Growing

Dear reader,

I am redeemed by Christ! And He has caused me to grow, causes me to grow, and will cause me to grow! However, this implies that I was not, am not, and will not be (in this life) all I could be. Still, I rejoice in how the Lord has caused me to grow and with eyes of faith look forward to the future!

That is in part to preface this: Please take to heart anything on my blog that draws you to Christ and disregard the rest. I've been blogging for about 15 years. And I've changed a LOT in that time period. I don't even remember everything I've written. This isn't to renounce anything, it's just to note I'm sure there are errors and things that could have been written better, and that I could have displayed more of the fruit of the Spirit in my writings.

God is good!

-Stephen

TAG Summarized

For a long time, I've wanted to summarize the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG), which I learned about from a book, articles, and debates of Greg Bahnsen. This may be useful for others, but mainly it'll help cement it in my mind. Due to staying very busy with work, I hadn't done so, but recently I believe the Lord led me to slow down a bit in order take more time to rest in Him, catch up in areas I'm behind in, and explore new possibilities for the future. I'm so thankful for this! Praise God! Now let's get to it:

The heavens declare the glory of God;

And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Day unto day utters speech,

And night unto night reveals knowledge.

That is what God says in Psalm 19. Everything points to the glorious Creator. What Bahnsen (and others before him, such as Van Til) argues is that you can indeed start from anything and in it see conclusive proof of God.

How so? By analyzing worldviews for internal consistency.

Everyone has a worldview, and every worldview has presuppositions. The correct view of the world (with God as He has revealed Himself in His Word) is coherent and makes sense. Any other worldview will have problems, though, because they aren't correct.

In logic, an indirect conditional proof starts with premises. Then, something is assumed to be false, and it is examined where that denial leads to. If that denial leads to the contradiction of one of the premises, then it is logically proven that whatever was assumed false is actually true. We can use this tool when analyzing worldviews.

Atheists, for example, usually live like logical absolutes exist, there is a standard of right and wrong, science is possible, and so on. We might call these their premises, or parts of their worldview. When we look at their worldview and, for the sake of argument, assume that God doesn't exist, the atheist's premises are contradicted because God is the only true basis for these premises, and thus his or her worldview falls apart.

Let's look at an example with morality:

Within the Christian worldview, we believe in absolute right and wrong. And this makes sense, because there's an absolute Lawgiver.

In a materialistic worldview, however, God is denied and with Him the possibility of right and wrong. Therefore, any materialist who believes in right and wrong (and they all do, because that's how God made them) is inconsistent.

I'd like to write out an argument in logical form with ~ and other logical symbols and use Modus ponens and so on but am not sure I remember enough from formal logic to do so. So, I'll continue:

How about we take purpose in life:

As a Christian, Christ gives our life purpose. And reason to care.

An atheist, though, ultimately should believe nothing matters. If he or she lives like anything matters (or argues that anything matters) then he or she is inconsistent.

I just used a random word generator to come up with the word solo. As a Christian, I can understand why God has made us as individuals and yet we desire relationships. Unity and diversity make sense. But the atheist cannot ultimately explain this. Without God, we just are the way we are. There's nothing special about individuality or love: To them, it's all just a bunch of molecules in motion. If they are consistent, that is.

To wrap up, I'd like to note that it's possible to internally examine worldviews for consistency even if they presuppose the existence of God, but not the Christian God. For example, a Jew who does not believe in the Messiah, Yeshua, would claim to believe the Old Testament is God's word. But he or she would be inconsistent because Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and many other scriptures clearly predict Jesus.

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!

The Fruit of the Spirit

During the past few weeks I have been prompted, by the Holy Spirit I believe, to focus on the fruit of the Spirit, which Galatians 5:22-23 list as love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

Love. What a monumental topic! How can we even begin to fathom the wondrous love of God toward us? I know that I neither appreciate God's love enough nor do I love Him or others how I ought. Yet in spite of this, He loves me. Wow.

Or what of joy and peace? These incredible gifts that believers have been given (yet often fail to walk in) couldn't be fully described by mere words. Patience, kindness, and goodness--how these would change the world if applied by everyone. Finally, what a depth of riches in the virtues of faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. So much could be written about all these that I didn't know where to begin and so didn't write this for awhile, but have decided to offer a few non-comprehensive notes:

1. We are emotional beings.

Often I think of emotions as somewhat bad things: sometimes as if I have no control over them, but other times perhaps as a part of my sinful nature that must be crushed and not allowed to reign. And yet, while we are indeed called to be sober and exercise self control, shouldn't we have abounding love and overflowing joy? And who would want only partial peace instead of peace that surpasses all understanding? We are emotional beings, and this is a gift.

The fact is that God, who has described Himself as having emotion, has created us in His image. Emotions are good, though if ruled by sinful flesh, will make a mess. The key is to have our emotions controlled by the Spirit. Fear of God (which the Spirit gives believers) is proper and healthy, but fear of man (which is natural to the flesh) is destructive, and no fun. Seeking happiness via ungodly means is sinful, but happiness itself is good and to be desired. We have a bright eternal future to look forward to and a God who controls everything! Do we live like it? So get control of yourself and be happy. :-) (I need this reminder often.)

