John 3:30

He Must Increase, I Must Decrease

Creation

Basic Structure of Logic

by

If you have not read my Introduction to Logic, you may want to do so.

The basic structure of a logical argument is in the form of
IF antecedent THEN consequent. Essentially, this states that if a certain condition (or set of conditions, which may include assumptions and facts) is TRUE, then the consequent will ALSO be true. As a corollary, if the consequent is FALSE, the antecedent must ALSO be false.

For example
IF all dogs are black THEN my dog is black.

I have a dog which is white!
Therefore, all dogs are black is NOT TRUE. It is still possible that some dogs are black, so do not err (which is easily done in English!) and say all dogs are not black. The fact is that NOT all dogs are black, leaving room for non black dogs, which is different from saying there exist NO black dogs.

Another example,
If the Bible is true THEN there is only one way to Heaven.
You believe there are multiple ways to Heaven.

Both of these statements can be true. That doesn’t prove or disprove the assumption. The fact that you believe there are multiple ways to Heaven indicates simply that you deny the Antecedent, rather, you deny that the Bible is True. Again, this doesn’t affirm or deny biblical truth, the analogy only exhibits that any person who denies there is one way to Heaven must also deny the Bible is true. To do otherwise is illogical and inconsiste. So the assumption I made is that “if the bible is true then there is only one way to heaven.” You could certainly say that the bible can be true and there be more than one way to heaven, but we’d have a different argument. We would have to argue about whether there are parts of the Bible that clearly teach a single way to Heaven, and I’d have to prove that you couldn’t believe the Bible AND multiple ways to Heaven or you’d have to prove the bible’s claims are not exclusive.

Here is an example that is more complex.
If it is not raining and it is a Saturday in the summer, you will see a baseball game.

This doesn’t appear like a simple IF p THEN q, statement; but look closer:
If [it is not raining] AND [it is a Saturday] AND [it’s the summer] THEN [baseball game].

This may be more complex, but we can see that the entire thought: [it is not raining] AND [it is a Saturday] AND [it’s the summer] is equivalent to “p” or the antecedent. Thus we know that if ALL 3 of these conditions is true, then we’ll see baseball. If there is no baseball, then we know that AT LEAST one of these conditions failed, but we do not necessarily know which one or how many failed to be true. For the sake of our basic rules for argument, we are not going to delve into any more complexity.

Logical Fallacies

Now we’ve learned how to develop a logical argument and how to understand if it is valid or not. We’ve learned that there are certain situations where we can deduce previously unknown things by applying some rules of logic. That if we can deny the consequent of a logical statement, that we can then also deny the antecedent. (if p then q, THEN ^q-> ^p), or else, if we can say that the logical consequent of a particular antecedent, (assumption or axiom) is FALSE, then the antecedent must also be false. Now let’s looks at a list of logical fallacies (falsehoods) that people are victim to frequently. Be ready to spot these, they MUST always exist (a logical fallacy that is, not necessarily one from this short list) when someone is wrong or else, they must have a wrong assumption.

How can I put this…if someone has a logically valid argument that still results in an absurdity or obvious falsehood, the antecedent (assumptions) must be wrong. If multiple assumptions are made then AT LEAST one assumption must be wrong. Suffice to say many people will refer to their logic when you try to show their assumption is senseless or contradictory. Get used to this if you want to argue for the side of truth. Be aware that if you are in an argument and you are right, it will be impossible for your opponent to avoid using a logical fallacy or faulty assumption. Helping people, often spectators to the debate, understand this is the only chance to win them over with kindness and love.

There are several logical fallacies committed throughout the world of “debate” (sometimes better known as “the web” :-)), I want to outline the ones I think are most popular. Spotting them is often easy when they are understood. Not committing them is another story, or sometimes defending that you haven’t committed them is hard too. Convincing others 1) that they’ve committed a logical fallacy and 2) that their argument is illogical or uses faulty reasoning is sometimes impossible. Again, if someone refuses to follow rules of sound logic then arguing with them is a waste of time. This is when you will employ a technique described later called “Don’t Answer.”

