The Eatless Diet

I weighed in this morning at 226lbs. 2 months ago I weighed in at 247lbs. I still have about 10 lbs to go but I credit my success so far to what I call the "Eatless diet".

The idea is simple - I simply EAT LESS. There are a few simple principles to the Eatless Diet that I would like to share.

1. I eat too much.

I realized I was eating about twice as much as I needed to. In our world of fast food, high fat, high sugar, foods, our bodies really need much less food than we are giving them. As I started out on the Eatless Diet, I simply used the "Rule of 1/2". The beauty of the rule of half is its simplicity. I simply took what I would normally have eaten, cut it in half, and ate that instead. There is logic behind it but one doesn't even need to know it in order for the "Rule of 1/2" to work. For those who won't take my word for it - here's the logic behind it.

The Rule of 1/2

I used an online calorie calculator based on my age, weight, height and exercise level (of course I lied and said "moderate" level of exercise when the truth is really "low"). The calculator said I need about 3100 calories to maintain my current weight (which was 247). I figure I was eating about 3100 - 3800 calories a day (depending on the day) because I certainly wasn't losing weight. I had heard somewhere that a pound is approximately 3000 calories so I figured if I cut my current intake in half that would be about 1900 calories a day which would mean I would lose about .36 lbs a day or 2.5 lbs a week. 8 weeks and 20 lbs later I'd say this logic was pretty spot on. (For those of you who don't know me and are envisioning a short portly gentleman, I'm 6'4" and moderately muscular so my target weight is about 215-220).

Quick Note - I didn't count calories. That takes too long and is too much work for me. I don't have the calories of everything memorized and I don't plan on carrying a calorie/points calculator everywhere I go. It was just a general rule. If I would normally eat 2 sandwiches for lunch, I just ate 1. If I would normally eat one giant hamburger, I ate half of a giant hamburger. If I'd normally get a 12 inch Subway meatball sandwich, I got a 6 inch instead.

2. Hunger does not = death.

Not in upper middle class suburban America anyway. When you eat too much it is like a drug addiction. When you stop, there are withdrawal pains. The withdrawal pain that comes with eating like a normal person is hunger. Before I started the "Eatless Diet" I thought hunger was about the worst thing that could happen to me. This was a psychological barrier that I had to overcome. When I eat half of what I used to, I'm going to get hungry. This is not the end of the world. I'm not going to die from 1-2 hours of hunger between meals. I don't need to try to eat extra at the next meal in order to escape the clutches of the hunger monster. I had to learn to deal with a little bit of hunger like I would deal with a paper cut or a headache. You just deal with it.

8 weeks in, I can promise that a 1900 calorie diet will not kill a person (adjust proportionately to height and weight and the same is true). In fact, I actually started feeling better. I wasn't sluggish after meals, I didn't wake up in the morning with an upset stomach because of my still un-digested food from the night before, and I slept better. After a while, I didn't get as hungry. My body started getting used to the change in amount of food and stopped freaking out on me.

3. Weigh every day

I want to lose weight not gain weight. I also don't like surprises. I realize there are some programs out there that tell you to only weigh once a week - that doesn't work for me. For me, out of site is out of mind and that equals me getting fat. I weigh every morning and celebrate every .36lbs I lose (with a flex in the mirror). I would suggest weighing in the morning before you eat and after you do your "business in the bathroom". I find that this is when I am at my lightest because I haven't eaten anything in 8 - 13 hours and so I don't have any food in my stomach weighing me down. I also like to go to the bathroom first so there is no food in my bowels weighing me down. This gives me a good baseline to judge from day to day. If I weigh after a meal or in the evening, I'm likely to weigh 1-2 lbs more.

Also, I don't expect the decrease to be consistent every day. I may go a day flat and then be down almost a pound the next day. I may go up 1/2 lb one day and down a pound the next (net 1/2 lb down). The point though is that if I go 2-3 days without going down at all (or if I go up) then I'm probably eating too much or cheating and I need to get serious.

I also heard on the Biggest Loser that if you eat too little, you will lose weight slower. I guess that's why Weight Watchers wants you to eat to the "top of your points". The thing about it is that eating too little is not really a problem for me. My problem is eating too much so I don't really worry too much about this. Plus, I think if I stick to the rule of 1/2, then I'll be OK.

That's really all I've done. 3 step process, no meetings, no calculators, no calorie counting, no all meat, no all veggies, no weird stuff that's hard to remember. There is a part two to the "Eatless Diet". It comes when you've been doing it for a while and have lost some weight and your body starts to get comfortable with the new level of eating. This is where I am now. The problem I am having now is the "Rule of 1/2" is difficult because my habits have changed and I have a hard time remembering what I used to eat in order to cut it in half.

More on Part 2 later. I still have some things I have to work out on it.

PS - the Infomercial and Book are in the works.

Married with Singles

I've been pretty swamped at work lately so I haven't had a chance to blog as much as I would like. I wanted to give a quick informational update on the goings on.

The church has called me to be a singles intern under Randy Beggs and Joe Patton. My duties will be to basically function as the interim singles minister, under Randy and Joe's supervision. Randy will still be the singles minister but since he is the interim high school minister, the majority of the singles duties will fall on me.

The duties basically include making sure events are planned and communicated to the group, contacting visitors during the week, teaching the ABF, taking roll in class and being the go to guy when people have questions. Randy and Joe want to make sure that there is strong leadership in place while Randy is working with the high school ministry.

