Thoughts On The Love Of God And Imprecatory Psalms

One of the greatest and most loving things godly theologians, pastors and teachers have done for me is drive me to the Scriptures. What I mean is that they forced me to fall before the greatness of God, in love and fear, by making me think biblically and theologically when it come to the whole counsel of God. They drove me, specifically, to difficult (for a finite, sinful creature to comprehend) passages of the Bible and forced me to make sense of it all. This in turn moved me to love God all the more and proclaim His holiness. In short the study of theology has moved me into greater communion with God and obedience to His name.

One of the ways this was done was be taught about God's holiness. In a day and age when all we hear is "love," "love," "love," and a very warped view of love I might add, it is difficult for many Christians to read the imprecatory Psalms- Psalms that invoke hatred and call judgment and curses upon God's enemies- and make sense of it in regards to God's love. Because Christians are accustomed and trained to know about God's love these days; precisely because that is all they hear from the pulpit, they seem only to know of the love of Jesus and little else. Thus when they come across passages that teach on the holiness, righteousness, justice and anger of God they becomes quite confused, embarrassed even or maybe apologetic for God while others may simply pass by such passages quite content with being unable to account for the difficulties.

 Ask the average believer about  passages like:"Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God! O men of blood, depart from me! They speak against you with malicious intent; your enemies take your name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies" (Ps 139:19–22) and passages like "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...(Mt 5:44); now ask them to make sense of the two and note the oft repeated assertion "But that is the Old Testament" or "That is Old Testament while we live in the New Testament." Others may show a look of puzzlement and admit as much but are quite content to leave it there and go on their merry way.

I remember years back thinking that if God loves people then that must mean others are the object of His hatred. It perplexed me and the thought of God "hating" people certainly did not fit with all that I was taught about "God hating the sin but loving the sinner." So I pursued it no longer and was satisfied with either ignoring the subject or returning to my cliche "God hates no one but does hate sin."

Along came these godly and learned theologians, pastors and teachers who continued to press and not let God's holiness be swallowed by His love. They further taught and proclaimed the attributes of God starting with His holiness. Because He is holy He is perfectly just and will serve justice upon those that continue in lawlessness. And if God is just then He must be vengeful. If He is just and vengeful then He must have objects of His vengeance. He must have enemies. And if He has enemies they must be the objects of His perfect hatred just as David claimed for himself in Ps. 139: 19-22).

John Day explains it this way:

"Loving" and "cursing" are kept in harmonic tension throughout Scripture so that in every era of their lives God's people must wrestle with the implications of both in their context. Since the character of God does not change, the essence of his ethical requirements does not change. Therefore, as the imprecatory psalms were at times appropriate on the lips of believers before the Incarnation, so they-or their like-are at times appropriate on the lips of believers today. There is a time and place to call for tangible, temporal divine judgment; there is, indeed, a "time to curse."

The central issue of divine vengeance presents an initial stigma. This is so partly because the promise of divine vengeance forms much of the basis upon which the psalmists voice their cries of cursing and partly because of the concept of vengeance itself. To the modern ear, the word vengeance evokes images of malice and revenge. By its very nature it bears negative, even sinful connotations. In this mind-set, vengeance-whether human or divine-is in no sense to be construed as virtuous. But to the ancient Israelite and through the pages of Scripture, the concept of vengeance is tied to the requirements of justice.' Where justice is trampled, vengeance is demanded.' The display of God's vengeance, as presented in Scripture, is, in fact, coupled with his character as just and holy and his claim as world sovereign."' Indeed, the Scriptures do not equivocate in their proclamation of Yahweh not only as Warrior, but also as judge and King. As H. G. L. Peels observes,

"If it is said of this God, who is King, that he avenges himself, this can no longer be considered to be indicative of an evil humor, a tyrannical capriciousness, or an eruption of rancor. God's vengeance is kingly vengeance. If he takes vengeance, he does so as the highest authority exercising punishing justice. The vengeance of God is the action of God-as-King in the realization of his sovereign rule. This action is directed against those who offend God's majesty through transgression against his honor, his justice or his people."

Furthermore, God's vengeance is inseparably linked to his loving-kindness." His vengeance is the other side of his compassion, the "dark side" of his mercy.'' The Scriptures are definite in affirming that God is by no means an indifferent Being but one who in history has passionately and decisively taken sides for his people." If he is to save his people from sin, oppression, and injustice, he must exact vengeance upon his enemies-the enemies of his people. 

