2:6), submitted Himself as an obedient servant to the Father (7-8) and esteemed His Father greater than Himself. (Jn 14:26) In highlighting this attitude in Christ and calling us to be like Him (5), Paul is telling us how to walk in humility by esteeming others better than ourselves. (3)

The Greek word translated better is ὑπερέχοντας, huperechōntas, which means superior, surpassing, above, over, better than. The word compares and contrasts one with another. The renowned theologian Albert Barnes, in his exegesis here, understands better in a moral context: the humble consider others to be, apart from God’s grace, morally superior to themselves.

While saints are currently being trained and equipped to judge all human behavior (1Co 6:2-3), it’s tempting to practice on our own before the time (1Co 4:5), without full knowledge of God’s Way, or of the human heart. (1Co 2:11) Not a good move. (1Co 4:3)

While we’re not to evaluate others’ moral goodness yet (Mt 7:1), trying to decide how good or bad someone is or determine what punishment or reward they deserve, we may act as if others are morally superior to ourselves, above us; we may esteem or consider them to less evil than we would be without God’s restraining grace. This violates no law of God, and in following Christ, in emulating His lowliness and meekness (Mt 11:29), God tells us to do exactly this: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Php 2:3)

God will judge us all according to our works (Ro 2:6), measuring and evaluating our thoughts, motives and actions according to His perfect, righteous standard (Jn 5:45); we’ll each score on the moral spectrum uniquely, no two of us being exactly alike. If we think to place ourselves above anyone else on this scale, with no way of knowing precisely where we stand, or exactly where anyone else does, we’re being presumptuous, proud (1Pe 5:5), thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought. (Ro 12:3) Rather, in lowliness of mind, we’re to avoid any tendency to exalt ourselves. (Ga 6:3)

In esteeming others better than ourselves, we should not conflate moral superiority with significance (ESV95), or value (NIV) or importance (NASB95); in providing His Son as an atoning sacrifice for each and every individual, God has infinitely valued each human being equally; we ought not to consider any person more or less valuable, significant or important than any other. Doing so is partiality, being a respecter of persons (De 16:19), which violates the law of Love. (Ja 2:8-9) In love and humility we’re to prefer one another in honor (Ro 12:10), not value, pleased as others are lifted up above ourselves.

Further, we should not confuse humility merely with a call to serve others. While it’s clear Christ humbly submitted Himself to His Father as a servant, it doesn’t follow that we’re to submit ourselves as servants to others; this is actually forbidden. (1Co 7:23) We’re to consider ourselves servants to Christ, not other people, and order our lives to as to please God and not men. (Ga 1:10) In submitting to God we will generally serve others in love (Ga 5:13), and defer to the needs and interests of others (Php 2:4), yet this is always in a context of stewardship and wisdom before God, not a blanket, boundaryless neglecting, disvaluing or demeaning of ourselves in interpersonal relationships. (2Co 8:13)

Christ, our example in humility, though He didn’t consider God the Father morally superior to Himself (for both are morally perfect), He did defer to the greatness and majesty of His Father, to the Father’s Headship within the Trinity itself. (1Co 11:3b) We’re called to follow His steps (1Pe 2:21), to emulate Christ’s lowliness of mind in our relations with one another, yet we can’t do exactly as Christ did here, using the same scale He did with His Father, since on that scale of headship all those within each gender are equivalent with one another. (3a)

Since we’ve eliminated importance, significance and intrinsic worth or value as proper ways to rank ourselves, the only relevant scale or ranking we may rightly refer to here in esteeming others better than ourselves is a moral one, the scale God Himself will use to rank us. (Mt 5:18) However, we’re forbidden to make any formal judgements of ourselves or others for the time being. (7:1-2)

Thus, our default position, if we’re going to esteem others better than ourselves, must be one of considering ourselves to likely be at the very bottom of this moral scale, to potentially be, apart from God’s grace, the most evil person who has ever lived, as Paul the Apostle evidently did (Ga 3:8, 1Ti 1:15), and in this God calls us to follow his example. (Php 4:9)

articles ♦ blog

A Soft Answer

As we enter into strife with others, as we become agitated, defensive or oppressive in trying to control a situation, the outcome is seldom good; we’re actually forbidden to do this (Php 2:3), since our striving is generally rooted in pride. (Pr 28:5)