I have to say that I'm very excited about the opportunity. It feels like Christmas eve. For those who have eyes to see, God is doing some awesome things at Cottonwood Creek.

I think the biggest challenge that I observe, from my admittedly limited viewpoint, are subtle areas where the "church" gets in the way of the gospel. Luckily, God is the one who is working, our challenge is to stay out of the way!

I have also been in contact with Jon Wood and we are planning to have a Bible Basics/Faith 101 class starting in the fall that I will teach. This class would be during the 11:00 ABF time slot. I'm really excited about this class and I feel that there is a great need for this in the church. It will NOT be "Christianity for dummies".

The fundamentals of the faith will be taught, with the assumption that the class members are intelligent - competent people, even though they may or may not have a lot of biblical knowledge or background. The class will be for ANYONE but will be especially focused on new Christians/new church members, or people who have been in church a long time but want to get a grounded understanding of what the Gospel is - so they can better understand and appreciate their time in church and their study in the future.

The content emphasis will be on teaching the story of God in the bible, what the Gospel is, as well as how we can feed ourselves with God's word.

The class will probably run 10 - 12 weeks and be repeated each semester. Those who go through the class would then move on to find an ABF. I also think it's a great way to channel newcomers to the church into a place where they can be welcomed and taught while they get comfortable and aware of all the church has to offer.

I am also tentatively planning to teach the LDS Truth & Recovery class again in the fall (still working out the details on this). This would be an extended version of the spring class and would probably go somewhere between 8 - 10 weeks. Based on the turnout to the previous class, I think the focus of the class will change a little bit. The primary focus of the actual class will be teaching/awareness with an emphasis on evangelism - as opposed to fellowship/support. Hopefully, the class will also help those in transition come out of the woodwork and provide opportunities for fellowship/support which would take place in a separate (though related) home group.

It's all alot to think about, but the beauty of the LDS group is that once the lessons are planned and the powerpoints are done (hopefully I'll get them all done before the class starts), the actual class requires very little time outside of actually teaching it.

The same goes for the Faith 101 class. This semester will be tough, but once the lessons are prepared, repeat teaching the course will be alot easier.

Please note also that these are not official announcements. Except for the singles ministry, the other two classes are "in the works". Though they are likely, they are not official - yet.

That's all I got!

CMP

PS. If you know singles 1 type people (unmarried/18-early 30s), send them to Merge on Thursday night at 7:30 in the atrium at Cottonwood Creek. It's legit.

Quick Correction

In an earlier post on James, I stated that he was a fisherman by trade. This may not have been the case. James - brother of John was a fisherman. James - brother of Jesus was ??? I don't know. I like to think he was an accountant. - Just kidding. If someone knows what he was before he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, please let me know.

Water! Water!

I am listening to a DTS podcast about bible translation and I had an interesting side thought. The podcasters were discussing the challenges of bible translation and the different ways the bible can be translated.

One of the challenges that comes up is that "literal" words/phrases don't mean the same thing in different languages. The challenge of the translator is to decide whether they should translate the "literal word" or the "literal meaning" (From Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to English or other modern languages). I see merit to both. Here's the example I thought of from my foreign language experience.

In the Mexican Spanish that I learned while in California, the people use an expression which means "Watch out!" or "Be careful!" . They say "Agua! Agua!". The literal word translation of this is "Water! Water!". As you can see, this creates a challenge for a translator. Say I was a UN translator and one of the Mexican representatives used the term "Agua! Agua!". It would be silly for me to say "Water! Water!" into the microphone for the English speaking representative to hear. They would have no idea what the Mexican rep was talking about. I would justifiably translate this as "Watch out!" or "Be careful!".

When we talk about bible translation however, this becomes more complicated and this is where the audience/purpose of translation becomes important. As a serious student (albeit lay student) of the bible, I want to know what the actual words are. This will require some further research on my part, language study, commentary study, etc. to understand what the meaning of the text is. I would like a translation that says "Water! Water!".

However - the regular reader, the young person, the new Christian, or the non-believer might not benefit from that kind of translation. They probably want a translation that says "Watch out!" because they don't intend to take the time to research the language. Actually - I would also like this kind of translation (in addition to the other), to use as a casual reading bible or to use in conjuction with the word for word during more serious study.

There are dangers to both as well. In a purely word for word (ex. interlinear and to some extent the NASB), some of the "meaning" could be lost because the words don't make as much sense in English.

The opposite danger that I see is that in an effort to help the words and phrases "make sense", the translator may take too much liberty or may allow their personal theology to skew the translation. In other words, while some interpretation must be done - too much interpretation could also cause the "meaning" to be distorted. Alot of good translations will help this issue by including footnotes that give the actual greek word when they have "interpreted" it to be something else.

Also, the KJV creates special issues because although it falls a little closer to the "word for word" end of the spectrum, it is Hebrew/Greek to Old English. Therefore you have the special challenge of making sure the translation from the Greek is correct, and then you (the reader) have the challenge of translating Old English to Modern English (in your brain) to understand the meaning.

And for those of you who didn't know this; the modern translations are not translations from the KJV into Modern English. They are from the most original and/or most abundant (different discussion) Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic transcripts.

Conclusion - Agua! Agua! and don't assume that your "phrase for phrase" translation is "literal" and also don't pretend that you understand all of your "word for word" translation's expressions. Don't be too lazy to consult a "word for word" and don't be to proud to consult a "phrase for phrase". The good news is that there are abundant resources available (language study, commentaries, different translations, etc.) to help us get to the bottom of what the text says and what the text means.