Ad Hominem – Probably the most worthless (and sadly, most common) of all methods of debate I see, this argument gets its name from the Latin, meaning “toward the man.” This is the practice of attacking the person’s character with whom you are debating rather than the idea you are trying to prove or disprove. E.G., If I state that homosexuality is a sin and someone tells me,”You’re a bigoted homophobe!” This statement is an example of an ad hominem attack. It is logically irrelevant to whether homosexuality is a sin if the person making the statement is bigoted or homophobic. This is easily discerned by replacing the speaker with someone anonymous. So imagine the statement you are seeing refuted is written on a piece of paper with no indication as to who the author is. Now…you can see clearly that it is not relevant whether the person is who wrote it. If it is disprovable, truly, it must be some other way than by attacking the speaker!

Affirming the consequent. This is a common practice as well. This is committed when you have a standard “If p then q” argument. The mistake made here is noticing the truth of q, and then assuming that p must be true as well. If p then q implies that if p is true, then q will also be true; it does not imply that if q is true that p is true. q can be true with or without p. for example, “If evolution is true, we’d expect to see a lot of commonalities among life forms.” “We do see a lot of commonalities among life forms,” therefore, evolution is true. Affirming the consequent (we see commonalities) is fallacious if you deduce that it affirms the antecedent (evolution is true), for there could be other explanations for commonalities. Christians can commit this logical fallacy as well (and do), so study them and be aware!

Begging the question. This fallacy is the problem of assuming that which you are trying to prove is true, in order to prove that which you are trying to prove is true. It is not a proof of anything except that your assumption is consistent with itself and other known truth. This can be a value argumentative tool, not for proof though, but for exhibiting that your assumption is consistent with known truth. Often circular reasoning comes into play. This is the reason that all false assumptions can be used in logically valid statements.
Observe: If all dogs are green and I have a dog whose color I haven’t observed then my dog must be green.

This statement is logically sound, or valid. Even if you know it is not the case that your dog is green, that doesn’t invalidate this argument. It just shows that it is not true that all dogs are green. The point is that if you presuppose all dogs are green, then you will declare every dog “green” because you’ve already presupposed this. It doesn’t matter if a dog really is green; you will see it that way because you’ve already decided all dogs are green.

Appealing to an artificial authority: We must appeal to an authority when making claims; the alternative is essentially to appeal to ourselves as “THE” authority. Clearly this won’t be a way to win too many arguments. If you think about it, the fact someone is disagreeing with you already shows they do not believe you are an authority on the topic. You must appeal to another, (in fact, higher) authority. So assuming we must, how do you know if you are appealing to an artificial authority? Let me offer two examples to explain this:

Example 1: I ask my ex-roommate Bob about a legal matter. He refers to the Constitution of the United States to answer the question (either directly or in essence). Bob has appealed to an authority that is not artificial. In matters involving United States justice system, the Constitution is the ultimate authority as well as being a valid (non-artificial) authority. For Bob to tell me what I’ve done is wrong, based on a clear understanding of the Constitution, is valid, and he is within rational logical principles to do so.

Example 2: I asked a lady a few weeks ago where she gets her standard for morality. She agreed that, for example, murder is wrong. When I asked her how she could make such a claim, she cited the fact that it was what she was taught growing up by her family and “the culture” she’s in. I asked her how she could be sure that they were right, and she didn’t know. The fact is that an individual’s parents and cultural upbringing are not and cannot be an authority on human morality. It can be seen clearly from person to person that different ideas of morality will come out of these groups and will be contradictory. A case in point is that it would be just as easy to find a family that teaches their children that sex outside of marriage is wrong as it would be to find a family that will tell their children it is not wrong. It may “feel good” to appeal to your parents, upbringing, religion or community when determining morals, but it is not a valid argument for absolute truth. Keep in mind, just because a person cannot validly explain where they get their morals doesn’t mean the morals they hold to are wrong, it just means they do not have a valid logical argument to explain them.

