I Can Do All Things Through Christ Who Strengthens Me

Several years ago, as a teenager, I didn't particularly like this verse.

Wait, what?

Yeah, I know. That's bad.

My family and I had been going through a lot of difficulties. Feeling insecure, I was probably not in the best emotional state. When one of my dad's friends sent us some books and items from his store, he also sent some thingies (I don't know the correct word) that go on a keychain and have encouraging words or verses. One of these thingies had the words "I can do all things through Christ" or something of that nature, while another said something along the lines of, "Your God will bless you." When my mom handed me the one about doing all things through Christ, I gave it back and opted for the other choice.

Why did I do that?

I believe there may have been a few reasons. But instead of stating them directly, I'll instead state truths from God's word that I now love and embrace and trust to a degree I didn't in the past:

First, as a Christian, I have the promise that all things will work together for my good. God is all wise and He loves me. If He allows a trial into my life, it is for my good.

Second, God is generous to me. He gives me good things. He rejoices in good and hates evil. He loves it when I love Him and others. He delights in my prosperity and has compassion for me. Sure, the world is fallen, but that doesn't change God.

Third, faith is a great thing. When viewed biblically, challenges and difficulties lose their impossible image. I am an overcomer because Christ overcame. Whatever problems may come my way, God will give me the grace to face them. When I have faith, thinking things like this doesn't cause fear, but comfort because whether I abound or am in need, Christ holds me.

Fourth, I am not special in the sense that what I face is unique. Jesus was tempted in all the ways that I am. And other believers face trials too.

Fifth, I am commanded to rejoice always, to think on that which is good, to surrender my trials to God, and to not worry. What positive thinking God expects of me!

Conclusion:
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me!

Innovation Improves Work and Life

 

Image from here.

Because I am very interested in inventions, automation, and using technology to advance God's kingdom and help fulfill the dominion mandate, I thought I would briefly write about a common misconception about innovation: the idea that innovation kills jobs.

Does innovation kill jobs? In one sense, yes, if a robot takes over your job, you'll need to go find other work. However, that misses out on the big picture: Innovation pushes people toward better, easier, more fun jobs.

For example, imagine you and nine others became stranded on an island: At first, your basic thoughts are on survival. How do we eat? How do we get clothes? What about shelter? Is anyone a doctor if I get sick? Your shelters will probably be very crude. Much of everyone's time will be seeking food. Forget HVAC and dental checks. Also, you'll likely not have much of any free time. Yikes! Let's imagine you find out that five of the ten of you need to work full time to plant/find/hunt enough food to survive. Then one day, one of the group members stumbles across an abandoned tractor and seed in an old bunker that happens to be on your island. You plant lots of food with the tractor, and once harvest comes, one person is able to completely take over food supply for everyone!

In that scenario, would you get mad at the person who discovered the tractor because he "killed" four people's jobs? No, you'd be absolutely thrilled because now those four people are free to focus on improving other areas of life: They can construct better shelters, think about making the food taste good (an unaffordable luxury previously), and start studying how to have better health, among other things. So, did innovation kill jobs? In a way, because it made some jobs unnecessary. But it improved everyone's life substantially and opened the door to other, better work.

As an aside, if you were able to contact and trade with others you found on the island, everyone's wellbeing would probably improve, which is why I'm for free trade (ethical and wise, of course).

Here are a few other thoughts in no particular order:

• We will never run out of work to do. Not as many people are needed in agriculture, but entire industries have opened up due to technology: types of doctors that didn't exist previously, movie makers and actors, teachers for many sports/games/subjects previously nonexistent, HVAC techs, car techs, etc.
• As new standards of living are reached, better standards continually are desired, which means a demand for people to work to make things better, i.e., new jobs.
• We have more choice over work than ever before.
• If innovation is a problem, why don't you destroy your house, car, and any technology you use to do your job? In that case, you'll have plenty of work you need to do!
• Part of my work is currently home remodeling. It's enjoyable to an extent, but there are many parts that are hard, tedious, boring, and dirty. I'd love it if someone made robots to take over all my work. I may seek to work toward this myself.
• Usually, new inventions aren't created overnight and adoption of them also takes a while. Because of this, it's usually possible to foresee which jobs will no longer be needed and which fields will benefit from more workers as a result.

As a final thought, I'd like to note that godliness with contentment is great gain. Because we have so many options today, it's important to be wise and content. Due to all the advancements in our world (which are ultimately due to God's blessing), you can live in a luxurious mansion compared to the homes people in your economic status 200 years ago lived in. However, if you buy the biggest, most expensive house you possibly can, you may have to work just as hard or harder than people 200 years ago in order to pay for it and maintain it. On the other hand, if you are content with a more moderate house, you can be much more comfortable than previous generations both in terms of house and lifestyle. It's similar with our time: We have more free time than previous generations, but if we only use it to scroll through social media, are we any better off? Keep it simple and focus on the important. (I'm writing this to myself!) Be wise and you'll reap the benefits of innovation.

