get your education

Moved to http://bbtheorypractice.blogspot.com/.

covenant and promise

Yesterday's post on the form of a Biblical covenant has a lot in common with a Biblical promise in the New Testament.

The promises are given unconditionally by a sovereign to his subjects.

The mediator of the promises is the Holy Spirit.

The promises have blessings contingent on the believer's faith or acceptance.

The curse for unbelief is not receiving the promised results.

The sacrifice was Jesus' death.

The sign is Love.

Form of the Covenant in the Bible

The word covenant appears throughout the Old Testament. God appears to have made covenants with the following individuals: Adam, Noah, Abraham, 4.Isaac, 5.Jacob (called Israel), Moses, 7.David, and 8.Solomon.

Putting all the images together, we see the following characteristics in the form of the covenant:

Unilateral: Sovereign to Subjects
Given through a Mediator
List of Responsibilities
List of Blessings for Obedience
List of Curses for Disobedience
Sealed by a Sacrifice
Remembered by Signs

The New Testament Covenant has the same form, but is spiritual, in our hearts.

premarital/marital counseling

I read Everett Eggerichs' book when contemplating premarital counseling, Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs.

It is not a premarital book, per se, but it is an excellent companion to
Why Marriages Succeed or Fail: And How You Can Make Yours Last by John Gottman. Gottman's book is from the perspective of a psychologist and is good at describing the things that successful couples do and the things that unsuccessful couples do, in marriage.

Gottman's book is only a little prescriptive, because he is attempting to be philosophically neutral. His intended audience is mainstream people and psychological researchers.

Eggerichs, on the other hand, writes from an evangelical Christian point of view, starting with scripture and declaring how to behave in marriage in light of Gottman's results.

Both are 5-star selections.

baptism: spiritual; indwelling, filling

Baptism is a one-time kind of thing. In John 3, Jesus talks about being born of water, and being born of the Spirit. There are two baptisms that symbolize becoming a Christian, the baptism of water, and the baptism of the Spirit. The Spirit's baptism is also known as regeneration, i.e., the moment we receive the new nature, the spiritual nature, from God.

"Indwelling" is another word for "being lived in." That is the normal state of a Christian, someone whom Christ's spirit lives in.

"Being filled" refers to us as vessels. Sometimes, we we are more full than other times. Paul describes how to be filled with the spirit in Ephesians 5. It involves four parts:

1. Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
2. singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
3. Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
4. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Ephesians is full of things we put off (habits from the old nature) and things we put on (i.e., the new nature's habits). To be spirit-filled is to live a life engaged in these new habits to the exclusion of those old habits.

faith and health

Life goes on. I was putting in a new circuit for a rental house we own and had the electrical panel off so I could run the wire. I took the two screws out and stuck them in my mouth, because I was late for church (Wednesday PM) and I was teaching the Bible study, so I was in a rush. Next thing I knew, my mother-in-law came around the corner (she lives in that house) and started asking me questions in Chinese.

I tired to answer her, but couldn't talk well with the screws in my mouth. Anyway, I satisfied her, got the wires connected, and put the covers back on. But . . . No screws! I looked all over, and finally, concluded that I had swallowed them.

I went to church and taught the lesson but told the people to pray for the safe passage of the screws to their ultimate destination.

More than ten days passed, but the screws didn't. :) I started having indigestion and feeling something was "in my craw."

Finally, I went to the doctor. He made X-rays. They showed no screws, but they didn't image near my prostate, so they could be headed out. He prescribed some expensive antacid ($83.00) and I went home, expecting to be rid of the screws, shortly.

Unfortunately, they didn't come out. I finally went to my mother-in-law's, again and started searching for the screws. I took the covers off, and found both of them, thrown into the far dark recesses of the panel.

I felt stupid and that I had wasted a doctor visit and $83.00, but began thinking about something I have always kind of believed, about faith and healing. I had demonstrated clearly that what I believed could make me sick; what was to stop me from believing that what I believed could work towards my healing, just as well?

I have had prostate cancer for 8 years, now. So far, I have had confidence that the prayers of the people I talk to, plus the vitamins, herbs, and changed diet, make a difference. They have.

When I chose my treatment path (i.e., no conventional treatment), my family and friends, after discussing PCa with their medical friends/practitioners, were genuinely concerned that I had chosen a death sentence rather than treatment. That was 8 years ago.