This understanding of divine vengeance is borne out, for example, by Yahweh's execution of vengeance against Edom.'s In the book of Isaiah, the language of vengeance is the language of violence-of slaughter and sacrifice, of holy war" and jealous rage.'' As a consequence, the imagery of vengeance is the gruesome imagery of gore: "Yahweh's sword is all bloody, it is gorged with fat" (Isa. 34:6). However, lest Yahweh become relegated to the company of pagan and bloodthirsty deities, notice in Isaiah the stated purpose of this violence against the wicked: "to contend for Zion" (34:8). This point is reiterated in the next chapter of Isaiah, which speaks of the paradise of the redeemed arising out of the carnage against the wicked: "Behold, your God, he will come with vengeance; with divine recompense he will come, and he will save you" (Isa. 35:4; cf. 63:3-4, emphasis added). Yahweh is a God who saves his people; but without God's vengeance against his enemies, there can be no salvation for his people.

The ramifications of this tension are weighty. Raymond Swartzbach goes so far as to assert that, without a clear understanding of the significance of divine vengeance, "there is no way of comprehending the nature of the Christian God, for we can never speak of the `love' and `justice' of God without reflecting upon his `wrath' and 'vengeance.'"

 If one were to start with the holiness of God much of the problems with God's justice, hatred, wrath would dissipate. Much of our flub is that we have zeroed in on "love" to the exclusion of God's other attributes. The objection is that the New Testament emphasizes the love of God hence that is where we should start. The answer to such an objection is twofold. The love of God is most certainly found in the Old Testament. David who hated God's enemies with a perfect hatred and called upon God to slay them (Ps. 139:19-22)  is also the same godly man that that appealed to God's steadfast love for forgiveness of his sins- "Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin (Ps 51:1–2)!  Furthermore the people of the New Testament had a backdrop of which to view and appreciate Christ's love- His holiness. That is to say that they did not struggle with the idea of God's justice and judgment. For them the issue was how to escape it. Which is why the words of Christ in John 3:16-18 are so beautiful and precious, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." 


I realize that I brought forth a perplexing question that I did not explicitly answer by presenting Psalm 139:19-22 alongside Matt. 5:44. Another loving thing great men of God have done for me is to not always answer things immediately. They didn't give me pat answers. They allowed me to think things through and drove me back to Scripture to study for myself ( 2 Tim. 2:15). Then they directed me to other resources to help me out.

Having said that, I plan on addressing such things in a second part. As R.C. Sproul said "Burning hearts are not nourished by an empty head."

Soli Deo Gloria!

*John N. Day. Crying for Justice: What the Psalms Teach Us About Mercy and Vengeance in an Age of Terrorism (Kindle Locations 38-60). Kindle Edition.

The "Well-Meant Offer" And Hoeksema

I've been reading my fair share of Herman Hoeksema these days. Mainly because I've heard many disparaging things about him. I've learned that when such things are said about men It is wise to read or listen to their own words. What I have found is not at all how his detractors paint him. I find a great man of God, a brilliant person, careful exegete, passionate herald of the Gospel and a very fine theologian. I can even say such things as I may disagree with some of his views. The man has answered his critics on a theological, exegetical and, much to their chagrin, on a logical level.

The accusations of the man are all over the map. He is a "hyper" Calvinist, "rationalist" and a dispassionate preacher of the Gospel or so they say. He is indeed a high Calvinist which is not synonymous with "hyper." And he rightly understands the use of logic and doesn't allow for "paradoxes" when there need not be one; his book Whosoever Will (which were radio messages later compiled into a book) puts the charge that his rejection of the "well-meant offer" leads to apathy in the preaching of the Gospel to rest.

Before I get to quoting Hoeksema I wish to offer some of my own thoughts on the subject. When proponents of the "well-meant offer" or the "sincere" offer of the Gospel identify their doctrine as such, it is to "poison the well." That is to say they are implying and accusing those who disagree with their understanding, that God really and genuinely desires to save those He has determined within Himself to not save, of somehow being disingenuous or insincere when it is said, "And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price" (Re 22:17). Of course God is sincere. No one denies that. It is simply not the issue. The issue concerns the ones who are "thirsty" and "desire" the water of life. Advocates of the "well-meant offer" would have us believe that God "genuinely," "sincerely" "desires" the salvation of the reprobate. That they are included in the "whosoever" and therefore God's "offer" must include His genuine desire for their salvation, even though He has withheld His saving grace from them. To put it another way, they would have us believe that God sincerely desired the salvation of Pharaoh even though it is written, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth”(Ro 9:17). We find such a position both un-biblical and illogical. We heartily believe that God genuinely desires and sincerely promises and will fulfill to the "whosoever wills" (of the KJV vernacular) that they may indeed drink of the Water of Life freely and be completely satisfied in Christ. What we do not believe is that the reprobate desire Christ. We do not believe Pharaoh thirsted or hungered for righteousness. Again, to put it a different way, we believe that the Pharisee and tax collector of Luke 18 demonstrate this best:

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt:“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted” (Lk 18:9–14).

