God the Maintainer

 Isaiah 45:7 King James Version

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

People debate whether or not "evil" here is legitimate. For that subject, "evil" until modern times did not mean wickedness but calamity or disaster. A man that brings disaster is an evil man is the correct way to read any instance of "evil" in the Bible. Evil is not necessarily sin. But that's not what I care about now about the verse. 

Rather, notice for the bad things, darkness and evil, are created instantly by God, 

While light and peace are made and formed by God, a slower, deliberate process. 

When God created the heavens and the earth instantly in Genesis 1:1 and the earth was without form and void, it was darkness. It took God saying and forming the words "Let there be light" in order to bring light. Good things come from a slow process.

I'm bad at maintaining things. I'm a set-it-and-forget-it kind of guy. I aim to do everything perfect for that one big impact and splash, and then just go on with my life and never checking up on things after that, and then I get surprised when things go downhill.

In these recent years, I have grown to appreciate God being a Father that maintains things and is very active today as He was in the ages when the Bible was written and before that.

My biological dad is the opposite of me. He is a great maintainer of things. He's always repairing, always doing preventative maintenance of cars, house, relationships, and so on, while I actively avoid doing that.

Many people expect God to be a set-it-and-forget-it type God, a deistic God. Deism says that God wound up the universe like a clock in the very beginning, and never intervenes anymore, never maintains things. This is often called "practical atheism", God exists, but we live like He doesn't do anything.

Many Christians would deny that they are deists, and maybe in some aspects they aren't, but that belief shows up in how they treat, say, God's word today, thinking God no more has anything to do with its transmission, or the miraculous workings of God, or how awry current events, politics, and rumors of wars, and assume God isn't working at all today.

God is a Father and He maintains in the present, a slow process, like a husbandman growing fruit, vines, and trees.

The LXX Septuagint Doesn't Exist, But The Greek Pentateuch Does

A quick rundown of LXX Septuagint "evidence":

Here are all actual evidence we have of the Septuagint, in a neat timeline:
Aristobulus, assumed to be a high priest, but actually a Jewish Greek philosopher 110 BC
Philo of Alexandria 50 AD inspired by Aristobolus only says 5 books were translated
Josephus 93AD recounts the translation by Philo's words
Origen 250 AD
Eusebius 260AD apparently quotes Aristobulus, but only mentions that only 5 first books of the Bible was translated to Greek
Oldest copies we have of Letter of Aristeas in its modern form 11th-15th century AD name drops Aristobolus, and it is not clear that it mentions only 5 books, but it is a known forgery and hoax as it messes up historical events.

So what we see is while the Septuagint does not exist, the first five books of Moses probably were.

What Is Free Will According To Scripture?

People seem to be confused what free will actually is.

People also claim that "free will" does not appear in scripture. But "free" and "will" do appear in the same verse, and also "freewill".

So using those verses, we will construct what free will actually is.

1. Free will is a choice, but not an ability.
Romans 9:16
16 So then it is not of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Here, we see a verse making a difference between "willing" something and "running" something.
What Calvinists ignore in this passage is that it doesn't say man doesn't have will (We'll get into compatiblist, that is, limited, free will in a bit, and why that does not exist). It does say man has a will, it just that God trumps whatever the will does.

Point is, people thing that free will means "unlimited ability to execute unlimited choices", when it just means "unlimited choices". Free will is not omnipotence.
So what's the difference? Choosing something does not guarantee you getting what you chose. It depends on your ability to get what you chose, or someone else putting forth their ability.

2. Free will is a desire separate from the action.
Revelation 22:17
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever WILL, let him take the water of life FREELY.
Notice that the will is separate from the action. Willing came before taking.

3. Free will is planning, but not the execution.
James 4
13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we WILL go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord WILL, we shall live, and do this, or that.
Planning is free will, the execution and result's are God's. But it cannot be denied that free will came first before God corrects.

4. Free will is of the mouth.
Psalm 119:108
108 Accept, I beseech thee, the FREEWILL offerings of my MOUTH, O Lord, and teach me thy judgments.
Romans 10:10
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

So what does that mean?
1. When people confuse free will with unlimited ability, and we get things like, "Well, did Lazarus raise himself from the dead? (an ability) So why do you believe you have free will to choose salvation, huehuehuehue? (a choice)".