Obviously, true morality must come from a higher source than society. Of course, if you are morally relativistic or believe truth is relative you do not agree with the previous statement, but that doesn’t matter because by your own admission, you really don’t have the right to tell me I’m wrong, nor can you prove it because you don’t believe in “right” and “wrong.”

Appealing to majority: The fact that any number of people hold a particular belief is irrelevant logically to the validity or truthfulness of the belief. It may be compelling data to encourage you to consider it, but it is not a proof. For example, “Most scientists believe in evolution” is not a valid logical argument for proving “evolution is true.’ It just means that a number of scientists that hold that belief. This is easy to refute because you only have to find a single instance in history where the “majority” was wrong. See “The Holocaust,” and laws prohibiting blacks from having the same rights as whites for examples.

Introduction to Logic

by

This is the first of a series of posts I will publish to aid you in understanding logic and prepare you to “argue biblically.’

In order to have a rational discussion or debate, you must be willing to agree to a certain set of ground rules, i.e., rules of engagement. This is self-evident; it’s why we have rules in sports. Football would be really unfair if the home team always got 6 points for field goals but the away team only got 3, wouldn’t it?

There exist several basic rules of logic that we must be able to agree upon in order to draw logical conclusions to our axioms or assumptions. Logic doesn’t determine truth, nor does it prove that something is true. Logic will be able to show you that which rationally can be deduced from a set of axioms, or starting points. For example, I hope we can all agree that the following is a “logically sound” argument.

If all cars are green and
my friend bought a car today

I can logically conclude, based on the assumptions made, that my friend’s car is green.

Notice that there is no actual validation that the statements are true, just that the conclusion logically follows from the assumption (all cars are green) and the facts delivered (car was purchased).

This article is intended to provide a brief overview of some rules of logic we should all follow when trying to discuss theology. I hope to provide you with enough information to help you to better discern when you are hearing a logical fallacy, and how to adequately contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints. Hopefully, when you are discussing these things with atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, evolutionists or a member of any other cult or false religion you will be able to see if they agree to these rules of logic. If they will not, again, this would be like playing a game with them where you each had different rules for scoring.

First let’s define some terms.

1. Assumptions. Assumptions cannot be proven. There are two things that can happen when you make an assumption and follow it logically, you will either prove it to be utterly false, or you will show that it is consistent with other known facts and with itself. The assumption made in the sample above was “all cars are green.” We will be delving further into these ideas herein.

2. Axioms are like assumptions, except that to call something axiomatic ascribes to it a much greater assumption of truth. Assumptions can be tossed around and changed “for the sake of argument.” When something is referred to as axiomatic, it implies a self-evident idea with no need for proof. Axioms are ideas which, if they were not true, would completely unravel the way we see the world, or a particular problem. Axioms are “synonymous” or “equal” to many of their conclusions, in that, without one, the other could not be true and vice versa.

A great example of this is the assumption that a triangle’s internal angles will always add up to 180 degrees. I bet many of my readers did not know that this is an assumption, or rather, an axiom to what is referred to as Euclidean Geometry (what most people learn as geometry in school). But every mathematical proof that relies on this to be true cannot be proved otherwise. What I am saying is that often when we prove something in geometry, what we’ve done is show that based on the assumption that a triangle’s internal angles add up to 180 degrees, the following is true. There are valid mathematical models that deny this axiom! If this interests you, then you are a nerd. Welcome to the club.

The point is that we can modify assumptions and axioms and arrive at different, logically valid conclusions than we arrived at before denying an axiom or assumption. Most axioms are not argued, but ought to be questioned and should stand up to logical scrutiny.

3. Facts. Facts are things we know to be true, or rather, that which we perceive we can trust. Facts can be questioned though, and can be shown to truly be assumptions. What this means is that some things that people will promote as a fact are, in fact, assumptions! The fact that my friend bought a car in the example above is an example of a fact. Axioms are not facts in the sense that they are unobservable phenomena, whereas facts are observable. Axioms are abstract; facts are “material,” if you will. Facts do not change based on a change in assumptions. For example, a fossil of a dinosaur is still the same size, texture, temperature and weight, was still found in the same location next to the same other artifacts, regardless of whether you assume the world is millions of years old or thousands.