It was not the Pharisee that desired the Water of Life but the tax collector, that simply hung His head and begged for mercy, that did. The "whosoever will" was the latter not the former.

A second observation is that the same verses used by proponents of the "well-meant offer" are used by Arminians and Amyraldians that insist Christ died for every single human being that has ever lived yet many of these same individuals are perishing in hell for the sins that Christ, according to them, paid for. Their reasoning is similar- that for God's "offer" of Christ to be real and genuine then there must be a potential satisfaction for sins for everyone. So we have proponents of the "well-meant offer" standing before those that reject it, accusing them of denying God's sincerity in the proclamation of the Gospel. While right behind them are the Arminians and Amyraldians standing and accusing them of the very same thing- an insincere offer of salvation. If God has only grants life to some by His unconditional election how is it any more sincere to offer the reprobate such hope and teach that God sincerely wants them to come to Him, the Arminian argues. The Amyldarian comes from a slightly different angle and accuses the "well-meant offer" advocates that believe in particular redemption (limited atonement) of an insincere "offer" as well. They maintain that if Christ did not die for every single individual and atonement must be made for every sinner that has ever lived or the "well-meant offer" is a farce. They further argue that the "paradox" defense of the "well-meant" offer proponents is no better than their very own "paradox," that Christ died for all even though some were not unconditionally elected to salvation. The irony here is that they are all using the very same foundation- the same passages of Scripture.

Hoeksema brings out another helpful point:

For it is more especially about the reprobate and their salvation that the complainants are concerned. Strange though it may seem, paradoxical though it may sound, they want to leave room for the salvation of the reprobate. For the sake of clarity, therefore, we can safely leave the elect out of our discussion. That God sincerely seeks after their salvation is not a matter of controversy. To drag them into the discussion of the question simply confuses things. The question concerns the attitude of God with respect to the reprobate. We may limit the controversy to this question to this question: What must the preacher of the Gospel say of God's intention with respect to the reprobate? And these, too, may be called by different names, such as, the impenitent, the wicked, the unbelievers, etc. 

The answer to the question defines the difference between Dr. Clark and the complainants sharply and precisely.

The complainants answer: The preacher must say that God sincerely seeks the salvation of the reprobate through the preaching of the Gospel.

Dr. Clark answers: That is not true; the preacher may never say that in the name of God. And in light of Scripture, he should say: God seeks his own glory and justification in preparing the reprobate for their just damnation even through the preaching of the Gospel.*

Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them” (Jn 12:37–40).

Soli Deo Gloria!

* Herman Hoeksema, The Clark Van Til Controversy (Unicoi, TN.: Trinity Foundation, 2005), p. 48

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

Well, there were a handful of people whom the authorities in Jerusalem regarded as ordinary, simple, unlettered, and ignorant men and women. There were just twelve men essentially, and a number of others with them. They had nothing to recommend them, no great names, no degrees, no money, no means of communication or of advertising. They had nothing at all—they were nobodies. And yet what we know to be a fact is that this handful of ignorant and unlettered people “turned the world upside down,” to use Luke’s phrase in chapter 17:6. Within about two centuries Christianity became the most powerful force in the great Roman Empire. By the beginning of the third century it had become such a powerful force that a Roman emperor named Constantine deemed it a wise move to make the Roman Empire officially Christian.

I am not concerned to consider that fact now. All I want to ask is: How was it that this small group of people ever got into a position in which they could shake the whole Roman Empire so that it became officially Christian within such a short space of time? Was it because they preached politics that these people turned the ancient world upside-down?

Christianity is a phenomenon of history. It is a fact. The Christian church is one of the most vital facts in the total history of the world. We cannot understand that history without bringing in the story of the church. But does this modern idea as to what the church is and what her message is account for what has already happened? My answer is that it does not. So not only do honesty and common sense tell us to come back to Acts, but if we really want to have an understanding of what Christianity means, we are compelled to come back here. Only one thing can account for the phenomenon of the Christian church and this amazing history that has continued through the centuries, in spite of the world, the flesh, and the devil and the malignity of men and of hell, and it is the explanation given in this book of Acts.