Happy reading.

Religion & Magic

I am reading a book called "Early Mormonism and the Magical Worldview" (written by a BYU professor who is now a former BYU professor because of the book). I am only 3/4 through the introduction but it is already very interesting.

The author makes the point that magic and religion are very similar. The difference is that society has deemed magic as "bad" and religion as "good/virtuous". They both use ritual, words, signs, actions, etc. to achieve certain results.

I agree with the author that religion and magic are fundamentally the same. This comparison reveals a lot about the author's worldview resulting from his LDS background. It is also an example of why I am no longer LDS nor do I consider myself "religious".

In a magical worldview (this is describing the occult and NOT the optical illusions of modern day magicians) a person attempts to manipulate his surroundings (both visible and invisible) by appealing to some kind of natural order through ritual, incantations, proper behaviors, sacred objects, etc. This manipulation is to achieve a result desired by the person whether that be health, wealth, wisdom, defeat of an enemy, finding treasure, telling the future, etc.

In a religious worldview, a person uses similar manipulations such as ritual, incantations (liturgy or prayers), proper behaviors (morality), sacred objects (cups, temples, altars, oil), etc. to attempt to achieve a desired result. The result desired may be similar to those described above, or it may simply be "heaven" or a kind of "paradise". The main difference I see between magic and religion, is that while the occult may be trying to manipulate nature or the unseen world, the religious try to manipulate God to achieve their desired result.

In religion, God becomes the means to an end. This is true, in some way or another, of all major "religions" (Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism). About Mormonism specifically (since the author's background is what sparked this blog post), the manipulation plays out something like this.

In Mormonism, God is the means to the end of man's exaltation (godhood). We bind God through the performance of ritual (ordinances), proper behaviors (works/obedience), sacred objects (garments/temples/seer stones), etc. and he must therefore bless us in this life and grant us exaltation in the life to come. "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise" (rough quote D&C 82). This runs parallel to the magical idea that if a person says the incantation correctly, is a virgin, and does the ritual dance correctly, then "nature" or whatever power they appeal to, will be compelled to grant their demands.

The idea that God is a means to an end is further evidenced by the statement I have heard many times (and made myself) that "If all we are doing in heaven is singing praise to God I think that will get pretty boring. God is not that selfish that he would want us to spend eternity singing his praises." Also the idea that "Even if I'm not in the celestial kingdom with God, I'll be comfortable wherever I am." In both ideas, God is not what is desired - rather the person desires comfort or godhood.

Christian denominations are not immune to this kind of "religious" thinking. There are many in Baptist, Methodist, and non-denominational churches who obey God, "get saved", attend church, etc. because they are seeking their heavenly reward - whatever they envision that reward to be (this usually involves a mansion of some sort and eternal comfort - possibly playing a harp on a cloud). Or, they are simply trying to avoid their understanding of hell (small houses, fire, and eternal discomfort - also, no harps).

This is why true Christianity is different from every major religion. Christianity is not a religion, it is just the reality of what God is doing in the universe and what our role is in that reality. The Christian does not seek to manipulate God in order to receive a desired outcome. For a true Christian, God IS the treasure we seek (mansion or no mansion). When God is the treasure you seek, then hell becomes anywhere that you are separate from God. God's purpose is not to be the means by which we can move on to bigger and better things (our own godhood). There is nothing bigger and better than He is (X infinity). His purpose is the glory of His name by reconciling the world to himself through the saving work of Jesus Christ. God is bound by nothing and can not be manipulated. The good that He bestows upon us is because of His grace and mercy - not because we have bound Him by our obedience, ritual, etc.

Much more could be said about this. Suffice it to say that the magical/religious and the Christian paradigms are fundamentally different and have a profound effect on how we view ourselves, God, our purpose, God's purpose, morality, obedience, heaven and the meaning of life.

I'm interested to see what else the former BYU professor has to say on magic.

A quick note

In my last blog post I made a statement about "legalism" and that it requires extreme theological liberties and the creation of extreme practices. My friend Stephan S. pointed out that this was a very bold statement and that I didn't do a very good job of explaining this point (neither what I mean by "legalism" nor why it requires extreme theological liberties).


I agree with Stephan that it was a bold statement and that it was insufficiently explained. I hope to blog about that specific point in the near future. For now, I just want it to be known that although I still believe that the statement is true, I recognize my explainations of that specific point were inadequate.

It's good to have friends who can keep you "in check".

I also wanted to note that when I make generalizations and refer to "the Mormon" or "Mormons" I do so recognizing that not all Mormons believe the same things. I am speaking to my understanding of Mormon beliefs based on my experience in the church and based on the doctrine of the LDS church. I believe that generalizations are important and that they get a bad wrap in our day and age. Generalizations are things that are "generally" true. Obviously there are always exceptions.

CMP

Baptism for the Dead - some thoughts

Legalism and Baptism for the Dead

The problem of legalism is that in order to follow it out to its logical conclusion, one has to take extreme theological liberties and create extreme practices in order to come to any kind of internal comfort level with its demands. Examples of these in the Mormon Church include post-mortem proselytizing, proxy ordinances, and hierarchy of sin. All such attempts to fit legalism into a quasi-Christian religious framework demonstrate a misunderstanding of both the nature of God (holiness) and the nature of man (depravity). They also serve to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the life and mission of Jesus Christ.