2. A good rule of thumb based on the prior verses above is, if the mouth (as in voice, not the teeth and all that) can do it, free will can do it. If a mouth can't do it, free will can't do it.
For example, as it states above, by the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. So, a mouth can confess, free will can confess. A mouth can put forth plans. A mouth can make a choice ("Would you like fries with that?", "Yes"). A mouth can put forth desires.
So using the Calvinist strawman above, Lazarus did not raise himself from the dead. He believed in Jesus, a mental act free will can do. Or in salvation, asking Jesus Christ to save you is an act of free will, as, the mouth can do that. Lazarus asking is not the same as raising himself from the dead.
But Calvinists think that someone asking God to save them is equal to someone raising himself from death and taking salvation from force.

3. Now what about compatiblists, ie, man does have free will, but it's limited and can't choose God?
There are no verses that state the will of man is sinful. The heart of man is sinful, the flesh of man is sin is sinful, but nowhere does it state that the will itself is sinful. And nowhere does it state that the will is a slave of heart and flesh. This is just a Calvinist presupposition.
Now, does the heart and flesh have influence on the will? Probably.
But there's more to it than that. The Calvinist assumes that belief in God is an inherently righteous thing, which it is not.

James 2:19
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

So if belief in God is not inherently righteous, then it is under free will. In fact, God honors belief as righteousness only in specific circumstances afterwards, not before.

Galatians 3:6
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

It being counted means it isn't inherently righteous, God had to make it righteous after the act.
Why? Because faith is not works. Righteous acts are works. Faith is not a righteous act until God counts it as such. Which is why the devils' faith does not save them (on top of them not believing Jesus is the Son in the flesh 1 John 4:1-2). if faith is righteous, it makes it a work and thus not anymore grace through faith.

So if free will is simply a choice and not an ability
If faith is neutral, mental act and not a righteous work
Then free will has the power to choose God.

Romans 1 and Anderson's Reprobate Doctrine

Regarding "reprobate" doctrine of Steven Anderson. Specifically Romans 1.

Ever notice that the context of Romans 1 is not unsaved people, but saved people?

How? It says they that know God are the ones that are reprobated.

Romans 1
21 Because that, when THEY KNEW GOD, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that THEY MIGHT KNOW thee the only true GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

It says here they are covenantbreakers:

Roman's 1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Proverbs 2:16-17
16 To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words;
17 Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the COVENANT OF HER GOD.

But the clincher here is in the next chapter:

Romans 2
1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Paul literally says you, whoever was reading, as a saved person, are guilty of the same things.

Reprobation has more to do with the saved rejecting God, than the unsaved rejecting God.

1 Corinthians 5:5
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Ideas of Perfection and Originals in the Bible

Some very high level concepts and observations.

Perfection in the Bible:

In heaven, it is instant. (God Himself, the only Perfect One)

In earth, it is a process. (seven day Creation and Jesus having to grow up instead of being instantly grown)

Originals in the Bible:

In heaven, it is perfect. (God Himself, the only Original One)

In earth, since perfection is a process, only the things after the original can be perfect, and the original is more of a blank slate. Innocence of an original is not perfection. (Adam vs Second Adam, or Bondwoman of the Law vs Freewoman of Grace in Galatians)

The heavenly vs earthly contrast can also be seen as Greek/Western ideas versus Hebrew/Eastern ideas, but both are true, just different in operation depending on location.

Unity or Division: Two Opposing Ways To Interpret The Bible

There are two opposing main philosophies of interpreting the Bible:

Unity

OR

Division

Unity says that different words in the Bible that are similar are identical. This philosophy is also called Inductive Logic or Covenantalism/Covenant Theology as a system. This is favors a figurative and subjective view of the Bible.

Division says different words in the Bible that are similar are distinct. This philosophy is also called Deductive Logic or Dispensationalism as a system. This favors a literalist and objective view of the Bible.

To further understand the differences, let's look how someone using Unity or Division interprets the same passage.

Luke 1

46 And Mary said, My SOUL doth magnify the Lord,

47 And my SPIRIT hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Here we have to words: SOUL and SPIRIT, that are different but seemingly similar.

The Unity interpreter will assume since soul and spirit are doing similar things in this passage, and since both soul and spirit are both immaterial, apparently, both are identical. In other words, the Unity interpreter will combine soul and spirit into one thing and have the words as synonyms for each other.