Therefore I propose to hold the message of Acts before you. I shall not preach systematically through the book, but I shall pick out certain themes that are put before us here. I feel that the modern world is very much in the position of Theophilus. At any rate, anyone considering these things who is not a Christian is in the position of Theophilus. You have become interested. You want to know what Christianity is. Perhaps you are in trouble in your moral life or in your married life. Perhaps you have some running sore of the soul, something that gets you down. And you say, “I’ve tried this and that—I wonder what the Christian church has to offer.”

All right, Theophilus, you want to know, and fortunately we are able to tell you. I am not here to tell you what I think about Christianity. I am not here to tell you what I think the Christian church should do. I am in the position of Charles Wesley, saying, “O for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemer’s praise.” My own personal opinion is that even two services on a Sunday are not enough. How can people be satisfied with but one statement? The world is dying all around us, and it needs to hear the Word of God. These early Christians went everywhere, and they spoke and they preached, and that is the explanation of this tremendous phenomenon of the church.*

Soli Deo Gloria!


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2000). Authentic Christianity (1st U.S. ed.) (8–10). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Augustus Toplady And John Wesley

Be forewarned that this will be no light reading (for some). Toplady (the top picture) is responding to Wesley's (bottom picture) objection that if all things happen by "necessity" (the sovereign decree of God) then that takes away human responsibility and accountability ("moral good or evil"). In lay-mans terms, it is the same line of thinking in today's society,  from objectors to predestination and divine unconditional election, that believe to deny "free-will" is to say God has made us "puppets" (what Wesley terms "clock-work") and therefore we are not responsible for our actions since they cannot be "morally" good or evil if  He decreed it.

To this assertion that for "moral good and evil" to be real and exist with humans, then it cannot be from "necessity" (God's decree that something take place and that it cannot but take place). Toplady responds:

Mr. Wesley is, or pretends to be, of this number. Let us give a concise hearing to the difficulties, which, in his estimation, clog the scheme of evangelical and philosophical fate: though they are such as have been refuted again and again.

1. “There can be no moral good or evil; no virtue, and no vice.”

So thought Aristotle (a); and his disciples, the Peripatetics, Hence, they defined moral virtue to be an elective habit, flowing originally from freewill, and rendered easy by repeated acts.

It is no wonder, that proud heathens should thus err; seeing they know not the scriptures, nor the power of God. But Mr. Wesley should remember, that he has read, and professes to believe, a book which tells him, that a man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven (b); that we cannot even think a good thought (c), unless God breathe it into our hearts; and that it is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who must work in us that which is well pleasing in his sight (d).

Nor should his lordship of Moorfields forget, that he has solemnly subscribed (to omit all present mention of articles and homilies) a certain liturgy: in which liturgy, among a thousand other passages equally excellent, God himself is addressed, as the sole being, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels [or sincerely devout intentions], and all just works, do proceed. The supreme is, likewise, in the same “Calvinistical and Antinomian Prayer-book,” declared to be the almighty and everlasting God, who maketh us both to will and to do those things that be good, and acceptable to his divine majesty. And, in absolute harmony with this necessitating principle, the said book beseeches the blessed Father and governor of men, that by his holy inspiration, we may think those things that are good; and that we may, by his merciful guidance, faithfully perform the same. If this is being, what Mr. Wesley terms, “a fine piece of clock-work;” I heartily wish and pray, that I may every hour of my life, be so wound up.

But still, says the objector, “moral good or evil,” cannot (a) consist with necessity. I, on the contrary, say, that it both can, and does. Mr. Wesley does not consider the tremendous consequences, which unavoidably flow from his position. For, if necessary virtue be neither moral, nor praise worthy; it will follow, that God himself (who, without all doubt, is necessarily and unchangeably good) is an immoral being, and not praise worthy for his goodness! On the same horrible Arminian principle, it would also follow, that Christ’s most perfect obedience (which was necessary: for he could not but obey perfectly) had no morality in it, was totally void of merit, and entitled him to neither praise, nor reward: The axiom, therefore, which dares to affirm, that “necessity and moral agency are irre-concileable things;” lays at once the axe to the root both of natural and revealed religion, and ought to be hissed back again by all mankind to the hell from whence it came.