1. The first paradigm problem is that Mormons (especially Joseph Smith) tend to bring their theology to the Bible, instead of taking their theology from the Bible. The Mormon has decided that in order for God to be “just” that every single person on the earth must have the opportunity to hear and accept the “gospel”. This understanding applies to God’s Justice the human idea of “fairness”. Not only must every person have the opportunity to hear and accept the “gospel”, but in order for God to be “just”, they must also have the opportunity to meet the legal requirements of salvation, specifically the “ordinances of the gospel” which include baptism, “confirmation”, the endowment, and “eternal marriage”.

2. The second paradigm problem is the idea of legal requirements and the two-way nature of the new covenant. Mormons believe that the statement by Jesus - “unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he can not inherit the kingdom of God” is a literal, unbending, legal requirement of every person who will go to the Celestial Kingdom (heaven), which must be satisfied apart from grace. The Mormon has no concept of “imputed” righteousness. To a Mormon, righteousness must be earned by obedience to all the commandments of God in order for a person to return to God in the Celestial Kingdom.

These two paradigms combine to create the necessity for the doctrines of post-mortem proselytizing and proxy ordinances in the Mormon theological framework.

Mormons believe that when we die there is a “spirit world” which is divided into two places – Spirit Prison and Spirit Paradise. Those who have died without accepting the “gospel” will go to Spirit Prison and missionaries from Spirit Paradise will go and preach the “gospel” to the spirits in prison. In this way, every person will have the opportunity to hear the “gospel” (gospel is in quotations because by “gospel” the Mormon means the teachings of the Mormon Church). According to Mormon doctrine, death does not relieve the person/spirit of the legal requirements of salvation; therefore the ordinances must be performed by the living on behalf of the dead. These ordinances are performed in the Mormon temples, and the dead person will then have the chance to accept or reject the ordinances performed.

As is the case with most errant teaching, the problems with the Mormon framework are two fold – Logic and the Bible.

Justice

God’s justice from a biblical perspective is not the same as the human idea of “fairness”. The biblical idea of God’s justice is that we are all accountable, offensive, and condemned before God based on our actions. God’s justice requires the punishment of those offenses which is described in the Bible as God’s wrath. Paul makes it clear in Romans 1 -3 (as well as other places) that all men are under sin, justice, and wrath. All means ALL, as what can be known about God is visible in creation.

Logic also tells me that if God is infinitely holy, then my sin is infinitely offensive to his nature (the idea of “infinite” excludes the ability to create a hierarchy of sin relating to justification). Logic also tells me that if I have infinitely offended an infinitely holy God, I am deserving of infinite wrath in order for the demands of His infinite justice to be satisfied. In order to deny this, a person must make God less than infinitely holy and thereby make our sin less than infinitely offensive to His nature. This brings God down and brings us up.

In Romans 2, Paul discusses how a person is held accountable for the amount of knowledge which they have. Those under the law will be accountable for the law. Those not under the law, will be accountable for that which God has revealed to them. A Mormon tends to think that this somehow gives a pass to those who have lived without the law (commandments) thus creating an opportunity for them in the spirit world. The purpose of the illustration however, is not to give a pass to some because of ignorance, rather to show that ALL are accountable, offensive, and condemned based on whatever level of knowledge they have.

God is under no obligation to extend the same mercy, opportunity, “chance” to every person. God is under no obligation to show mercy to any. Paul anticipates and speaks directly to the error of attaching the human idea of “fairness” to the idea of God’s justice.

See Romans 9:14-23

Scripture is clear that we do not get to apply our idea of “fairness” to God’s justice, nor do we get to dictate the terms of His mercy. This is a very difficult thing for people to understand. It requires us to leave our pre-conceived notions of what it means for God to be “loving” and “just”.

Two-Way Covenants?

Mormons believe that the covenant that is made between us and God is a two way promise whereby we keep our end of the deal (obedience to the law/commandments) and God will keep His. To a Mormon, baptism is one of the main and major acts which we must perform in order to keep our end of the covenant. This requirement must be satisfied, whether in this world or the next.

The problem is that if this is the requirement for the covenant to remain valid, then obtaining of God’s promises is a logical impossibility. No one keeps “their end” of the covenant. Logic tells me that if the validity of the covenant is dependent upon my obedience, then the covenant was, is, and will always (in the future) be broken.

The bible is also clear that the new covenant is dependent on one thing, God and His grace through Jesus Christ. His promises to us are what we depend on, not our promises to Him – because He is faithful, even when we are not. If the new covenant is like a marriage covenant, surely our role is the adulterous bride.

See Hebrews 8:8-13 for a description of what the New Covenant is really about. Awesome!

Righteousness Imputed

Jesus did for us what we could not do for ourselves. He didn’t only die for us; he lived a perfect life for us. He satisfied the demands of the law both by absorbing its punishment and by meeting its requirement of perfection. This includes baptism.

Christ was baptized to “fulfill all righteousness”. What does this mean in relation to the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead? It means that the legal requirement that Mormons are trying to satisfy for the dead has already been satisfied by Jesus Christ. When we come to Christ in faith, we “put on Christ” (Gal 3:27). This is the idea of being clothed in Christ. I have heard it described as “When God looks at us, He sees Jesus.” I like to think of it in a court room setting at our judgment. It goes something like this.

When I stand before the throne of judgment, Jesus is my defense lawyer. When the list of requirements is brought out and my life is compared, it is not my righteousness that will be judged, it is Christ’s. When the question is asked - Did you keep the law of chastity? The answer will be from Jesus “No, but I did – and he is in me.” Did you murder or have anger in your heart? “Yes, but I didn’t – and he is clothed with me.” Did you love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength? “No, but I did – and he is covered in my blood.”