Calming ourselves down and getting ourselves grounded again in God is certainly the first step (2Ti 2:24), yet this is only part of the equation; when others are pursuing contention (Pr 26:21), knowing how to deescalate and avoid strife is invaluable. (Pr 19:11)

A de-escalation technique recommended in scripture is a soft answer (Pr 15:1), which comprises more than a gentle, unassuming posture or tone. It might be couched in this general demeaner, and perhaps often should be (Mt 10:16), but it can be much more subtle and powerful. (Pr 25:15)

For example, calmly repeating back what we hear, asking for clarification, confirmation and agreement on intent, is offering an accuser an opportunity to think through their words and stand by them under cross-examination. It gently introduces a bit of accountability without being aggressive or confrontational. This is softness, but not weakness. (Jn 18:23) It actually demonstrates strength, for only a mature, stable, secure soul can tread unthreatened out into the vast, uncertain territory of Accusation. Further, it clearly tells our accuser they’re valued, and that they’ve been heard and understood. With a person of good will, this might be all we need to disarm them.

Calmly and thoughtfully summarizing and re-stating a claim dispenses with emotionalism, and this will invariably both weaken the accusation itself (for, we tend to emotionally charge claims when evidence itself is insufficient) and confront any manipulation, irrationality and/or inconsistency without retaliating. If the claim has merit at all, this will distill and clarify the relevant substance for inspection.

Then we might also explore the implications of an accusation, as if we’re a neutral investigator, asking if the ramifications were thought through and intended, and how any apparent inconsistencies have been resolved. (Mt 12:2-4) Doing this does not strengthen false accusation; invariably it brings truth and light to bear, exposing any darkness for what it is. Showing any implication of a claim to be false proves the claim itself is false: it’s proof by contradiction.

People often speak emotionally within a specific context, perspective or presupposition which is not apparent to others, or perhaps even to themselves. Asking insightful questions exposes these presuppositions and allows them to be analyzed thoughtfully, challenged and corrected as needed. (Mk 10:18) This is helpful to all who are engaged in conflict.

Another key, when people accuse, is to remind ourselves they may indeed be entirely wrong, merely telling us something about themselves and nothing at all about us.

We’re often much too quick to accept an accusation as authoritative, without realizing we need not defend ourselves or be intimidated. It’s in trying to protect our own vulnerability and hide our imperfections that we’re lured into resisting groundless accusations and defending ourselves when this is entirely unnecessary. (1Pe 2:23)

And if an accusation happens to be legit, even partly, humility rejoices in discovering another opportunity to grow, makes amends, and asks God for grace to overcome, unconcerned in the efforts to shame, disvalue or belittle, resting in ultimate security in God. (Php 4:7)

When we take ourselves too seriously, thinking too highly of ourselves (Ro 12:3), that we’re something when we aren’t, we’re deceiving ourselves (Ga 6:3); this isn’t Love (1Jn 2:16), it’s the pride of life. When our mind is stayed on God, grounded in Love (Ep 3:17), we’ll be at perfect peace. (Is 26:3)

articles ♦ blog

Yea, Hath God Said

The Fall of Man provides insights on a number of levels. The saga begins with a question, initiated with an unexpected conjunction: “Yea,” typically used to join two thoughts, the first of which is evidently unrecorded.

It is as if Satan has already engaged Eve in pleasant dialogue, providing a positive context in which to highlight an apparent contradiction. Aligning himself with Eve, isolating her, befriending her, disarming her, this is all tactical, the art of war: the enemy isolates us, aligns as a friend, then destroys.

It’s likely Eve’s first mistake, to engage without Adam, without God, to neglect her spiritual community and tangle with Satan alone. We learn from Eve: engage the Devil in no conversation, give him no ear or audience. Bring God and others into the equation immediately; ignore the enemy and resist by drawing near to God. (Ja 4:7-8a)

This first word, Yea, is the Hebrew אַ֚ף (’ap̄), although, an adversative contrasting one idea with another, comparing two opposing thoughts in the form of a question: “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Ge 3:1) Satan draws attention to God’s command as an opposition, something holding Adam and Eve back from something good. It is Satan’s way: position God and His Law as the adversary. (Ro 7:22)