4. Conclusions. Conclusions are all the ideas that logically follow from the facts and assumptions. I can “conclude” that my friend’s car is green based on the fact and assumption provided. A conclusion’s validity is based on whether it logically follows from the facts and assumptions. A conclusion’s truthfulness is based on whether the facts and assumptions are true. Some types of conclusions are deductions, inferences and implications.

You will notice that logic is, itself, axiomatic.

We are assuming these definitions and rules of logic, and that’s OK. We can assume them all we want as long as everyone agrees to them and they don’t lead to contradiction or absurdity. Logic is axiomatic in that, we all accept it as fact or the way it is, but cannot prove it. If we could prove it, then we’d have to accept that which we relied upon to prove it as axiomatic until it could be proved…do you see now? We must appeal to an ultimate set of rules at some point axiomatically and trust that they are “true.” If we do not, then we are assuming an infinite number of iterations of “new axioms to prove” anyway, which is ultimately the same thing…reliance on unprovable axioms. It’s OK. If logic exists it must be true, and the effects of it will be consistent with the very rules we are following. It’s why we trust it so innately, and why so many people with different viewpoints on certain issues still generally agree to logic rules when it comes to debate.

Hebrews 13:8

by

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Wow! How can our finite minds even begin to comprehend this? Let’s face it, we only understand things on a limited level. What a contrast to God whose understanding is infinite – Ps 147:5. Jesus Christ has never changed, and never will. While we are blown around by the latest wind, He is immutable, Is 64:6; Malachi 3:6 – I am the Lord, I change not!

But this verse is packed with more than Mal 3:6. This verse is another affirmation of the deity of Jesus Christ. Just as he himself declares in John 8:58 (before Abraham was, I am), and just as He is pictured throughout scripture as Lord of lords and King of kings, (Rev 19:6,16), and as He stated in Revelation 1, He is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. Jesus is God, has always been God and always will be God. This is not easy to understand and many cults have obscured this view!

Let’s take a look at some of the confusing issues, taking the scripture and see if we can make some sense of things.

Some will say that according to John 3:16, if Jesus is God the Father’s son, then Jesus was “born” or that he is a created being. Jehovah’s Witnesses employ this strategy. But does this make any sense? Jesus as the firstborn among many brethren Romans 8:29…does this prove that He is created, rather than eternal? I think that people are applying human reasoning to scriptural things. The fact is that I no more made my own son than I make any cell in my body. That Jesus was begotten of the father doesn’t mean that he was created, but rather that he is of the same nature, cut from the same fabric to use a phrase we understand today. Contrary to declaring Christ as a creation, this emphatically declares Christ as one with the Father, fully God (John 10:30). We must always remember to get our view of scripture from scripture, not from human wisdom applied to scripture (Proverbs 14:12).

Let’s look at scripture again. Scripture is quite clear that Jesus is worthy of all our praise and worship, that He alone deserves honor and praise and glory and that he will receive it for all eternity. Revelation 5:12-14

12Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

13And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

14And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

…That being said, for God to speak so disdainfully about worshipping the creature rather than the creator in Romans 1:25 would be contradictory to the plain fact that Christ (the lamb of God from John 1:29) is worshipped for eternity if Christ were a created being! Let me repeat that another way…God cannot and will not contradict Himself…In Romans 1, He is clearly calling men unrighteous who have worshipped “creatures” rather than the “Creator”, yet Christ is constantly worshipped in scripture! So Christ could not be created…if you believe the Bible!