I tried to get them to come up with some reports showing that there was a difference in outcomes based upon treatment (including watchful waiting). No one could find such information. I did refer them to the side effects associated with each treatment.

The bottom line: Ten year survival rate (whatever that means) is the same, but quality of life differs drastically between treatment vs. non-(conventional)-treatment. And most of the suffering comes from iatrogenic causes, i.e., the cure is often worse than the disease.


In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. -- Proverbs 3:6

Time Alone

Have you ever felt the need to be alone? I have. To not talk? Me, too.

peripheral vision

Moved to: http://bbtheorypractice.blogspot.com/

child discipline

We went to a Memorial Day gathering with several Chinese friends and had dumplings. Very good! One of the ladies wanted to know when to begin disciplining children.

"When you know they know what "No!" means."

Ultimately, we want to raise children who are able to copy Jesus' words and say, "Not my will, but Thy will be done" to the Heavenly Father.

If they haven't learned to say it to their earthly father, how can we expect them to say it to God?

Discipline trains children like the Law trains Christians. When they are older, their character will have been shaped the way a Christian's heart gets shaped by the Law. Then, as mature people, that Law written on their hearts constrains their behavior from the inside, out.

Preaching in the Chinese Church

When preaching in the Chinese Church, I generally make slides that contain both English and Chinese versions of my outline.

Since I can read very few Chinese characters, producing these slides takes a lot of time. Since I am frequently making them the day before preaching, I don't have time to get them proofread before displaying them on the overhead projector as I preach.

I use Babelfish to help me make the translations. First, I type in my English phrase, then have it converted to Chinese. Then I copy the Chinese phrase that is generated, and paste it back into the input of the translator, and have it translate that phrase into English.

If I get out the same English I began with, I paste that Chinese into the PowerPoint slide I am making. This procedure gives surprisingly good results.

I found out a weakness one time when I accidentally typed the homonym of the word I thought I was using, principal for principle. What I typed in was what was returned by Babelfish, so I used the phrase. Unfortunately, the Chinese phrase that was produced was nonsense!

The person who was translating my sermon into Chinese asked me to explain in different words, and, as I did, he smiled a big smile and told the congregation what I should have said.

It all works out for good!

Self Control

Moved to: http://bbtheorypractice.blogspot.com/

Coaching Basketball

Moved to: http://bbtheorypractice.blogspot.com/

Algorithm proof by mathematical induction.

In analysis of algorithms, we learned a technique similar to mathmatical induction whereby the algorithm is shown that if it is true for case N, it is true for case N+1. Then, it is shown to be true for some specific case.

There is a weakness in this method. Because computer programs are supposed to have a start and stop case and not be running infinitely, these cases must also be examined, individually, so, in addition to the proof in the first paragraph, we must also demonstrate that the algorithm handles the first case and the last case.

There is another special case that messes up many computer programmers: the zeroth case, i.e., the case where there are no records to process. Many programmers assume there will be an input, so their programs do stupid things, such as initialize counters at 1, rather than initializing at zero and allowing an increment only when the input actually happens.

Time

I have most of my good thoughts in the shower. After toweling dry, I frequently forget what I thought. Today, however, I remember, and the topic was good enough to blog about.

It is about time. No, I mean, it is about the topic, Time.

In the Bible we learn that before Time began, God already was. And we also learn that, "Time shall be no more."

This means that time has a beginning, and time will have an end.

In science, we typically assume that time extends from minus infinity to plus infinity, i.e., it has no beginning and no end. But the Bible says God has that attribute, not time.

This means that some of our scientific thinking needs to be challenged, especially those things with a time component.

Take "C" for instance. C is supposedly a constant, the speed of light in a vacuum. But C is given in terms of time, e.g., meters per second or miles per hour.

The next major paradigm shift in science will come when it is recognized that time is not a continuous function. E = mC^2 will need to be changed to E = mC(t)^2, where C(t) is a function/variable, depending on time, and not a constant.

If time is not a continuous function (because it doesn't go to minus infinity and doesn't go to plus infinity), many formulae will need to be reconsidered. Many things that depend on rates will need to be reevaluated. For example, take radioactive decay. What happens if we try to extrapolate a time line based upon an "inifinite time" assumption vs a "beginning/ending time" assumption?

Then, I got out of the shower.