The question itself seems innocuous enough; Satan asks Eve to affirm God’s only command, a restriction placed on herself and Adam, which she actually does inaccurately; Eve adds to God’s command an additional prohibition: “neither shall ye touch it.” (2-3) She only has one law to consider, which she fails to recall correctly. She is not yet fallen and remains innocent, yet she is inexperienced, ignorant, naive and careless. We ought not so to be. (1Co 14:20)

Whether this is Adam’s indiscretion in teaching Eve, or Eve’s own carelessness, it’s weakness which Satan is all too eager to exploit. If he convinces Eve to touch the tree and she sees no harm, perhaps eating of it will do no harm either. More instruction in spiritual warfare: Don’t add to God’s Word, and don’t shorten it. (De 12:32) Know the Word, by heart, and like Jesus (Mt 4:4) be ready always to take the sword, the sword of the Spirit, quoting it in context to address temptation, so God’s Way is clear.

The dialogue then leads to Satan’s explicit claim: “Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (4b-5) It is a two-part claim: [1] God’s not good and can’t be trusted; [2] breaking His command will go well for you. Satan accuses God of lying, of having ulterior, malicious motives in giving us His laws, and promises benefit in disobeying God. Satan accuses God of doing exactly what he himself is doing in order to get us to turn against God. It doesn’t really matter which law we break if we do it willfully, the result is the same. (He 10:26-27)

Satan comes as benevolent, spiritual, an angel of light, and his ministers as holy men. (2Co 11:13-15) He offers freedom from God’s Law, freedom to disobey, and lies about the consequences. He started way back in the Garden and hasn’t changed. To overcome, we must hold to the goodness of God, believing all His Laws are for our good (1Ti 1:8), obey Him and submit to Him.

articles ♦ blog

His Elect

Scripture refers to God’s elect (Mt 24:31), those whom He has chosen: some angels (1Ti 5:21), as well as a few people. (Co 3:12) Why would God refer to certain angels and people as elect? What does this imply?

The saints are elect unto obedience (1Pe 1:2), chosen before the foundation of the world (Ep 1:4) to submit to God and walk with Him, so it seems reasonable the angels are chosen similarly.

Evidently, those whom God doesn’t choose rebel against Him. along with Satan, and are now at war with God, both humans (Ps 2:1-3) and angels. (Re 12:7)

This non-elect group of rebels evidently comprises nearly all people (1Jn 5:19), a full third of the angels, who chose to remain in Heaven after they rebelled (Re 12:4), along with a number of angels who’ve been chained up for leaving their Heavenly habitation (Ju 6), evidently to intermarry with humans (Ge 6:1-2), corrupt the human race (12), and prevent the Messianic prophecy from being fulfilled. (Ge 3:15)

As a particular showcase example, this ante-diluvian human-angelic mutiny, as it played out prior to the Great Flood, was so effective and pervasive God evidently had to step in and intervene to keep even a single strand of humanity intact (Ge 6:9), preserving a purely human ancestry through which to bring Messiah, destroying all the rest of humanity, most all animal life (Ge 6:13), and starting over, constraining such destructive angelic behavior going onward.

What is impressive (at least to me) about this overwhelming level of depravity, as it persists in both the angelic realm since the Creation week, as well as in humanity since the Fall, particularly as showcased in the ante-diluvian period, is that it apparently occurs even with full knowledge of the Godhead. Satan is so effective in his ability to deceive, he is able to win over anyone and everyone whom God has not graciously enabled to resist (Mt 24:24), even if we’re fully aware of the existence, holiness and omnipotence of God.

That Satan’s ability to deceive is not merely a testament to inherent human or angelic depravity, but evidence of the profound appeal, intelligence and subtlety of Satan (Ez 28:14-15), consider that Eve was enticed by Satan in Paradise when she had no need, trouble or discomfort, no reason to betray God, and did not have a depraved nature. And the angels who sided with Satan evidently did so in plain sight of God, without an inherently evil nature. (For, if God created fallen angels as inherently evil, or with an involuntary predisposition to evil, it is difficult to imagine how they would be culpable for acting out their God-given design.)