Refer to Colossians 1:16 and John 1:1-3. Really…mouse over those references and read words! All things were made by Him and all things are held together by Him. Nothing that was made was not made by Him! It is so clear, He is the maker of all the earth (including all men!). Why do men insist on denying this? Romans 1:18 – so that men may continue to indulge in the sin they love. For if it is acknowledged that Christ is creator, then he is also the rightful judge and we are all accountable. And frankly, we are all in trouble, for we all have sinned. Our situation is hopeless except for the fact that he chose to save us by becoming a man and taking on the shame of the cross in order to satisfy the Holy Righteous judgment that is required for sin.

So how do I explain that Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday and forever, yet he became a man? This makes no sense to us in human terms! Because we live within and are constrained by the confines of this thing called time. Time is something that Jesus is not subject to and never has been subject to. Christ lives outside of time, and sacrificed himself before the foundations of the world. He elected to save us before he even created the world. (Eph 1:4) He was not surprised by Adam’s sin, nor by yours. Jesus is unchanging because He is God. God is unchanging because He cannot improve, He is already perfect, and He cannot degrade, as the result of His perfection. He became incarnate to reveal himself to us, but He is immutable, unchanging. His thoughts of you have never changed, His Word has never changed and will never pass away (Luke 16:17)

The fact that Jesus is God necessitates that He is immutable! If He was changeable, then He would be imperfect.

Dear Christian, this is a great comfort! When you sin as a Christian, (and you will, by the way), you can remember that God already knew you would sin after being saved. Oh, it is one thing to realize that he knew the evil you would do before you were saved and to be excited about the fact that He would save you by grace in spite of your enmity with him, but it is another level of joy to know that He saved you knowing the evil you would still commit in your heart and deeds AFTER giving you the promise of forgiveness. To know that he has provided you with the means to trample on His grace, to suffer the shame of seeing Christians everywhere drag his name into mud, but because of his great love and patience 2 Peter 3:9, and for His name’s sake would save you from your sin, and the consequence of that sin, what unspeakable mercy! What love. Oh how hard is it for us to forgive others in this world. And how impossible it would be for us to forgive someone if we knew they would “do it again!” But Jesus commanded that we do so continiously, and we can and should, because He does!

So Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday and today and forever. Be comforted, brothers and sisters, the same God that spent His life on that cross for you is still your advocate (1 John 2:1), His intercession on your behalf is eternal (Heb 7:25, 9:24-25), and based in His great Love and His faithfulness. Now enjoy the fruit of this love and walk in obedience to Him, joyfully, for his yoke is not burdensome!

Matthew 11:28-30

28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

1 John 5:3-4

3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

Christian Haiku

by

Ok, this is a bit off the beaten path, but tonight during the adult prayer meeting, it was my privilege to work with the children. Normally I preach for 30-40 minutes (they are a great practice audience), but since they already sat through Pastor Cuenin’s “Wednesday mini,” I figured I’d cut them a break. We had two new girls there, so I made sure to present the plan of salvation in Christ alone, then we wrote “Bible Haiku.” Please enjoy!

David’s coat was many colors
Moses was a good leader
Jesus died for our sins
Moriah age 7		 Moses was a baby
3 wise men saw the baby
Jesus love babies
Luke age 7
Noah built an ark
he brought animals with him
there was a great storm
Bailey age 9		 Jesus died for me
on the cross he bore my sins
suffering my shame
Michael age 34
Genesis is true
Adam and Eve walked with God
then disobeyed Him
Michael age 34		 crucifixion time
Christ on the cross for sinners
and he rose again
Alexandra age 6
Jesus rose again
Jesus died on the cross for
our sins…Jesus loves us
Nicholas age 7		 Jesus died for me
Jesus was nailed to a cross
Samson’s hair was cut
Samuel age 9
Noah brought a few animals
Jesus loves the little children
there was a big flood
Jayden age 9		 Adam and Eve sinned
God created a Heaven
Noah built an ark
Taylor age 10
Abraham’s promise
fulfilled in his seed the Christ
Jesus, Sovereign Lord
Michael age 34		 when Jesus was a
baby his mommy held him
and loved him so much
Nathan age 4
Proverbs has wisdom
Romans theological
prophetic is Psalms
Michael age 34		 Moses a baby
Moses went to the Pharoah
lived in a basket
Caleb age 6
Elijah loves light
fears the command of the queen
laughs at their idols
Michael age 34		 Jesus loves us lots
first he died on the cross
then he rose again
Nicholas age 7
Malachi is the
messenger of the Lord God
last O.T. prophet
Michael age 34		 husbands love your wives
as Christ loves his church and gave
himself a ransom
Michael age 34