Evolution and Intelligent Design are not Science

I hit upon a site discussing Intelligent Design (I.D.) at http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/ms/512#ID and found the following:

From Oklahoma 02/10/2006:
"I don't believe anyone says you can't choose to believe in I.D., however that's not really the point. I.D. doesn't belong in the science classroom because it is quite simply inconsistent with the scientific method - it is not 'falsifyable', and therefore it is NOT 'science'. "

I replied that if that statement is true, then so is this one:
"I don't believe anyone says you can't choose to believe in Evolution, however that's not really the point. Evolution doesn't belong in the science classroom because it is quite simply inconsistent with the scientific method - it is not 'falsifyable', and therefore it is NOT 'science'. "

The problem with origins is that there must be a first. By definition, the first is unique. The scientific method requires experiments that can reproduce a desired result. A unique event can't be reproduced, and is, therefore, outside the realm of science.

Get Evolution and Intelligent Design out of the science classroom and put them in Philosophy or Religion where they belong.

Presuppositions Color Conclusions

presuppositions: interaction on a usenet group at Mississippi State.

<>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, JPL wrote:

> WRONG! That is the typical cheap shot taken by a theist who either
> (a) does not understand the meaning of the word "atheist" or (b) is being
> purposefully deceitful. The word "atheist" means one who is without
> theistic belief. All children, e.g., are atheists until they are brainwashed
> by their parents into thinking there is a god or gods. There is a small,
> very small, part of atheism called "positive atheism"which asserts there
> is no god. To lump all atheists into that is a cheap shot.
> Everyone is either theist or atheist. There is no middle ground, e.g,
> there is no agnostic safe median between the two. If you believe in
> god(s) then you are a theist. If you lack that belief then you are an
> a-theist.

As you said, WRONG!!! We could go on, "IS," "NOT", "IS," "NOT," like a couple of kids. And we might both be right, but in our own frame of reference, but we can't both be right, absolutely.

Deductive argument works like this:

If something can be put into the following form (modus ponens), it is valid because of the form (i.e., formal logic).

<>Major Premise (General Rule)
Minor Premise (Particular)
__________________________
Therefore, Conclusion (Q.E.D.)
<>
Example:
<>All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
-----------------------
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Q.E.D.)

If the major premise is true and the minor premise is true, then it necessarily follows (from the form of the deductive argument) that the conclusion is true.

The problem is that our major premises are not always explicitly stated, and they, like the one in the example, may not be provable. I.e., can you prove that all men are mortal? (Hint: some people are still alive.)

Except for tautologies (e.g., X is X) which are true by definition, major premises can't be proved to be true.

Major premises are normally really a chain of assumptions, and the most basic ones are not stated, but assumed to be true. There are some things that are commonly accepted as true (the all-men-everywhere-believe things). The problem is that we can't really test all men everywhere.

People can communicate when they share the same basic assumptions, i.e., their world-and-life view (weltanschauung). When people come to different conclusions about the meaning of the facts, it is not generally because they are examining different particulars (minor premises), but because they have differences in what they believe to be true about the world and life, i.e., their logical framework (their major premises).

<>As I said, major premises cannot be proved; they are just accepted as true. If they are not, in fact, true, then conclusions derived from them may not be true. In logic, both the major premise and the minor premise must be true for the conclusion to be necessarily true. That is how two rational people, both looking at the same facts, come to different conclusions, and how we get into IS/NOT shouting matches.

Note that weltanschauungs cannot be proved. You have one; I have one; everyone has one. They consist of beliefs about reality, i.e., they are belief systems. The religious word for belief systems is "faith."

It is not just "mindless fundamentalists" that use faith; all people do, even those with great minds. Most people do not, however, openly state their beliefs. The assume everybody has the same basic presuppositions that they do.

I will tell you mine. I start with the joint presupposition that there is a God, and the bible is his revelation.

You may agree with me about one or both of those presuppositons, but if you agree with me about both of them, then you and I must come to the same conclusion about the definition of atheist.