The implication is that every sentient, conscious being with the ability to make a moral choice has willingly chosen to depart from God at the first opportunity, even when bathed in the full knowledge of the glory, majesty and power of Almighty Godhead, unless God mercifully intervenes and restrains us. And also, that God has mysteriously chosen to intervene only in extremely few cases. (Mt 7:14)

Both of these mysteries should humble us, and fill us with joy unspeakable for the incredible mercies of God (Ps 103:11), those He has given the grace to believe on Him and follow Him. (Mt 19:25-16) We are precious few in number (Ro 11:5), and no better than the lost when left to our own devices. (Ga 6:3)

It should not surprise us when others do not receive the truth (2Ti 4:3-4), turning against it and against us, even when the truth is stated as clearly, plainly and lovingly as it can possibly be stated. Truly, no flesh shall glory in His presence. (1Co 1:29)

articles ♦ blog

As a Sparrow Alone

Terminal cancer is no joke. When we hear we have so little time left, what do we do? Re-calibrate? Re-orient? Get out our bucket list and try to live it up? It’s perfectly understandable, whatever we do when we face our fragile little selves for what we really are (Ga 6:3), feeling alone (Ps 102:7), afraid, uncertain. (He 10:31)

Truly, we’re all dying of a terminal condition: Life itself. But as long as death seems far away, not imminently close, we comfort ourselves however we can, asleep at the wheel.

Facing our mortality wakes us up, helping us realize what and who we are (Ja 4:14), what and who we have, or don’t have. (Ga 6:4-5) It’s clear we don’t take our stuff, our friends or family (1Co 6:29-31), or even our man-made religion (Mk 7:7); we leave it all behind. (1Ti 6:7) We will face God alone, and deal with Him one on one, for eternity. (Ro 14:11-12)

It isn’t so much a choice between Heaven and Hell, though that’s implied; it’s more about being a devoted lover of God, or His enemy: there’s no middle ground with Him. (Mt 12:33)

Think of it this way: no matter where we end up, it’s just going to be like each one of us as an individual is alone with God (2Co 5:8), as if no one else will be on our radar, distracting us from Him (Ps 27:4), part of our routine, conscious focus, except Him. (Ps 73:25)

What will that be like … if we love God? (1Co 8:3) or if we don’t? (16:22)

For sure, those in Heaven will be in community together, in a sense (He 12:22-23), as well as those in Hell, but as God unveils us into His immediate omnipresence (Jn 17:24), His infinitude will completely consume, occupy and overwhelm all our senses. (Re 20:11) From that moment on, out into eternity, we will see and experience God as All in All (1Co 15:58), drinking in the infinite majesty of Jehovah God. (Re 22:3-5)

If we love God, in that eternal moment, we’ll have all there is to have (Ro 8:17); and if we don’t love God, we’ll be forever face-to-face with the indignant fury of the Almighty (Re 6:16), Who repays all who hate Him to their face. (De 7:9-10)

We may think we don’t actually hate God, perhaps we’re just indifferent or lukewarm, but that’s all the same to Him; He might even detest indifference more intensely. (Re 3:15-16) God cannot be trifled with (Ga 6:7); He commands us to love Him with all our being; mind, heart, soul and strength. (Mk 12:30) Nothing less is acceptable.

False religion is how we deceive ourselves into thinking God will accept us on our merits, because we belong to a special club and follow certain rituals, and the more truth our religion contains the more deceptive it can be. (2Co 11:13-15) Any religion offering us hope by adhering to it is a counterfeit; religion can’t bring us to God. Shedding all formal religion, leaving only the divine relationship, may help us see whether we’re relying on emptiness here.

If we’re honest with ourselves (1Co 3:18), we can tell what and who we truly love. Is it truth? (2Th 2:10) Is it God? Above everything and everyone else? (Jn 12:25) Is this reflected in our lives, day to day? (Pr 20:11) Are we obeying Him the best we know how, submitting our entire lives to Him? (Jn 14:23)

There’s only one Way to God: the Person of Jesus Christ. (Jn 14:6) He is all we need, but to have Him we must give up everything else (Mt 13:44-46); He tolerates no rivals in our affections or loyalties. (Lk 14:26)

If me and Christ forever sounds like Heaven (Ps 84:4), we’re likely one of the chosen few to find the narrow gate and we’re well on our way (Mt 7:14); otherwise, we’re likely still on the broad road with the mass of Mankind, the walking dead (Ep 2:1), headed to eternal death and destruction. (Mt 7:13) Look for that tiny little gate, find it and strive to enter (Lk 13:24); it’s only One Person wide, and His name is Yeshua: Jesus.

articles ♦ blog