Were you baptized as was commanded? “No, but I WAS – and he IS MINE!”

It is interesting that Mormons are very intent on proxy. They have no problem accepting that Jesus suffered for our sins by proxy. Why then do men have to be proxy for the dead if Jesus has already “fulfilled all righteousness” for us by proxy? If he died “once for all” why can’t he be baptized “once for all”? It is my belief that he has.

Of course we who have been saved follow the example of Jesus Christ in baptism. We try to follow the example of Jesus in all things. We are compelled to, by the change that has occurred in our heart and because we are a new creation. But baptism, just like all other legal requirements, was fulfilled on our behalf by Jesus Christ. That is why “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 8:1)

Imputed Righteousness is not the only way Jesus saves us. He also pays the penalty for our sin. If the charge is brought against us and the sentence is read “The defendant is found guilty, the sentence is death.” – He can answer “I’ve already suffered the penalty, and he is IN ME!” No matter how you slice it – he’s got us covered.

This is why the hypothetical situation of a person being saved but not being baptized is a non-issue. Just like in all other commandments - for those who are in Christ – Jesus says “I got that.”

Speak to what you Know

A friend of mine sent me a link to a round-table discussion between 4 people with different religious viewpoints. One of speakers was a woman who was an ex-prostitute and who's ministry was to prostitutes. Jesus saved her out of the deception and darkness of prostitution and into the light of his truth. She now spends her time trying to share that truth with prostitutes. That is what she knows.

CS Lewis was an atheist. Jesus saved him out of the deception and darkness of atheism. Much of his ministry and writing was directed at explaining Jesus to atheists. That is what he knew.

Tommy Nelson used to be a college athlete. He was chasing fulfillment in the things of this world - money, fame, entertainment, etc. Often in his ministry, he speaks to this and how Jesus saved him out of it. He spends his time trying to lead people out of a shallow worldly existence and into the fullness that comes with a relationship with Jesus Christ. That is what he knows.

There are leaders of Celebrate Recovery and other similar programs all over the nation who were deceived by the darkness of drugs and alcohol. Jesus saved them from that life. They now spend their time sharing the truth and saving power of Jesus with people who are involved in drugs and alcohol. That is what they know.

A lot of my posts on this blog relate to Mormonism. Mormon's like to say that "You can leave the church, but you can't leave it alone." They intend to imply that because ex-Mormon Christians tend to direct their ministry towards Mormon's, that this somehow validates the LDS beliefs and claim to be the only "true" church.

Just as with the prostitute, the atheist, the suburban world seeker, and the alcoholic; when Jesus saves people from darkness, he often puts it in their heart to love and minister to people who are in the same darkness. It is what we know. This desire comes from the love that Jesus has put in us.

Yes, part of this ministry involves tearing some things down. Not people, but ideas. The idea that prostitution is the only possible life must be torn down. The idea that there is no God must be torn down. The false promises of worldliness must be torn down. The lie that substances are needed for happiness must be torn down. Not out of hate, but out of love for the people.

Just like the woman's ministry comes from a love for prostitutes and a desire to see them saved, CS Lewis's ministry comes from a love for atheists and a desire to see them saved, Recovery leaders ministry comes from a love for the drug addict and a desire to see them saved - my purpose comes from a love for the Mormon people and a desire to see them saved.

Saved from a life of trying to earn what has already been purchased. Saved from the burden of unattainable, un-biblical expectations. Saved to the freedom that is in Jesus Christ. Saved to an assurance of our place with God. Saved from an obedience of fear of damnation to an obedience of faith and gratitude because Jesus paid it all. Saved to unmerited joy and peace.

What kind of crappy Christian would I be, if I didn't speak to the people who I know and love about the truth that God has shown me?

James and Grace

I just wanted to add a quick note so as not to come across as a heretic.

After sleeping on it, I was reading through James 2 again and I noticed vs. 10-13.

"12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty."

Also, James does not say that you are justified by works "of the Law".

In vs. 10 he says "For whoever keps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it."

-

The examples James gives of works are not "works of the Law" but simply action out of faith. (Abraham sacrificing his son, and Rahab receiving messengers and letting them out the back door.)

OK. So it would appear that James understands that the Law condemns us and that saving faith produces actions. What I have a hard time with is vs. 21 - 24

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he..." and "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

But Paul says "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." RMNS 11:6

Remember Paul was a Pharisee, so I assume he understands the arguement of works based righteousness, though he certainly doesn't agree with it.

It seems clear to me that Paul's understanding and arguement is both clear and logical. Grace and works are mutually exclusive. It is either a "free gift" or "wages". It can't be both.

Did James just have poor word choice? He was a fisherman by trade, not a scholar. Is he describing the "sanctification" process? Can the greek word James used which is translated "justified" (δικαιόω) be interpreted as "a process of perfecting" as in sanctification in this context and as "justfication" in Pauls context (ex. Galatians 2:15-21).

Is James simply saying that saving faith is faith that produces fruit or is James blurring the lines between justification and progressive sanctification?

The question remains, but I just wanted to make it clear that I have considered alternatives and am not completely throwing James under the proverbial bus.

Was James a Judaizer?

About this topic, I have no answers, only questions right now.

I've always struggled with James 2 and how it seems to directly contradict what Paul teaches. I've heard a number of different explanations and some that I think have alot of merit.

Here's my issue.