2. We are called to a higher standard, independent of circumstances.

If circumstances are bad, I naturally tend towards worry, selfishness, and negative emotions. On the other hand, when great things happen, I find it easy to be joyful. It is human nature to let emotions follow circumstances. But it's not biblical. Christians are to rejoice always. We are not only to love when we feel like it, but at all times. So when someone is mean or you must disagree with someone, be kind and loving, and from the heart. If you feel inadequate or face persecution, you can still have peace and joy. Although there is a time to weep, I think the vast majority of our negative emotions are totally unnecessary.

I think most everyone can realize how fantastic it would be to always have the fruit of the Spirit perfectly. If I think back in my life and think of the things I regret, I realize that those things were often done in anger, selfishness, pride, or similar, while the things I'd readily do again were in times of being more fully yielded to the Spirit's control. So if this is obviously good, why is it so hard? It is because we are fallen people, living in a fallen world, with an enemy who seeks to ruin us. But remember, Christ is greater. We can do all things through Him.

3. We are able to cultivate the fruit of the Spirit.

Here are a few ideas:

• By obedience to Holy Spirit. When he convicts, yield; don't fight.
• By reading God's word.
• By praying. Ask Him for these. He is generous.
• By watching and simply being conscious of what's going on in our minds.
• By filling our minds with good things.

A couple comments on those last two:

I remember that years and years ago some of my siblings and I formed a club called the Fruit of the Spirit Club, or FoSC (or was it FotSC?) for short. We would sing the song listing the fruit of the Spirit and discuss them. Although we were only kids, just being aware of them and trying to implement them brought change: I think I was happier. We reminded each other of them and sought opportunities to implement them. And others definitely noticed and commended us. We weren't perfect of course, but simply thinking about them and seeking them definitely did change us. I wish we'd kept the club alive. The point: watching ourselves is important.

Similarly, just as feeding our bodies well or poorly will influence our health, so feeding our minds good things will yield positive results in our hearts, emotions, and actions. To this end I'd encourage carefulness in how much and what news, TV, social media, and books you consume; also, don't let the negative influence or others affect you; instead let your Spirit-led emotions be contagious to those around you.

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. (Philippians 4:8)

Is the Patent System Biblical?

Photo from here.

In the U.S. patent system, when someone comes up with an invention, they may file for a patent. If a patent is granted, the civil government gives the inventor the right to a monopoly on the production of their idea for twenty years. If someone infringes on the patent, the inventor can sue them. That's not too precise, but you get the idea.

Those in favor of the patent system say that inventors need to protect their ideas (what they call "intellectual property") from other people who could steal them. Additionally, they say that patents encourage innovation.

Before I address the patent system, let me note that the Bible is clear: people do have property rights, and stealing is wrong. It also shows that when thieves steal, there should be restitution.

However, I do not believe the patent system is biblical. Why? That's what I discuss below:

First and foremost, nobody can own an idea in the sense that they have exclusive rights to it. God may give someone a great idea and even if they share it with everyone, they still possess the idea; they've not lost it. If they instead keep the idea secret, it's entirely possible that someone else could come up with the same idea.

This brings an interesting scenario: Let's say a guy called Fenton comes up with an idea for a new mousetrap. He starts selling them. Imagine that a few days later, a fellow named Chet independently comes up with the exact same idea and starts selling the mousetraps too. Has Chet stolen anything? Obviously not.

What if Chet saw one of Fenton's mousetraps and then started producing them: Is that stealing? Nope, it's good business. If an entrepreneur sees that there's a demand for a product and the current suppliers of that product aren't producing enough, are expensive, or have a product that could be improved, that simply means there's a good opportunity. If the entrepreneur acts on the opportunity, there will be competition between him and the original producers, but that's good: It causes suppliers to work hard to improve, which benefits consumers.

A few other questions and notes:

• Why 20 years? That's arbitrary.
• Who decides how novel something needs to be? That's arbitrary.
• Why does the patent system constantly change? (Because it's arbitrary.)
• Why can patents be issued (usually years after an application) and then rescinded?
• Why is it that someone will not be granted a patent if they make their idea public before filing?
• Patents are expensive.
• Patent litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and usually favors the rich, from what I've heard.
• The vast majority of products that are patented do not bring in enough profit to justify the patent monetarily.
• Being the first to market is in itself a huge benefit.
• Patents suppress innovation because they leave landmines for competitors who would otherwise improve a product.
• Patent attorneys typically sell via fear: "Protect your idea from being stolen."
• From what I have heard, the majority of inventors do not have favorable experiences with the patent system. For example: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

If an inventor brings a product to market without a patent:

1. They encourage biblical freedom, not government tyranny.
2. They gain a first to market advantage.
3. They save money.
4. They save time.
5. They benefit others and encourage innovation.

What about licensing? (This is when someone with an idea doesn't want to bring a product to market but instead partners with a company by "giving" them the right to produce a product in exchange for some of the profits.) My answer: If someone has a great idea, they could seek a trustworthy partner/company and sign an agreement stating that the company will reward the inventor if the company acts on the idea presented by the inventor. This is the same thing that happens in a typical licensing agreement, except that no patent is necessary.

Final thoughts: Patents are sought in the hopes of financial benefits. But this is done by suppressing competition. It's like pushing others down in order to keep yourself ahead. A much more positive way for an inventor to be benefited financially is to seek to improve himself. Following God's law is always best. Praise be to His Name!