PDA's OK?

So, my question for today is: Are PDA's OK?

You techies are thinking: Personal Digital Assistants, like Palm Pilots or something, but I am referring to Public Displays of Affection.

Here's the thought. For an unmarried couple, it is immoral for them to have sexual relations. The Bible calls it fornication. We would say that it is immoral to show fornication to a single person as it would lead to temptation. Even if it was showing a married couple the temptation would be the same.

The Bible also teaches that a man and a woman should not even touch before marriage. 1 Corinthians 7:1 says that. It teaches that touching leads to fornication. To solve that problem, you get married :)

So, my thought: if it is wrong to tempt an unmarried person with "all the way" sexual relationships being depicted in front of them, would it not be just as wrong to show "touching" in front of them? When I kiss Sarah, in our marriage relationship, it is pleasurable and honorable. If I do that in front of an unmarried person, it is going to entice them to want to do the same. To solve that problem, the Bible says they should marry. 1 Corinthians 7:2 says that. But, should the married couples keep the activities that are only permissible to married couples behind closed doors?

I don't know, Just a thought...

Unconditional Election - Calvinism

So, I finally finished the chapter on Unconditional Election. Did I mention that the chapter was 165 pages in length? Since it is so long, I could not do justice to the chapter in one, two or even more blog posts.

The summary of the chapter I will try to give is this: and I quote (that's what the little quotation marks mean), "The basic error of Calvinism is confounding election and predestination with salvation." The basic premise, in my words, is that whenever those words are used, the individual 'salvation' of the person is not in question, but rather the results: Predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ means that the believer was fore-ordained to become conformed to His image - not that the person was fore-ordained to believe.

The last section of the book was on infant baptism. I was surpised to find out that according to Vance - who would have used as much ammo as he had in his arsenal - many Calvinists are actually quite against the idea that an infant that dies in infancy is actually not part of the "elect." Spurgeon actually was very adamant about that point. He believed that all infants that die would not perish. This actually is more in line with Calvinism than other explanations I had heard. Some would teach that if the child's parents were part of the elect, then they could be confident that there children were too. But it seems that this flies directly in the face against their Calvinist Theology of Unconditional Election. This is putting the Election as being Conditioned on the faith of the parents!

Anyway... What do we know for sure? Man without God is without hope. He is not willing that any should perish. Salvation is of the Lord. I could go on and on, but eventually the verses that people like to contend about will be too much and fights will break out, etc...

Just a thought...

KJV-Only Reason # 6

Back to the King James reasoning...

Ok, this one may not be well accepted, but I personally like it. I 'prefer' the King James, causing me to be KJV-only, because it is harder! You are probably saying, "Huh? What? That doesn't make sense..." And you're probably right, but hear me out.

It's harder in the sense that we don't talk that way a lot of times. "Blessed are the meek." We would say, "the meek are blessed." The Bible says, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Ye must be born again." We would say, "I am telling you the truth, really, you have to be born again." But we get some advantages with the more un-used language.

Before I explain myself some more, let me say that the KJV really is easy to read for the most part. I'm not going to be naive and say that any child could read everything in the whole Bible (KJV or otherwise, by the way), but for the most part: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and the darkness was upon the face of the deep... You might need a dictionary if you're new to the Bible.

So, we have advantages with the KJV. You have the "harder" Thee's and Thou's and Ye's. These pronouns actually have purpose though. The ones that start with T are singular and the ones that start with Y are plural. I say unto 'Thee' means to you individual. Ye must be born again means that y'all must be born again.

The same thing with the endings of "eth" (saith, giveth, heareth). They are third personal singular. He saith. If it ends in "st" (sayest, givest, hearest). They are 2nd personal singular. Thou givest, but Ye give. One person giving vs. more than one giving. Did I confuse you?

When you see the "t" at the end of the word, you get singular: Thou Shalt Not... Singular, but Ye Shall Be Witnesses is plural.

There are more examples that I could give, but I think I've pushed enough of you away already by thinking I'm a geek...

Reason number 6: Because the language is more difficult, which allows it to be more precise and to excercise the mind better.

Just a thought...