The Division interpreter on the other hand, will be more critical. Because similar words are different are distinct, he concludes that since the Bible uses different words, no mater how similar, they are separate and distinct. And technically, magnifying and rejoicing are two different things, too. In other words, soul and spirit are separate and distinct and not the same, even though they are closely related. (We know the Division interpreter is correct here because of 1 Thess. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12)

Okay, so why is this important? Because how you read your Bible will determine what you believe. The list of the following word collections are very important theologically, whether they are distinct or not:

Soul vs Spirit

Mercy vs Grace

Israel vs Church (and related words such as Elect and Sheep)

Kingdom of God vs Kingdom of Heaven

the different Gospels (Gospel of the Kingdom, Paul's Gospel, the Eternal Gospel, etc.)

the different Baptisms (John's Baptism, Baptism of Fire, Baptism of the Spirit, etc.)

Book of Life vs Lamb's Book of Life

Things That *Sound* Like Salvation (adoption, creating a new heart, repentance, etc.)

Things That *Sound* Like A Loss of Salvation (apostasy, falling away, backsliding, etc.)

Etc.

Calvinists, for example, heavily use Unity interpretation on Romans 9 by equating Israel to the Church and then applying the whole chapter to salvation, when the words salvation and the church and related words do not even appear in the passage at all. A Division reading takes the passage at face value of it speaking about the nation of Israel. Yes, even the verses where it says there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ have a different Unity and Division interpretations (A Unity would think that passage wipes away all identity, Division only limits the identity changed as salvation identity, because, for example, the same passage also mentions neither male nor female and people who become saved do not become a third gender).

Those who believe in loss of salvation for example take everything bad in the Bible that sounds like punishment and make it mean a loss of salvation. For example, verses on backsliding is taken to meant sliding into hell by those who believe in loss of salvation. That is a Unity interpretation.

Now, a Division interpretation does not discount figurative language in the Bible. For example, when the Bible uses the words "like" or "as", to literally interpret those signal words means the figurative language is in the literal grammar.

So which is correct? Well, if it isn't obvious, it's the Division interpretation.

2 Timothy 2:15

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Hebrews 4:12

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Poem: Can God Create A Rock So Heavy

Can God create a rock
So heavy He cannot lift
And atheists mock?


God became human,
Virgin born,
Jesus, Son of Man.


And many heavy stones,
Formed by His hands ages past,
He couldn’t lift.

Thoughts on Bible Dispensations

The following is not structured well, I will fix that in a future post:

Salvation
1. Old Testament Salvation: Faith in what God said as shown by and resulting in works (Noah to John the Baptist, as shown by James, Hebrews Hall of Faith resulting in works. It's not faith automatically in the coming Son of God, but what specifically God said to that specific person, which included statements of the coming Son of God. For example, Noah was saved not because he believed specifically on Jesus the Messiah, but he believed God's pronouncement of the Flood, faith, and built an ark, works resulting in faith.)
2. Before Jesus was on Earth: Faith shown by water baptism of repentance by John the Baptist
3. When Jesus was on Earth: Faith in His physical Person, and water baptism (his disciples baptized)
---
The believing dead on times before this went to Paradise, Abraham's bosom under the Earth (Lazarus and rich man)
~~~ Jesus' Crucifixion ~~~
The believing dead on times after this went to the Third Heaven, above the Earth
---
4. When Jesus resurrected but before the Pauline letters were written: Faith as shown by water baptism of repentance (Acts)
5. TODAY: Pauline letters written until the Rapture: Grace through faith, works need not to be shown, no water baptism needed (Romans and rest of Paul's letters)
6. In the Tribulation: Faith as shown through keeping the commandments and refusing the mark of the Beast (most like the ten commandments, 
Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. 
22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.)
7. During and after the Millennium: Allegiance to the physical Son of God that can be seen. There is no faith in the Millennium or afterwards, as "faith is the substance of things not seen". This only applies to the Gentile nations who are left after the Tribulation. (refer to Old Testament prophecies of the Kingdom and the judgment of Sheep and Goats, a judgment of nations, not the Church)

I Corinthians 1:22
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

Signs and Miracles and the Word (Wisdom)
1. Old Testament before the Law: God appeared Himself, with all the trappings of miracles (Creation, Flood, plagues, pillar of fire and cloud)
2. Old Testament Israel: God appeared to the High Priest in the temple and prophets did miracles
3. Intermission, Silent Years (Malachi-Matthew): No Biblical records of signs or miracles
4.. Gospels: Jesus showed miracles to Israel, and made exceptions to only two Gentiles (the woman and the centurion)
5.Pentecost: Tongues and other miracles primarily a witness to the Jews
6. Pauline Letters: Tongues and other miracles started to cease, being replaced by the witness of charity/love (I Cor. 13)
7. Once Revelation was written, and the canon set: Wisdom was fully written down
8. TODAY: The entire Bible spreading this current Church age: God's primary mode of showing Himself is through the Word of wisdom. Where the Bible is, it takes precedence over miracles. Once a society is saturated with the Word of God, miracles completely cease. That's one reason why formely "Christian" nations today turn atheistic and secular, once the Bible is plentiful, overt spiritual activity that can be seen ceases, and secularism is a threat. (2 Pet. 1:19) False science tries to replace godly wisdom (1 Tim 6:20) 
9. The Rapture, Tribulation, Millennium: Signs and wonders, both holy and devilish, come back in full force primarily for the salvation of Israel, and to turn the Gentile nations into aiding Israel.

April Fool's Pranks Wrap Up

1. My Conversion to Reformed Theology
Not my idea, but I played along. Brittany really wishes this to be true. :P

2. My Letter of Resignation from the Valiant Defender's Party Student Leadership Society

"by Samuel Garcia
It is a great honor to have served the Valiant Defender's Party Student Leadership Society as Prime Minister from it's very inception. We have grown from a small student government elections party to the leadership society we see today. To say that I am proud of you, members, is an understatement.However, college and work have taken a toll on me. I'm on my last stretch of my degree of Computer Science, and hopefully going off to Bible college in the spring of 2015. There are many opportunities for me to advance the causes of Integrity, Innovation, and Initiative for His glory." (read more)

3. CPHarmony
Someone created a courting website for my college program College Plus. Whoever created it was smart enough to leak it early long before the 1st. The site is shut down now (address was http://cpharmony.cf)

4. Instagram Prank
If the picture doesn't show up, click it to refresh. ( http://instagram.com/p/mQ5T_5LRl5/ )

And I leave you with this:

Let's Play Socrates Jones: The Bible and Euthyphro, Or, God is Holy, Holy is God

from Socrates Jones: Pro-Philosopher

A dilemma was postulated by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who asked Euthyphro:  "Is what is morally good (holy) commanded by a god because it is morally good (holy), or is it morally good because it is commanded by a god?"

This was brought to my attention by the above game, Socrates Jones. It features an Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney-style gameplay, but instead of a court case, you are literally debating the meaning of morality for your life... because apparently you died since you didn't buy deer repellant and now you have gone to philosopher "heaven" (or more accurately, "purgatory"). At any rate, it's not an afterlife you want to spend much more time in.

Euthyphro is the first philosopher you debate against. In the game, he argues that mankind is flawed, which is true. He then argues because the gods are better than humanity, they determine what is good. But his premise fails because of his belief in polytheism, for the gods contradict each other. His counterpoint to that is most gods (and religions) agree on what is good and what is bad. Which brings back the dilemma, do the gods agree because that thing is intrinsically good?

After a few pensive thoughts, my mind turned to Scripture, which, naturally, has the answer.

Isaiah 6
1In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 

2Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

3And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

The passage equates God as thrice Holy (reflecting His Triune nature). It doesn't say "God says what is holy" or "God knows what is holy", it says He is the very essence of holiness and moral good. It cannot be separated from Him. His very nature is holiness and moral good! No God, no holiness.

Euthryphro fails to acknowledge the thrice Holy God of the Bible. There are no other gods but Him. What he has is only a false dilemma once you know the actual state of things.


Isaiah 45
5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.

Note that the passage capitalizes the "G" in God on verse 5. While there are many small "g" gods, there is only one capital "G" God. Because the idols are beneath Him, whether the god be called Baal or Zeus or Thor, since He is the the God, they don't even start to compare, making them ill fit to be standards of morality. (It's a favorite strategy by atheists to equate the Christian God to Zeus due to the fact they are both religious entities, but the similarities end there. The Christian God stands by Himself while Zeus and his pantheon merely resemble petty immortal humans with great powers, i.e. superheroes.)

Which brings us back to a slightly altered question:
"Is what is morally good (holy) commanded by God because it is morally good (holy), or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

Answer: "God is holy and morally good, holiness and good morality is the nature of God. God commands what His holy nature is to be, and what His holy nature determines what is commanded by Him".