Excommunication over Eschatology? (Or a Thought Experiment Regarding Criteria for Church Membership)

I once visited a church that had numerous good things going for it, but when I saw a pamphlet on joining that church, I was surprised to see the leadership required membership candidates to affirm the pre-millennial return of Christ.

This led me to start thinking about what should be required for church membership and ultimately brought me to believe that if someone is a true evangelical Christian who is not living in sin, that person should, as a member of the invisible church, be permitted to join a local church, despite other lesser doctrinal differences.

My rationale for this is that elders should only bar someone from church membership if they would excommunicate that person were he or she currently a member. It seems logically consistent. Think, for example, if a pre-millenialist joined the church mentioned above and then switched over to the postmil position: Should the elders tell that person to leave on threat of excommunication? If not, then evidently the elders aren't consistent in having eschatology as a standard for church membership.

Here's another scenario: Imagine if you were stranded on an island containing only one local church. You are a member of the invisible/universal church and want to join this local church. "No," the elders say, "you have a difference over the mode of baptism." Yikes! Then are you accountable to the elders? Should you be a "permanent visitor"? Partake of the Lord's supper? What an awkward situation.

Now you may say, "but we're not on an island, and there are many churches with elders who have a multitude of doctrinal views." Yes, this is true. And I believe it's wise to seek like-minded church for the sake of conscience and unity (and for elders to recommend this to potential members). However, is it right to not allow membership because of differences of opinions in situations where there are other churches? I don't think so, as this sounds like the ethics change based on situation. And of course because I don't see why someone should be refused church membership unless the elders would excommunicate that person were he or she a member.

Naturally, if someone joins a church where he has a difference of opinion with the church leadership, he would likely have to submit to their view if they thought he would otherwise be in sin. (Unless he could change their minds.) For this reason, a potential member should ask: can I in good conscience submit to these church leaders? If not, he or she should probably seek another church.

This seems similar to marriage: Paul commands widows who ought to be married to marry only other believers and doesn't lay out more criteria than this. So for someone to say that it is a sin, e.g., for a 4-point Calvinist to marry a 5-point Calvinist would be adding a requirement to scripture, I believe. That being said, would the woman, as a potential wife, be able to submit to her potential husband's view? If not, that would be a personal standard for her and she ought to seek someone else. (It is of course noted that the bible strongly urges Christians to seek godly spouses and also highly commends church leaders who are diligently seeking to be faithful.)

I have not studied much in coming to this conclusion, so I could definitely be incorrect. If so, please show me why my logic is flawed. Until then, it makes sense to me that if a Christian is willing to submit to church leaders in areas of disagreement (Presbyterian vs Baptist, etc), the elders should gladly allow that person into their local church.

Baptism: For Believers AND Infants?

I know a lot of wonderful Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ and love them. If you are a Baptist, my reason for posting this is not to cause division. Rather, it is to hopefully help you understand why I (and others) believe what I do. And it'll help me to study the issue and perhaps remember scripture texts better.

Believer's baptism, in the sense that new believers are baptized, is clearly taught in scripture:

It is very clear that when someone becomes a Christian, they ought to be baptized:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matthew 28:19)

"Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Acts 18:8)

"Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:46b-48a)

"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him." (Acts 8:36-38)

Clearly, when an unbeliever first becomes a believer, he or she should be baptized. So what about children?

Circumcision related to baptism:

Colossians 2:11-12 shows that circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New have the same spiritual significance:

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

Just as baptism is something that believers do out of obedience to Christ, but not in order to be saved (Ephesians 2:8-9), so Romans 4:1-3 shows that Abraham, prior to being circumcised, believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. First, God set up a covenant with Abraham (Gen 15) and afterwards instituted circumcision as a sign of the covenant.

Believer's and infant circumcision were both taught in scripture:

When God gave circumcision in Genesis 17, he commanded Abraham to circumcise those born in his household when they were eight days old.

However, someone in the Old Testament who joined God's covenant people as an adult would also be circumcised after believing. (Exodus 12:48).

So clearly, male children born in a covenant household were circumcised, as were new adult believing males. These don't preclude each other, but work in harmony. Of course, both those born on believers and those who professed faith as adults could either show themselves to be covenant keepers or covenant breakers in their futures.

Children of believers are covenant members, regarded as holy in some sense:

Note: I am not saying that children do not need to come to Christ to be saved. However, God has set up the family unit (e.g., as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord) and God looks on children of believers as holy (set apart) from the world in a covenantal sense:

1 Corinthians 7:14 shows that even children of one believer are regarded as holy: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."

"Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”" (Acts 2:38-39)

Ephesians 6:1: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right."

Psalm 8:2: "Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength, because of Your enemies, that You may silence the enemy and the avenger."

"Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:15-16)

Here's a quote from Kevin DeYoung's article on infant baptism:

"Remarkably, though, this deeply spiritual sign was given to Ishmael as well as Isaac, even though only Isaac was the continuation of the promised line. The spiritual sign was not just for those who already embraced the spiritual reality. It was to be administered to Abraham and his sons. Circumcision was not a simple equation. It didn’t automatically mean the recipient of the sign was in possession of the thing signified. Circumcision, like baptism, also pointed to belonging, discipleship, covenant obligations, and allowed for future faith that would take hold of the realities symbolized. Just as there were some in Paul’s day who were circumcised but not really circumcised (Rom. 2:25-29), some children of Abraham who were not truly children of Abraham (Rom. 9:6-8), so in our day there are some who are baptized who are not truly baptized. Children should be marked as belonging to the covenant, but unless they exercise saving faith, they will not grab hold of the covenant blessings."

I could note that in the New Testament, multiple household baptisms took place. These don't specifically state whether there were infants/young children in these households but does show that God in His providence still often works with entire households.

Finally, in DeYoung's article, he claims that the early church practiced infant baptism within two centuries of Christ, and this wasn't questioned for over a thousand years. I don't know church history that well so cannot verify, but I'll take his claim on face value. Obviously, scripture is the final authority, but church history is helpful, and I do like his point: If infant baptism had been an abrupt change from the scriptures, why isn't there a record of earlier controversy about it?

As for the mode of baptism, I believe scripture teaches sprinkling is biblical (not that immersion doesn't count). Although I will not learn the subject as well by doing this, I will just link to an article by Greg Bahnsen on the subject of baptism and refer you to the section on the mode of it. By the way, he does a better and more comprehensive job than I do explaining baptism. (Although I do have a red flag when he says an unbelieving spouse ought to be baptized.)

So, what say you? In view of the scriptures above, why should infants not be baptized? I am open to scripture.

Edit: One other note: I suppose one result of not believing in infant baptism is that someone who had a mental disability and couldn't profess faith would never be able to be baptized.

The Bible on Beards and Shaving

Well, here's an uncommon topic. But as a Christian who respects the Old Testament as God's word, I don't dismiss passages such as Leviticus 27:19 ("You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.") and say, "that's the Old Testament so doesn't apply."

Here is part of a study I did on the subject several years ago:

Tithing on Gross or Net Income?

In my next few posts, I plan to outline why I believe things on certain doctrines. Partly, this is to help me remember conclusions to things I have studied and save time for the future. If anyone reads this, (hi there!) it'll hopefully benefit them too.

Before I begin, why I tithe at all:

In the Old Testament, tithing is clearly commanded of God's people (Malachi 3:10). In fact, it seems that three tithes were commanded (Levitical, rejoicing, and third year. See link at end of paragraph.) Although there's no longer an earthly temple nor a Levitical system, we do have churches and elders, and it seems to me that tithing continues in the New Testament as words such as "commanded" and "must" indicate in scriptures such as 1 Cor 9:13-14 and 1 Cor 16:1-2. I recommend reading this paper for further study.

Even if someone were to convince me that tithing is not commanded in the New Testament, giving clearly is. And, from my experience and a "general equity" standpoint, giving a 10th to the church, a 10th for rejoicing, and a 10th every third year for the vulnerable makes perfect sense and I would likely keep doing so.

Tithing prior to paying unjust taxes is not required:

As Greg Bahnsen argued in a debate on the subject, sometimes (not long ago actually) the government has taxed people at rates of 91% of their income. This makes tithing 10% (or the three tithes) impossible, which reduces to absurdity the idea that someone must always tithe on their gross income, not the net.

But one may argue that we don't have government currently taking 91% of income. That's true. But the question is, if we did have that, what would someone do? Tithe and not pay all their taxes? Maybe that would be the Biblical answer, but I'm not sure. Though my heart wants to say to tithe on the gross (as I used to do and sometimes still do), I cannot logically believe this is required because of Bahnsen's argument as well as the following:

I've never heard those advocating tithing on gross (pre-tax) income mention sales taxes or similar, which would have a big impact on those who have their own businesses (e.g., me): If I purchase 10K in materials (1K of which is sales tax) and a client reimburses me for the 10K, then would that 1K of sales tax be considered part of my pre-tax income that I should tithe on, even though I never saw it? That seems ridiculous but would be required if someone thought that we needed to pay tithes even on money that is taken via taxes.

As might be obvious by now, part of the problem is that we do not have a Biblical tax system. Romans 13 outlines the God-given functions of government, which taxes ought to support. The current American government goes far beyond its biblical authority, and this makes it extremely expensive. When Samuel warned Israel about turning from God and getting a king (rather than trusting Him to provide as He had done toward the end of Eli's life) he warned them that the king would take a tenth from them, which was viewed as oppressive!

Ok, but what about biblical taxes?

To be honest, I'm not certain. So, the way I've done it myself, in order to err on the side of caution, is to tithe prior to a 10% tax rate (which may be a just rate) and anything above that, treat as money that was stolen from me, which, like crops consumed by locusts, are not part of my increase and so aren't tithed on. In other words, if I make 10K and 2K of it goes to taxes, I treat 1K as Biblical taxes and 1K as non-Biblical, so I'd for certain tithe on 9K, though perhaps more.

This split may seem a bit arbitrary, but it's the best I could come up with for now. If you have scriptures to show a better view, please do so. Thanks!