No Marriage in Heaven

Putting together a bunch of different passages and thoughts in my mind, I've come to realize that I don't think heaven will be spending eternity with your spouse. That is, your current spouse here on earth, and you..., I just don't see as being 'married' in heaven.

My proof texts: the Pharisees challenge Jesus as to who the lady that had 7 dead husbands would be married to after the resurrection. Jesus said that they are not given in marriage after death. The question they presented was a good question, even though they were looking to stump Jesus, He just gave them the truthful answer. They said, Hey, she has 7 husbands which one will she spend eternity with if the resurrection is real? Jesus just told them that it doesn't work in Heaven the way it works down here. The question was mute because of the setup that will be in Heaven.

Romans 7:2 also says that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he liveth. When he dies, she is no longer bound by law to him. So, to me, it sounds like a marriage ends at the death of a spouse. A person can only be married to ONE person at a time, sorry Joe and Brigham, and if the first spouse dies, then the marriage is over and the person is able to marry again. If the marriage ends at death, then why would we suspect it to start up again in Heaven?

I love Sarah. She is my flesh. I truly can't imagine ever being separated from her. I am not going to take the time in this post to emphasize the way that a husband is to love his wife - but that is true and is a direct commandment from God. But at the same time, when the Bible says to look at the eternal and not the temporal, I don't think it refers to spending time with your wife in eternity, but rather working together as one flesh in this world for the things of eternal value.

Anyway, Just a thought...

How are you doing?

Are you doing good today? No, that's not bad English... If I said, "Are you doing well today?" I would be asking about your health, etc. But I asked if you're doing "good" today. James 4:17 says to him that knows to do good, but doesn't do it, that it is sin for him.

I've misused that verse before a little bit. For example, it is good for a person to go to Russia to be a missionary. Everybody agree? Well, then if you don't go to Russia to be a missionary then it is a sin, right? Because you know it's good and you don't do it...

I think the verse is more asking the question: What are you doing? Are you doing good, or are you failing to do good? There is a time and season for everything: reading Bible, evangelizing, fellowshiping, etc. and so there has to be balance when doing those things (you don't sit around and read your Bible all day, you have to evangelize too), but the question is: Is what you're doing good? Do you know that you're supposed to do things that are good (and not just vain!)?

If you know you're supposed to do good, and you don't do it - it's sin.

So, How are you doing?

Doctrine & Correction?

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

We are supposed to teach our kids the Bible. Dueteronomy 6 says, "And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thy mouth. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt speak of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest in th e way, and when thout liest down, and when thou risest up..." The question that I have today is: are we teaching them the Correction part only? That is, is the only time that we teach our children (whether physical children or spiritual children) the Bible, when we teach them correction? They do something wrong and we say, Children, Obey your parents...

The Scripture is given for doctrine & correction (and reproof & instruction of course). Be sure to teach them what is right ahead of time. It's not fair to assume they know everything in the Bible and then correct them when they disobey something!


... and why are you assuming that I am writing this to my own shame! As if I'm guilty of this at times!!!???

I wish I was a girl

(I wonder how many of my faithful readers I lost by the title alone!)

So, really, I was reading Psalm 45 this morning where it talks about the "daughter of the king." The whole Psalm is praising the "king," and then it gets to verses 6-7 where Hebrews refers them to be speaking of Jesus! King Jesus!

If you're a girl, you ought to read Psalm 45 in light of being a daughter of the king (that makes you a princess). The king's daughter is all glorious within...

Anyway, as a boy, what hit me out of Psalm 45 was the last verse: "I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever."

This past Sunday Rik Benson preached a message in Junior High Sunday School on evangelism, and he finished the message in Acts 4 going through the story of the early church - boy, how far we've come away from the power and the boldness that they had, but that's a different post! He read Acts 4:17 which says, "But that it spread no further among the people, let us straightly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name."

Somebody said once (I wrote it in my Bible) that this would have been the end of Christianity. Had they spoke no more in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the next generation would have not known, and Christianity would have been dead (don't worry, God would not have let that happen.) But the question is: Are you speaking the name of Jesus? Are you making His name to be remembered in all generations?

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.