[Webster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist&x=0&y=0)
BTW, agrees with me, demonstrating that the point is arguable, even without this discussion of biblical presuppositions. ]

Romans 1:18 - 23 (Weymouth translation) says:

For God's anger is being revealed from Heaven against all impiety and against the iniquity of men who through iniquity suppress the truth. God is angry: because what may be known about Him is plain to their inmost consciousness; for He Himself has made it plain to them. For, from the very creation of the world, His invisible perfections--namely His eternal power and divine nature--have been rendered intelligible and clearly visible by His works, so that these men are without excuse. For when they had come to know God, they did not give Him glory as God nor render Him thanks, but they became absorbed in useless discussions, and their senseless minds were darkened. While boasting of their wisdom they became utter fools, and, instead of worshipping the imperishable God, they worshipped images resembling perishable man or resembling birds or beasts or reptiles.

Therefore, an atheist is a person who denies the truth that he knows: God has made himself known to him and he refuses to acknowledge it. (Q.E.D.)

In order to discount my argument, you have to disprove my major premise, i.e., you must be able to prove that there is no God, or that the bible is not his revelation.

The minor premise is just a statement of what is in the revelation, and I have either stated it correctly, or not (which is verifiable). (I used copy and paste. :))

An apologist (Clark Pinnock) has stated that the heart cannot accept what the mind rejects as false. Christians are not mindless; they are just honest about their human inability to know things outside the realm of scientific investigation without revelation, and then they are submissive to what the revelation contains, when they accept it as being from God.

They use their minds to be convinced by logical proofs that their assumptions are well-founded. For example, the bible is not normally accepted blindly, but by a confidence that has been built up over time. When what it states about historical situations can be verified by other historical sources and archeology, for example, it gives confidence that it is also true in areas that cannot be independently verified.

What we have is two competing frameworks based upon two different world views. Whoever has the correct presuppositions is right. (It might be neither of us.) I cannot prove mine, but I accept them. Can you prove yours? They have to be different from mine because we have looked at the same minor premises, but reach different conclusions.

-Bill

> > By the way, I do believe in unicorns.

Because the bible mentions them. It is the only way for me to be consistent with my presuppositions.

> Once you convince someone of the existence of a mystical grand poopah
> in the sky, you can convince them of anything. I wonder if there is a
> strong correlation between xian beliefs and other gullibilities, such as
> reading tea leaves....or believing in unicorns, ghosts, etc.

Why we think that our God is the only true God

What about the God of the Bible?

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, a friend wrote:
> 1. Why we think that our God is the only true God ?
>
> 2. Why God create Evil in the beginning ?

Dear Friend,

The answer to your two questions gets to a philosophical issue: How do we know what is true?

Because of our nature, i.e., we are born into the world as infants, we necessarily must know truth by learning truth. There may be some things we innately know, e.g., instinct and genetic modeling, but propositional truth must be learned.

We can learn things that are true, but we can also learn things that are false, even though we think they are true. How do we discern what is true from what is false?

Ultimately, we learn things like this by induction, i.e., by experimentation, or experience. This is where the scientific method of investigation is useful. We experiment, make hypotheses, experiment more and make theories, experiment more, and call what we have learned, Laws, e.g., the Law of gravity.

Unfortunately, we sometimes find outliers or events that don't fit the paradigm or law. Sometimes we throw them out as bad experimental results, but sometimes, these lead us to greater knowledge, e.g., quantum physics as opposed to Newtonian physics.

Sometimes, there is no way to handle the non-fitting observation. People deal with this in various ways. Some throw the result out. Some say it is a miracle, and allow for one-time, unique, observations.

But, the problem is, there is no way by the scientific method of
investigation, to determine what is true in an instance such as this.

Take, for example, the virgin birth of Christ. Did it really happen?
There is a lot of evidence that it did. Can I prove that it happened? Not by the scientific method. It requires multiple occurrences of the
phenomenon in order to establish the law, but this, by definition, is a unique occurrence. It is, therefore, outside the realm of science, but that does not mean it is outside the realm of truth. It may be true. It cannot be disproved and it cannot be proved.

What that all means is there is a category of truth that is outside of
science. How can we know what is true if we cannot verify it my the scientific method? One way we learn truths like this is by the testimony of witnesses. For example, is it true that George Washington was the first president of the United States? This kind of historical question is also outside the realm of the scientific method of investigation. But we readilty accept that George Washington was the first president. The reason is that we have the evidence of witnesses, i.e., we have documents that confirm the truth of the statement.

This is a whole category of things we believe to be true, i.e., things
that are witnessed by others and reported by them to be true. Even in courtrooms, this method is used to establish what is true. A jury will listen to the testimony of witnesses and look at the physical evidence, and establish what is true.