Galatians 2 11-14
When certain men came from who? James. Peter stopped eating with gentiles and moved to the "Jew" side of the table if you will. Why does Paul include that they came from James? Did he (James) send them to make sure Peter was still "acting a Jew"? Or was he just warning them about the circumcision party?

Acts 15:19-21
In the council James says basically "OK, we won't make the gentiles get circumcised, but they still have to not eat foods polluted by idols, strangled, or blood - and no sexual immorality. And what's verse 21 about? It would seem that James is having a hard time letting go of the law of Moses.

James 2
James specifically says that you are justified by faith and works.

Am I missing something? It almost sounds like Paul is specifically defending the Gospel he received directly from the mouth of Jesus against the kind of things James says.

Was James a judaizer?

I'm not saying he wasn't an apostle and I'm not saying we can't rely on his epistle as the word of God. I'm just saying...

I'll work on it some more. Any input?

Name of the Blog

I just wanted to drop a quick note on the name of the blog. "Eyes of My heart" comes from Ephesians 1:18

"...17that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints..."

I've spent some time over the weekend listening to the testimonies of others who God has brought out of darkness and into truth and the story is almost always exactly the same. Somehow, someway, at sometime, God enlightened the eyes of the heart of the person and showed them the hope and the inheritance to which they have been called. Those who share their testimonies describe it as scales falling from eyes, light going on in the head, blinders being taken off, eyes of the heart being opened, and many other ways - but the result is always the same. God, in His infinite grace and mercy, pulls us out of the darkness and into the light. He lets us see the truth that we simply could not see on our own, no matter how many times we had looked at it in His word before, we had never SEEN it. How great is our God!

The point of this blog is not to tear down, make fun, disrespect, or harm in any way.

The point of my blog is to share the things that I have seen after God enlightened the eyes of my heart so that others may have the eyes of their hearts opened and know the hope and inheritance that God has offered us through His son Jesus Christ - to the end that His glorious name be praised.

The Point of the Gospel

This is the pastor of the Village church that Aly and I used to go to. Matt Chandler has a very special place in my heart because he has helped me to understand the true point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ time and time again. Here's an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zR3h2UsR4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edesiringgod%2Eorg%2FBlog%2F1720%5FThe%5FPoint%5Fof%5Fthe%5FGospel%5FJesus%5FWants%5Fthe%5FRose%2F&feature=player_embedded

Answers to some questions

This is an email conversation that I had with my Mom a few months ago. I was thinking about it today and decided I'd share it on the blog. Please understand that I was trying to answer Mom's questions in a basic way that would be clear to a person from an LDS background and not creating a scholarly work on the topics discussed (so forgive some of the generalizations). See below

Mom wrote:

Chris - I am teaching my study group class on Thurs. and the topic is other religions. I am trying to cram in teaching on Zoastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all in 1 1/2 hours so I don't have much time for each subject but I did have some questions come up about your religion as I was studying, that I was hoping you could answer.#1 - When Mr. Clayton goes to his seminary college does he study with men that are preparing to be ministers (or preachers) in many different religions or faiths or are they all going to end up preaching in the same church (baptist, methodist, etc.)#2 - When you call yourself a Christian what exactly do you mean? Is Christianity to you a religion ( a specific set of beliefs about God, Jesus, the gospel, how to organize a church) or is it more general that that? Do you feel that you are Christian along with the Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.. because you all believe in Jesus Christ or are you Christian with only non-denominational christian churches? These questions may not make a lot of sense to you because of my terminology but I hope you understand what I mean. Thanks for you help. Mom

I replied:

Greater Christianity, generally, does not have the same view of doctrinal dogma that the LDS church does. When I was LDS, I thought that every church had a specific set of dogma's that they believed were "true", down to the smallest detail of how everything was done (like the LDS church and to some degree the catholic church). To join a church meant to subscribe to all of the dogma's of that church.

I use the word "dogma" to mean a set of doctrines authoritatively laid down by the leaders of the church, like in the LDS church. "Dogma's" in this sense are not up for discussion (ie when the president of the church says "this is true" you either accept or reject, there is no discussion)

The Christian churches (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Non-Denominational) are almost all in complete agreement on the basics. Each church will have a faith statement of some kind that outlines what they believe and most of these faith statements (or declarations) are almost all the same (not word for word, but generally the same doctrines).

1. Belief in the Trinity. God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one being in three persons. (not just one in purpose)
2. Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ.
3. Bible is the word of God (most - 99% believe that it is "inerrant" or in other words that though certain words here and there may have been changed in translation or over time, God has preserved the important and necessary doctrines in the Bible so that it can be relied upon as the only guide necessary for Christian living and salvation.)
4. Jesus Christ as the Son of God, begotten but not created (Jesus was God from the beginning).
5. Man's ultimate purpose is to bring Glory to God.
6. God's ultimate purpose is to bring Himself glory (or the Glory of His name).

When a Christian (most protestants and some catholics), talks about the "church", they view this as all Christians everywhere of every denomination, as long as they believe in the basic orthodox Christian beliefs. I won't go into too much detail because I could go on forever on how the different denominations are the same and how they are different. Suffice it to say, that they are much more alike than they are different, and they would probably all agree that they are different enough from the Mormon church so as to require a different description. In other words, when they refer to the "church" as Christianity in general, most Christian churches of all denominations would not include the LDS church. This is not intended as an insult by Christians, but more as a description.

Basically, on all the things that the Christian churches would consider most important (the things that they generally all agree on), the LDS church believes differently.