The crucifiers of the Son of God perpetrated the most immoral act, that ever was, or ever will be, committed. And yet I am expressly assured, by the written testimony of the Holy Ghost, entered on a record which will continue to the end of time, that Herod, and Pontius Pilate, and the people of the Jews, were gathered together against Jesus, for to do whatsoever God’s band and God’s counsel had fore-determined to be done (a). So that, upon-Christian principles at least, necessity and moral evil (by the same rule also, necessity and moral good) may walk (b) hand in hand together. If Mr. Wesley prefers Aristotle and the other gentlemen of the Lycæum, to the inspired writers; and chooses the peripatetic scheme of free-will, rather than the Bible scheme of necessity; he must, for me, go on to hug an idol that cannot save.*

“Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors,  remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it (Is 46:8–11).

Soli Deo Gloria!


*Toplady, A. M. (1825). The Works of Augustus M. Toplady, Volume 6 (27–30). London; Edinburgh: William Baynes and Son;H. S. Baynes.

The "Doctor" Dissects The Emergent Church...Again

It can be put like this: Why am I, or why is anyone else, a preacher of the Gospel? There is only one answer to that question. I am a preacher because I believe I have been called; because in my little way God has given me a burden; because I know by personal experience, by the experience of others, and by experience garnered from the reading of history that there is nothing under heaven that can enable men and women to conquer and to master life and to have a hope that cannot be dimmed except this Gospel. Therefore, the most urgent task in the world today is to make the Gospel known to men and women. And this is the function of the Christian church.

 But as we all know, the great tragedy is that there is utter confusion with regard to what the Gospel is, what the church is, and what Christians are supposed to do. I call your attention to this, God knows, not because I am anxious to be controversial but because I have a burden for the souls of men and women. I would not be a preacher were it not for that. That is what originally put me in the ministry and makes me go on. I see the confusion. I see men and women bewildered, asking, “What is Christianity? What is the church?” And I am not surprised that they are bewildered.

 Furthermore, this confusion is not confined to men and women outside the church. Indeed, I have an increasing fear that the confusion of those outside has been produced mainly by the so-called Christian church herself. A man who has held the highest position in one of the religious denominations and is well-known as one who speaks in the name of Christianity has recently said that he thinks certain things should be done at once, and the first is that the church must give up the foolish habit of having two services on a Sunday. “One is enough,” he says, “and let’s have it at nine o’clock in the morning so that having got that out of the way, we can then give ourselves to what we want to do.” He also says that if he had the power, he would decree that there should be no reading of the Bible at all for twelve months—this in the name of the church and of Christianity! And then he says that any preaching that is done in the one and only service at nine o’clock in the morning should, for at least a year, be on a political text alone.

 I call attention to this because it is so typical of what is being said at the present time. Is it surprising that men and women are in a state of confusion? Speaking generally, the current idea is that the Christian message is, after all, nothing but a kind of teaching with regard to how our affairs should be ordered—that is why it is held that all texts should be political. It is said that the main business of the church is to deal with injustices and to do the work of reform and that in the Sermon on the Mount we have a kind of social charter. People who say this are never interested in the Old Testament; they generally dismiss it in toto, and they have no use for the apostle Paul. Instead, they point to the ethical teaching of Jesus. “There’s your political program,” they say. “There’s your political charter, and all you must do is apply it as best you can. You must not even read the Bible, but pick up these general principles, and try to put them into practice.”

 Others say that Christianity is mainly an elevated, optimistic view of life, a sort of philosophy. Having found out how life can be lived on a higher plane and having experienced a moral uplift, you try to get others to adopt these principles.

 And then there are others who, perhaps nearer to the Christian position, regard Christianity as being mainly a matter of morals and of conduct. They say that what makes people Christians is that they have adopted this ethical teaching and put it into practice. So by living a good life, they have made themselves Christians (emphasis mine).*

Soli Deo Gloria!

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2000). Authentic Christianity (1st U.S. ed.) (6–7). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Christ Saved Me!

At the age of thirteen I ditched school and got high on marijuana with a few friends. We decided we needed more money for drugs so we devised a plan to rob someone. That we did. I robbed a car dealership with a sawed off shotgun as my friend acted as the lookout. We received $101 (it's okay to laugh) and bought more drugs. I was apprehended and sentenced to ten years in prison of which I spent the majority of it save nine months of freedom a little here and there.