The Bible is a book of testimonies of witnesses. But, you may be saying, even in a courtroom, some of the witnesses may be lying. How do we know that the Bible's witnesses are telling the truth? It is a good and honest question, and the answer is that you do it the same way the jury does in a courtroom. You establish the credibility of the witnesses. If the lawyer can discredit the witness, he can get the jury to disregard the testimony of that witness.

What about the people who wrote the Bible: Can they be trusted? The short answer is, Yes! Some of the apostles faced torture and death unless they recanted their stories; yet, they stood by them until death. Many of the stories presented accounts of their own weaknesses and failures, not something liars are prone to do. And many of their accounts were written while other eye-witnesses to the stories were still alive who could have come forth and contradicted the Bible accounts.

Back to our original question. How can we know what is true? If the people who wrote the Bible are telling the truth, then we can know what is true by reading the Bible.

The Bible says our God is the only true God, so that is how we know it is true. The Bible does not say why God allowed Evil, so we don't know why. That is how I answer your questions.

Your friend,
Bill

God's purpose in our lives.

The sermon at our church tonight was about finding God's purpose in our lives. It centered on the book of Ecclesiastes, where Solomon looked at the question in detail. He was rich, a king, and was known for his wisdom.

The first two parts to understanding what you are to do is to remember where you came from. God made you and has a purpose for your life. You are elect, i.e., the chosen one, and you have the power to do what He enables you to do, and nothing can keep you from doing it.

Well, nothing but our lack of knowing Him and His word. That was Solomon's answer: 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Fear God, and keep His commandments. For this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it is good, or whether evil.

Basically, we seek first God and His kingdom, and then He adds all good things to us. So be sure you are surrounded by believers, and in a church, and get them to pray for you. And don't neglect a quiet time to read the Bible and pray.

Remember that I am praying for you, too, and I know that God will not allow you to lack any important thing. And that includes your baby, too.

I understand your frustration. My first degree in Chemistry/Geology. Then, Theology. Then Computer Science. Now, what am I doing with all that? Nothing, directly. But I don't feel those degrees are wasted. God still has something for me in the future.

Right now, I will just serve Him every day and do what I can to help people.

He keeps me alive. He keeps my cancer from growing. So I just try to live for Him.

I pray the same for you.

In His Love,
Bill

Questioning Our Faith.

> 1. Most of people said that reglion just try to persuade people to be good, include christianity ?

Dear One,

The Latin word from which the word "religion" comes, means to hold in regard. Religion is something man does, because men have to regard something highly for it to meet the definition. Religions are man-made, and because of that, they do try to pursuade people to be good.

Christianity is not really a religion, because it is made by God. God does something for our benefit. God became a man and suffered and died. And the reasons for it were that we might have an abundant life, and that does something for our benefit. God became a man and suffered and died. And the reasons for it were that we might have an abundant life, and that we might have joy, and that our joy would be full. As you might understand, if we are full of joy and thankfulness to God, we will probably be better people, but that is a byproduct, and not a purpose, of our faith.

And yes, people do hold it in high regard, so some people call it a "religion," but it is very different from other religions, because it focuses on God, not on man.

> 2. People said that we do have some miracle things nowaday. Certain things can be recogized as miracle, but if people don't have that kinds of talent or skills or background, that things might not happen either. For example, certain people can find good and right job, however, some people couldn't...

This is difficult. I know someone who wants to have a baby, but has not been able to. She sees people all around having babies, even a teenager in the church, who probably didn't want to get married, had a baby. It all seems so unfair. She knows God can do a miracle and she can have a baby, even though she is too old and even though she has other medical problems. So why won't God do the miracle for her?

The only thing I can do is to look at Jesus. God could have done a miracle and kept Jesus from suffering and being put to a cruel death on the cross. But he didn't. He had a purpose that was bigger than what people could see at the time. Suffering and persevering are the ways Jesus earned our salvation. So suffering and persevering are very important things in our lives. They make us to be like Jesus. Paul says in II Corinthians that when we share in His suffering, we will also share in His comfort and glory. That is just part of the christian life. God is treating us like sons and daughters when we go through the same kinds of things Jesus did, and we are becoming like Jesus.

I hope you are comforted and encouraged by these words.

The family blogs as of June, 2003.

Emily

Jereme