1. Nature of God (Trinity vs. Three separate beings)
2. Nature of Jesus (God in the Flesh, God from eternity past to eternity future vs. a spirit child of God who became part the Godhead, but was not originally)
3. Means of Salvation (saved by Grace through Faith vs. saved by faith through obedience).
4. Role of Bible (Inerrant scripture as described above vs. lacking "plain and precious" things and in need of correction - ie. JST).
5. Man's Purpose (To glorify and worship God vs. to become Gods ourselves ).
6. God's Ultimate Purpose (To bring himself Glory vs. to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man")

As far as your specific questions go.
1. Clayton's college is a Baptist college. This means that it is run by Baptists, affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, and the theology is generally taught from a Baptist perspective. The students and teachers, however, do not necessarily have to be Baptist. Most however would go on to work with either Baptist or Non-denominational churches.

Different churches have different standards for their pastors/preachers. To be a Lutheran preacher for example (Missouri Synod), you have to go to one of the Concordia universities and get a masters degree. So I would say that usually, you go to a school sponsored or run by the same faith that you want to preach in. Non-denominational churches would probably have the least strict standards (education requirements) for their pastors.

Non-denominational churches are usually run with a baptist style (kind of), but the distinguishing factor in non-denominational churches (that I have seen) is that they try to stay away from non-biblical traditions of the other denominations. In other words, if there are rules, standards of dress, operational traditions, traditional styles of music, that are not from the bible, non-denominational churches tend to avoid or even condemn some of them. They generally try to let the bible define their faith and practice instead of making up their faith and practice and calling it biblical. A better way to say it is that they condemn taking things that aren't biblical and saying "this is how you have to do it". For instance, they don't condemn people wearing suits to church, they only condemn when people say "you have to wear a suit to church as a sign of respect". They don't condemn people not drinking alcohol, they only condemn when people say "no Christian should drink alcohol".

They are generally resistant to the word "religion" because it is associated with the idea of "dogma's" that I described earlier. A lot of the people who go to Non-denominational churches are either defectors from other churches who thought their church took non-biblical traditions too far, or people who haven't ever been to church before and don't like the stigma's attached to "church people" so the unorthodox style appeals to them. There are alot of "over-churched" and "un-churched" people. The non-denominational churches that I know of would call themselves biblically conservative or strict, but culturally liberal.

2. I believe that I am Christian with all those who believe in Jesus Christ. This also means that they understand Jesus Christ as I (and other Christians) understand Him as God in the flesh. If a person believes that Jesus Christ is an old man down the street, they may say they "believe in Jesus Christ" but it is not the same thing. Muslims believe in "Jesus Christ" but only regard him as a prophet and not God in the flesh. In some ways "Christianity" is very specific (who God is, how we are saved, what our overall purpose is, what scripture is.) but in some ways it is much more general.

There are other points of doctrine that Christians differ on (ex. pre-destination, role of baptism, gifts of the spirit, how the Holy Ghost manifests, angels, who can take communion, etc.) Your Articles of Faith are basically addressing some of these issues of interdenominational differences that have risen in the last few hundred years (JS coming down on one side of the argument or the other). The majority of Christians would agree that these issues are secondary to the main beliefs and the differences can usually be reduced to minor semantic differences or differences on practice but not necessarily doctrine.

I, and I think most Christians from most denominations, would consider themselves "citizens in the Kingdom of God" through their faith in Jesus Christ. For example, I was talking to a Lutheran pastor the other day and he refered to Baptists as "my brothers and sisters in Christ from the Baptist church". CS Lewis (Anglican) refers to it as a big house with alot of rooms (the rooms being the different denominations). I would say that most Christians look at it this way. I would also look at it like being an American (which goes with the citizen in the kingdom idea). Americans from New York, Georgia, Texas, Minnesota, and California are often pretty different (accents, hobbies, political ideas) but have much more in common with each other than they do with someone from China, Chile, Germany or Spain, and they would all agree that they are united by a common citizenship and national identity. Same thing with the Christian denominations.

Following this analogy, most Christians would think of the LDS as like Canada or England. We speak the same language for the most part, have alot of the same traditions and practices, but its just not the same country. Hope that helps. Maybe it was more than you were looking for.

Next time I'll have to call you because it take me forever to write about this when I get going.

Chris

Some Comments on Mormonism

I posted this originally as a comment following a long discussion by others on Mormonism. I felt it was worthwhile to repost it here. Please note that this by no means represents my entire testimony, as I was posting a comment on another blog, I had to sacrifice much to brevity.

The post:

I know that i'm johnny come lately to the conversation but I felt moved to share my short testimony at the end of this discussion/debate.

I was a member of the LDS church for 22 years. I come from a line of LDS back to one of the wives of Joseph Smith. I was baptized at 8 years old. I was a Deacon, Teacher, Priest, and Elder. I went through 4 years of seminary. I served an "honorable" mission in the Carlsbad California mission. I was a temple worker in the Dallas temple. My wife and I were endowed and "sealed" in the Dallas temple. I was active and in good standing with the church until the day that I submitted my resignation.

I know Brandon and Jenny. They have a very special place in my heart because their life and ministry, and others as well (Clayton and Stephan who have also posted here), that God used to begin to take the scales from my eyes to help me see the truth.Jesus is the Christ, God in the flesh, who came and absorbed the wrath of God for my sin. It is by grace that I have been saved, through faith in the real and true Jesus Christ. The God and the Jesus that is taught and believed on in the LDS church is not the God of the bible, it is not the real God of the heavens and the Jesus who walked the earth. It is a God created by Joseph Smith.