While in prison I became involved in prison gangs and organized (or semi-organized crime depending on who you asked) and devoted my life to it. In fact violence channeled through gangs was my sole purpose in life. I desired to "make a name" for myself. Assaults, prison riots, drugs and so called "family" (fellow gang members) became a part of every day life. It was all about me. Pride was our motto. Everyone was to fear me (us) and respect me. And this came at all costs.

"Friends" that I did many crimes with and "put in work" with became victims of such selfishness and hatred because they became "soft" or became "no good" (turned against the gang). Enemies were, at times, attacked on sight. It was attack or be attacked and the claim to great fame was the former.

That was one kind of "enemy." The other was any type of law enforcement. In our minds they were oppressors. They were seeking to persecute our cause (it's amazing what the depraved mind can convince others of). Whenever they tried to "intervene" by arresting us we were to defend the cause at all costs. This sinful mentality earned me two battery on peace officers to my record which amounted to two "stripes" on my sleeve in gang culture.

We sought to model the military structure. Discipline and training became our way of life. Get up at 6:00 a.m., roll up the mattress, perform 45 minutes of rigorous exercise for prepartion for "war" (riots) so that one could be "fit" for battle and maintain endurance in order to be the "last man standing." "Education" was not an option. We were to be studious (praise the Lord for His sovereignty since this displine of diligently studying carried over into my Christianity) reading books like Sun Tzu's the Art of War. In the "hole" (segregation or administrative segregation) I was next door to a rival gang member (it was acceptable to talk to one another in such circumstances because times were rough and things got really boring) who not only new all 154 of Shakespeare's sonnets but could recite them from memory!

On the surface everyone who new me thought I was a "hardcore," "down" homeboy that feared no one and did did not care about anyone but was "loyal to the cause." But inwardly things were different. I started to become convicted of my sin. I started to fear the judgment of God-the lake of fire. Of course this was all the working of the Holy Spirit but I didn't know that then. Over the years I wanted out of gangs but it was my whole life. It was all I knew- it was my identity! I feared them and the loneliness that awaited such "cowardice."

The Lord in His infinite wisdom and sovereignty moved things along. I was released on parole in 2001. I was drinking at my cousins house when a fellow gang member showed up in excitement and nervousness. He had just participated in a gang related homicide. He was one of the shooters. Three people were shot and one died. He dropped the murder weapon off at my cousin's. Gang protocol demanded that I help out a fellow "brother" and do what I can to cover up. I did. I disposed of two handguns.

Fast forward a month or two later, I was in prison again on a parole violation. I was questioned by the police. Here is where I can only but emphasize the sovereignty of God. I knew that when the cops questioned me they were going to bluff. They were going to insist they found the weapons and had my fingerprints on them. We were trained for this kind of stuff. We read their police investigation manuals and books as well as from experience. Hence I knew that if they really had something on me they would have arrested me. But at that moment I did what I vowed never to do- "snitch." I had never done such a thing before. In fact I had hurt such people and made a reputation for assaulting the "no goods." But I was tired. Tired of the guilt tired of my bondage to sin, being stuck in that sinful lifestyle. So I handed them the case. They had two innocent people in jail and we were going to let them "take one for the team." After all they were "young bucks" that needed to earn their "stripes."

I made a deal and was put in the state Witness Protection Program. I lasted for only one month and ran. I went to my cousins and smoked meth, marijuana and drank alcohol for three days with only eating one meal (a hamburger). My mind snapped and I thought my family was trying to kill me. I ran around midnight hearing voices in my head, talking to no one, shouting at shadows thinking they were people plotting to kill me. A saw a bus coming at one point and was walking in front of it waiting to throw myself into it at the last second. Then as the driver swerved to avoid me I jumped out of the way thinking I didn't want to get hit only to survive and be paralyzed.

Eventually the police were called and approached me but I ran. They caught up to me pulled their guns and I thought suicide by cop would be a good idea. So I pulled out my meth pipe; acted like it was a gun and refused to get on the ground. We were at a standstill for a minute or so but then (obviously by the mercy and grace of God) I thought about hell and didn't want to go there so I threw the pipe down and broke it. I was arrested again.

I figured if I slept for a day or so all the pain, guilt and misery would go away. So I did. I woke up and it was all still there. I was desperate and alone. Those I lived for now despised and wanted me gone. I wanted to take my own life and end it all. I feared hell but foolishly and stupidly figured I'd deal with that pain when I got got there. I just wanted to end this misery now and deal with whatever later. I was all alone or so I thought.

I say all this only for background information. The important part is what follows, it centers on Christ Jesus  of whom the Apostle Paul says, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Ga 2:19–20).