Am I a hypocrite? Was I ever?

by

Let’s begin by defining the word “hypocrite.” I’ll use the www.m-w.com definition stated below:

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feeling

Here is a sample of verses that use the word hypocrisy. Note, not all the verses are translated with the word “hypocrisy;” the idea of hypocrisy involves lying or pretending. In fact, the Greek word used is actually the same word used for “Actors!”
Matthew 23:28; Mark 12:15; Luke 12:1; Galatians 2:13; 1 Timothy 4:2; James 5:12; 1Peter 2:1; Luke 20:20

The following verses all depict Jesus calling someone a hypocrite, and always with disdain:
Matthew 6:2,5,16; 7:5; 15:7; 16:3; 22:18; 23:13,23:14,23:15,23:23,23:25,23:27,23:29; 24:51; Mark 7:6; Luke 6:42; 11:44; 12:56; 13:15;

I point this out for one reason, and that is to show that if prevalence of occurrence in the Bible means anything at all, (and I’m convinced it does), hypocrisy is one of the worst sins imaginable. It is mentioned, especially by Jesus’ own mouth during the incarnation as often as other sins for which I’ve searched.

So what’s the point of this post then? Well, I’m here to say that I was never a hypocrite! As long as I went about my life before Christ, I never had a false appearance of religion. I really acted in harmony with my stated beliefs. In fact, one of the fears I have of the result of evolutionary teaching is that we will raise a nation of people who are not hypocrites, but have the false belief in molecules to man evolution! People who are taught and believe that they are nothing more than animals fighting to survive end up being able to justify horrible atrocities like school shootings, theft and lying and cheating, and adultery.

Don’t misquote me, I’m not saying that ONLY people who believe in evolution commit these sins; I’m saying that an evolutionary belief system allows a person to justify these acts, as these acts are not wrong according to their worldview! And I, being a good evolutionist, God-hating American before His grace took over, was never a hypocrite. In fact, my only goal in life was the pursuit of hedonism and I sought it fervently. Oh, if we all sought Christ with the fervency we clung to and pursued sin!

Here’s my concern then. The only reason I was NOT a hypocrite before, is that I had no standard in the first place! I couldn’t “live below” my own standards, (hypocrisy means to “under judge” in a sense), because my standards were so low that would be impossible. In fact, the closest I came to hypocrisy was if I would restrain myself from immediate pleasure, which I learned to do, but only because I thought it was best for me; never was it for the sake of righteousness.

The fear now is that I actually have standards, so hypocrisy is easily accessible to me! For the first time in my life, I am not only claiming to believe in a high standard of righteousness, but I am preaching it. My fall will be much further now than ever before. So I must be on guard. This is interesting to me. I mean, when I was saved, I had so much despicable sin in my life that I was fending off; the thought of fending off a new sin was out of the question. And now, I’ve realized that this new sin is one I’ve never dealt with. Ultimately the sin is pride and deceit. Hypocrisy, at its root, denies the omnipresence and omniscience of God. It is an act of putting what other men think of me OVER what God thinks. I can lie and deceive men into thinking I am better than I am, but not God.