I have prayed the prayer in Moroni many times, but it was only when I opened my heart and was willing to accept that the answer might be "NO!" that God answered my prayer.

God does answer our prayers and He will lead us to truth. However, we know from the bible that some will be deceived. When we rely solely on "personal revelation", emotional or spiritual experiences, in order to discern the truth of God, we leave ourselves open to deception.

1 John 4 " 1.Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God...6. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

There is a spirit of error. It is the one that leads people astray to believe in the Book of Mormon as the word of God and in Joseph Smith as a prophet. He also says that 'We (the original apostles) are of God' and that by comparing the spirit of error to the teachings of the apostles (which are recorded in the bible) we may know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error.

Galatians 1 " 6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

The LDS "gospel", which was brought by "angels" (Moroni) and a "spirit" (the visions and revelations of Joseph Smith), is different than the one that was preached by the apostles of the bible. The LDS "gospel" has perverted (as the above scripture says) the most plain, basic, and precious parts of the Gospel preached by the early apostles and recorded in the bible, namely who God is, who Jesus is, who we are, and how we return to God. It has removed those who are in the LDS church from "him that called you into the grace of Christ". If Satan can keep people doing "good works" or bearing some "fruit", and blind them to the truth of the true Gospel of the real Jesus, he has done his job well.

I am eternally grateful to my sovereign God for opening my mind and my heart, for tearing down the walls that 22 years of following a spirit of error had built up, for taking the scales from my eyes so I could see clearly, and for calling me into the grace of Christ - it is beautiful and sweet.

I invite all my LDS friends and family, to leave the shackles of deception in the LDS church, and embrace completely the freedom and joy of the real good news of the Gospel - That Jesus is God in the flesh, that the commandments are given so that we might have knowledge of our sin, and it is by grace that you are saved.

For anyone who wants to discuss further, please please please email me. chrismpray@gmail.com. For those in the DFW area, I would be happy to discuss face to face; lets get some coffee and talk (just kidding - you can drink hot chocolate) Please.

I will also be leading an LDS recovery group beginning on April 19th in Allen, TX. Please come, send your friends, send the missionaries, send anyone, come to my house, come to the group, anything. I promise it will be respectful (no "bible bashing") Email me for more details.

Grace and Peace to you.

and thank you Brandon and Jenny, for your life and ministry, I owe you more than you know (and the glory be to God).

How to Teach?

I have been preparing for lessons this week for the adult Sunday school class as well as the singles bible study. The greatest challenge that I'm running into is that as I am preparing, thoughts come into my mind that I want to convey to the group. I have been writing the thoughts down as they come, but the problem I am running into is that there are too many. It's like I want to transfer all of the cool things I have learned about the Gospel in one sitting in a 1 hour time frame and it's just impossible.

It's hard for me to accept that there are things that will have to go unsaid. I think of Paul talking to the Corinthians and saying that he decided to preach nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified. How simple but how profound! The more I think of it, all of the cool things I have learned about the Gospel have their beginning and end in this one person and event.

I think about the pastors and teachers that I appreciate the most. As I think about it, they don't try to go full speed ahead, blowing through scripture at the speed of light. They tend to take one point from a passage and drive it home, always bringing it full circle to God reconciling us to Himself through the life and mission of Jesus Christ.

I am also discovering the value of preparing prayerfully. The Holy Spirit has to direct me to the things that need to be said. If I just rely on myself, I'm sure to screw it up. I'm sure I've said that before, but now I actually believe it.

Earning Damnation

In a men's bible study last week, someone posed the question "Can we earn damnation?" His answer to this question was "No." His rational was that IF grace through faith - THEN salvation, then the negative must also be true, IF not grace through faith - THEN damnation.

My response to his question would be both yes and no. I agree with him in the sense that we are all born fallen. Hypothetically, even if a person were to live a legally perfect life, their nature would still be fallen and they would still need redemption. In other words, because of the fall, no matter how "perfect" you live, you still need Jesus. (RMNS Ch. 5)

I also disagree with him though, because this hypothetical situation, in which a person lives a perfect life but still needs redemption because of his fallen nature, is impossible. Because it is impossible, the philosophical proposition might not be very useful. I believe that we not only CAN earn damnation, but that every single person on the earth DOES earn damnation.

If we abandon this idea, I think that the biblical process of God reconciling us to Himself suffers. For example, in Romans, Paul paints a picture of condemnation preceding justification. "The wage of sin is death." The knowledge that our sins (not just our sin nature) are worthy of God's wrath is necessary for a proper understanding of our need for a savior. To say that we do not "earn" damnation, is to minimize our role in our own condemnation. Understanding that I am responsible for my own condemnation due to my sinfulness, puts the amazing grace of the cross in proper perspective. (RMNS Ch 1-3 among others)

Therefore, while from the perspective of a purely logical function, to answer "Yes" to the question "Can we earn damnation?" might imply that there is an alternative to "earning" damnation (in other words that there is something that we might do or not do in order to avoid earning damnation) - which would be false; from a practical perspective (and a biblical perspective), I believe that we are to think of our damnation (if not for Jesus) as a product of our own sinfulness and disobedience.

If you can present to me a person who has lived a life free of offence to God, and therefore must be condemned only on the basis of his fallen state, then I may re-think the "practicality" of my position. Even Billy Graham and Mother Teresa, if they get what they deserve, get hell.

We are condemned because we deserve it; we are saved by grace through faith.