Ten years ago I was on the verge of hanging myself and thrusting my eternity into the just wrath of God in hell, but He intervened and rescued me! Let me rephrase that- He saved me! From what? He saved me from His righteous wrath, His justice due to sinners like me. To put it more plainly God saved me from Himself. Not only that, he reconciled me to Himself. I was born His enemy and lived as His enemy breaking His just laws and commands. I deserved the wrath of the one and only holy God. Yet, because God is loving and merciful, that day on Feb 27th or 28th of 2002 (don't remember exactly because I was on a three day drug binge and lost track of time) the Lord reached down in love and gave me life. He took my heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh so that I could repent of my sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ whom suffered the wrath of God in my place (on the cross) and charges His perfect law keeping life to my account. That is why I can sing Amazing Grace. One moment I was a God hater and the next God lovingly and mercifully saves me; grants me blessings in Christ too numerous to cover here. Ephesians 2:1-6 says it this way: "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" and Romans 5:10-11 puts it this way: "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."


This salvation, reconciliation and adoption is only made possible through one person and person alone (John 14:6, Acts 4:12) and He is the Lord Jesus Christ- fully God and fully man (John 1:1). God Himself stepped off His heavenly throne to rescue sinners. He came to glorify the Father's name and rescue His people (John 17:1-26, Matt. 1:21, John 10:1-16). Because He loves His rebellious, sinful creation, He came to give His life for them. We broke the law of God, we sinned against Him and deserve the fury of His anger and yet our Savior came take the wrath of God in our place. The perfect, sinless Lamb of God was crucified on the cross at Calvary. This was foretold in Isaiah 53 which reads: "But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all...Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:5-6,10-11). 


This is the primary reason the Creator entered His creation. He says, "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name” (John 12:27–28). The Lord Jesus glorified the Father's name in many ways. But in this context it was His sacrificial death (which includes His resurrection) to secure the salvation, reconciliation and adoption of those He came for. He alone fulfilled the perfect keeping of the Law; through His sinlessness He met the righteous requirements that God demands (Gal. 3:10, 2 Cor. 5:21). Not only did He die a death sinners deserve but His perfect obedience is credited to the account of the repentant person that is trusting in Christ alone for their acceptance with God (2 Cor. 5:21) and this means that the believer in Jesus is viewed by God as if He kept God's law perfectly himself. Now that is the epitome of love, mercy and grace!

Christ saved me! When I was in the act of hanging myself, He acted upon me. I wasn't looking for Him at that moment. I was more concerned with ending my pain and misery of sin, guilt, bondage and loneliness. But because God is merciful and loving, He called (not audibly) me. He acted upon me by removing my heart of stone and giving me a heart of flesh and bringing to mind the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which I had heard throughout my years of gangs, prisons and drugs, from former gang members. That very moment I repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. I remember vividly getting on my hands and knees and crying out to God. Confessing my sinfulness and need of Christ as well as thanking Him for dying and raising victoriously from the grave and because He saved me, not only, from the wrath of God so that I no longer had to fear death and hell but Christ also freed me from my bondage to sin ( John 8:34-36) so much so that what Peter says became a reality: "Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God. For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead" (1 Pe 4:1–5). 


I only have victory in Jesus. Not only did He live a perfect life for sinners and die a wrathful death due sinners but He defeated both sin and death. Death no longer has dominion over me (1 Cor. 15:50-58). I don't have to fear it. Because death is a result of sin and the power of sin is the law; Christ is the conqueror of all and since I am His, then death for me only means that I am in the presence of my glorious and holy God. This was accomplished through the resurrection of Christ ( 1 Cor. 15,). His resurrection also secured my legal right standing before the living God. My faith and confidence that I am justified before God is only because of Chris Jesus, in both His death and resurrection: "That is why his faith was 'counted to him as righteousness.' 23 But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Ro 4:22–25). After all there is no hope nor confidence in a dead savior.