True hypocrites, in their hearts believe they are deceiving both, even if they don’t know that’s what they believe. The hypocrites of Jesus’ day, the Pharisees, were outwardly very religious. In fact, they professed many things that were truly righteous acts, but in their hearts they still sinned. Being able to clean up the outside is easy, what none of us can do is cleanse our own hearts; that requires the work of the Holy Spirit. Jeremiah 17:9, John 6:63, 1 Corinthians 2:14

Some will read this and say, He is a hypocrite! I know he’s sinned! True, but I don’t think that a single sin makes a person a hypocrite, even if it was presumptuous. The nature of hypocrisy, (as well as the other sins mentioned in the New Testament that truly regenerate men are now free of) is that the sin is continuous; that is, there is a pattern of sin in the man’s life. Christians still sin, but in their hearts, there is a change. The desire or need to cover their own sin, to hide it from God and even other men is gone. Laying our sins at the foot of the cross, walking humbly and trusting Christ alone for forgiveness, not our own works or penance is what separates believers from non-believers, the righteous from the wicked. Have I violated God’s commands, yes! Have I violated commands that I’ve even preached or taught others they should not violate? Yes! I’m not proud of this, I’m ashamed. But the point is that the law of God is righteous and true regardless of this servant’s inability to perfectly follow. Dear Christian, do your best and rely on Christ. Work hard to study to know His Word that you might not sin. (Psalm 119:11) Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

In conclusion, I was not a hypocrite, by the Grace of God and largely due to my own lack of righteousness. I never was a false convert. Am I a hypocrite today? I’m sure at times I have been, but my heart’s intention now is to be cleansed and forgiven, and because God is just, I know I am cleansed and forgiven. Romans 8:1, 1 John 1:9

Please don’t make the mistakes I’ve made; allow God to search your heart for the hidden sin that is in you, that you might never be accurately called a hypocrite.

Here are some examples of hypocrisy you may search for in your own heart:

Do you speak or preach against sin such as homosexuality, yet foster lust in your heart or even act it out? This includes heterosexual pornography, sex outside marriage, even “just looking.”

Do you tell people they should be out witnessing or passing out tracts and you don’t do it yourself?

Do you tell people to trust God in all things, like their finances or when they’re sick, but there are still areas of your life where you don’t fully trust Him, like your workplace or your marriage?

Do you fantasize about certain sins that appeal more to you, while showing disdain for the sins of others that maybe aren’t as big an issue for you? For example, maybe you think about getting drunk on alcohol, and you think it’s not a big deal because you aren’t actually doing it, but then if your spouse was thinking about another person, you’d be pretty offended wouldn’t you?

Do you tell people they should worship the one true God, and then you participate in activities like yoga or listening to music or watching movies that blasphemes God’s name or depicts sin in an enticing, attractive manner?

Ultimately, do you tell people that you love Jesus; that you are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone, and then live a life the exhibits a greater love for the things in this world that the things of God? 1 John 2:15-17

Do not do these things! Repent – change your mind about your sin and give it to God. He can carry the entire burden; he already has! Christ has paid it all, and He wants it all, and He deserves it all, all your life that is! Today is the day of salvation for someone, and for many it will be the day to enter eternity; where will you spend it?

Same sex (homosexual) marriage

by

If you are a supporter of same sex marriage, please let me know your argument for why siblings should not marry. If your answer is, because their kids could be messed up because of potential genetic defects, then what if we allowed siblings to marry as long as they were sterilized or unable to have children? Or as long as it was sister-sister or brother-brother?

Seriously, I’m interested in rational reasoning concerning this point. I don’t think that you can rationally actually argue FOR homosexual marriage and AGAINST close-relative-without-possibility-of-kids marriage.

Only the Bible provides a basis for marriage, and any rational reasoning for that matter. Man’s way is a way that leads to death, but God’s way is a way that leads to life. Proverbs 14:12, Psalm 119:155

Added 07/21/2010 – Apparently I’m not the first person to wonder about this, read this article from an honest professional who is actually on the other side of the argument.

Added 06/28/2013 – If you are reading, I suggest reading the comments, too, as there is a lot of information there.

Added 07/14/2014 – Wow. This post was written only 4 years ago and it seems we are seeing the tide roll. View this article titled: Australian Judge Says Incest May No Longer Be a Taboo

What I did not specifically predict in 2010 is that the method proposed for preventing children in the incestuous relationship is none other than abortion. How devious and sickening.

2018 © MichaelCoughlin.net