It has been ten years since He saved me. And since then, because He first loved me, my love for Him has grown and will continue to grow. I now have beautiful wife and son and have been called to the ministry where I pastor a small church in McCall, Idaho. Not only has the Lord saved me but He hasn't stopped blessing me. Oh, what grace! I will say along with the Apostle Paul, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Ga 2:20). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Ethics and Assumptions in Schools and Life

Any ethical discourse that proceeds from the mouth of Christians must rest in submission to the Lordship of Christ in all areas of thought.  This statement is as much ethical as it is epistemological. Therefore, it is imperative that all ethics be couched in proper and coherent epistemological language.  The conclusions of one’s ethical inquiry will necessarily agree with one’s epistemology, and in fact, have to. It makes no sense for one to assume one position in order to arrive at another – this is a dishonest and mistaken way to think about worldviews. It is an unfortunate and I dare say sinful thing that higher education in all its levels, not to mention basic education, is robbed of epistemology and the proper place of ethics as a comprehensive worldview and in a logically coherent fashion. Instead, our school systems take for granted that 1. Knowledge is possible, 2. Neutrality is possible, and 3. That secularism is neutral and therefore desirable. In order to make room for cultural pluralism, our system of teaching has then become epistemologically plural. This is a correlation fallacy. To imply that just because there exist many cultures and then come to the conclusion that therefore there exists a viable epistemological plurality (that points to some abstract nebulous neutrality) is the result of erroneous thinking. Just because the devil wears 10 different suits does not mean that there exist 10 different devils. Even worse, epistemology is not taught even in high school, for to do so would expose the fallacy of neutrality for what it is. The system posits that it is reasonable for many differing points of view to be taught and then to declare all of them as equally viable choices so that it does not have to point to the obvious fact that morality is not relative and neither are facts. If the schools decided to place epistemology as some educational pursuit, then they will have to arrive at many differing forms of ethics simply because there exist different views on epistemology.  

                Let it be known that our schools are in fact teaching ethics both implicitly and explicitly. To tell a student that they ought to not cheat on their homework is by nature establishing a universal. But this is not just a means to an end (for a good and honest grade), it is an absolute. When a teacher asserts that homework ought to be done honestly, they are implying that it is a good thing to do homework honestly. Since this is, in fact, what they are implying, then they are also implying that (all variables equal) honesty is objective and universal, even if they do not word it in that exact way. We are hard pressed to think that any reasonable teacher would believe that the statement “homework ought to be done honestly” is a subjective construct that only applies to western culture. When they say this, the way they mean it is in an absolute way. Our language and intentions show this. It is an ethic. But why would a student feel bad if she is caught cheating and why would a teacher feel disappointed when this happens? If it is simply a little social construct that is subjective, then couldn’t the student affirm confidently and honestly that their culture is different enough so that homework shouldn’t really be done honestly but that the student will “do it when she pleases?” By the argumentation that morality is subjective, the student has that right. But let us assume for the sake of argument that the student is right to do this, and the teacher understands this and agrees to disagree with the student that “homework should not be done honestly, but it is a favor for the teacher when the student pleases.” Even if the teacher and student come to that agreement, this would still be a contradiction, since in reality there would be no point of agreement. Since morality is objective, you cannot agree to disagree on two contradictory universal “oughts.” Teachers simply do not think this way and neither do students, or else why would the feeling of disapproval by the teacher happen as well as the shame of the student when they are caught? (Even if they are not caught, the student will still know that it is wrong absolutely because they know, by the testimony of the Law of God in their consciences, that lying is a sin that they seek to suppress but they are not able to do this with totality. Let us take this a bit further. Let us assume that morality is subjective, but that the particular public school has a code of ethics that states: “In our school, morality is subjective and homework can be done dishonestly, but in other schools, this does not have to be the case. Therefore, Sally student is exonerated on this basis.” The problem with this is that the terms “honest” and “dishonest” are polar opposites. Polar opposites assume the laws of logic, and these laws must be universal or else our society would not be able to think let alone work.

                So where does epistemology fit into this ethical example I have given? The school’s epistemology not only would be some sort of empirical or rationalist construct, but it would be one that is sinfully rejecting the Lordship of Christ in education. This is what “subjective morality” results in. It results in an ethic that is sinful because of its epistemological starting point which is anti-Christian and therefore antagonistic to God’s revelation (The Scriptures.)

                In conclusions, I am convinced that teachers believe that homework ought to be done honestly, and that many of them believe that this is an objective truth. But the incoherence lies in that the only epistemology that has the preconditions for intelligibility in comprehensive ethics and human experience is Christian theism.  So if a teacher or school district does not believe this, then their hidden assumptions make manifest their incoherence and hatred of God and His truth. This can be demonstrated by a host of contradictions that they should be ashamed of. We, as Christians who seek to propagate the truth of the Bible must respectfully and lovingly address these ethical issues in our school systems in dialogue and debate.

In Christ and for His glory,

Felipe Diez III

Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com