Essay – Page 5 – Poetry, Short Prose and Walking

Entropy, Evolution, Devolution, Creation

Entropy

Change leads to decay which can be described as entropy. With real natural processes doing their thing, things run down. They don’t run up.

Erosion washes the landscape into the oceans. People grow old and die. Species undergo mutational meltdown leading to extinction. Even stars blow up.

The universe is overrun with death at all levels. Death through disobedience is what the fall in Genesis 3 is all about. If you want to own the universe without the Lord you will have to hold it together all by yourself. Entropy is your enemy.

Evolution

Although entropy is all around us, what we don’t see is evolution (except in the imaginations of some biologists). We don’t see stuff becoming more complex through some natural process before the real natural processes leading to entropy, decay and death expose the fictitious ones as fantasies.

We don’t see pond scum turn into fish, dogs or dragons. Various kinds of living creatures do go extinct because they suffer genetic entropy which leads to mutational meltdown. Dinosaurs (better known in the past as “dragons”) simply died off. They did not evolve into chickens or tooth fairies. They went extinct and some of them left their remains as fossils. Indeed, some of those fossils still contain soft tissue showing that all of this happened not very long ago giving evolutionary magic no time at all to work.

In a similar way we don’t see stars form out of gas clouds (except in the imaginations of some astronomers). They do blow up. Entropy is real; evolution is not.

Devolution

If evolution didn’t happen, what about devolution, the flip side of evolution? If there are no natural processes for evolution (except in the imaginations of evolutionists), then there would be no mechanisms for devolution either. Things just run down, decay, blow up, erode or die. They don’t devolve.

We don’t see dinosaurs turn into pond scum. Pond scum, already present, might eat a dead dinosaur, but dinosaurs don’t devolve into pond scum. Dragons (aka “dinosaurs”) simply died off. They did not transition into an evolutionary biologist’s tooth fairy.

Creation

We do see the effects of creation. We see stars. We see the world around us. We experience ourselves. How do we know the world was “created”? God told us so in Genesis 1.

Someone might ask, “Are you asking me to believe the Bible?”

Sure. Why not? It is the best explanation for what we see around us and why we are here. It is more plausible than the pseudoscientific magic tricks offered in its place to waste our lives.

Conclusion

If you’re an atheist thinking you can overcome entropy, then get off your butt and do so. Stars are exploding all over the universe. What are you waiting for? Species have or will undergo mutational meltdown. Follow the serpent’s lead and hold this universe together all by yourself.

Or, smarten up. Realize that the Lord loves you, even you. He wants none to perish. Stop wasting your life on fantasies.

If you’re a Christian with a pastor, with a Bible school teacher or with a seminary professor promoting the pseudoscience of people like Hugh Ross or the big bang idolatry of people like William Lane Craig, find a real church. Find a real Bible school. Find a real seminary. God has a plan for your life. Follow His lead, not the lead of rebellious men.

If you’re into New Age spirituality, how has that sentimental nonsense been treating you? Gaia does not exist. Neither does the tooth fairy. The devil, on the other hand, does. The only thing the devil wants to do is to get you to waste (that is, abort) your own life. This present life is shorter than you think. Only the real thing, only Jesus, is worth your attention. He won’t lead you astray. Thank Him. Praise Him. You will never be the same again.

No matter who you are, make sure you are on board before the last days end and the Lord shuts the door.

The Speed of Light, Simultaneity and Genesis

Jason Lisle made some amazing predictions about the data that would come back from the James Webb Space Telescope.

On January 21, 2022, he made his predictions less than a month after the mission launched on December 25, 2021. In July the results began coming in. On September 9, 2022, he announced that his predictions were confirmed.

Essentially, he predicted that there would be more galaxies at further redshifts than anticipated. He predicted that the composition of the stars would contain heavier elements than expected. He also predicted that scientists would claim that stellar evolution went further into the past than they previously thought.

Lisle’s predictions were not randomly contrary to what many scientists expected to see. They were grounded on Hans Reichenbach’s conventionality of simultaneity thesis for relativity theory and Genesis 1.

Reichenbach’s thesis claimed that the constant speed of light posited by relativity theory was best represented by the two-way speed of light, not its one-way speed. No one can measure the one-way speed of light given relativity since two clocks can’t be kept synchronized when one of them moves away from the other. However, the two-way, round-trip speed of light could be measured with a single clock and a mirror.

It is that round-trip speed, the only measurable speed, that is the constant called the speed of light. That means that the speed of light going to the mirror does not have to be the speed of light coming back. So, for example, the speed of light going from the earth to a galaxy 13.8 billion round-trip light years away from the earth could go at half the round-trip speed on the way out taking 27.6 billion years to get there, but come back almost instantly on the return trip. The total distance traveled would be the distance to the galaxy (13.8 billion light years taking 27.6 billion years) plus the distance back (13.8 billion light years taking 0 years) for a total of 27.6 billion light years travelled in 27.6 billion years.

Because of Reichenbach’s thesis what we see in those space telescopes may be happening right now, not billions of years ago. From relativity theory alone, properly using the round-trip speed of light, one cannot tell.

If light from those distant galaxies arrived on Earth almost instantaneously then what we would be seeing would be how those galaxies actually look today. Such galaxies would not be expected to show any hypothesized stellar evolution and, indeed, they don’t. Their light shows heavier elements than lithium, significantly oxygen which with hydrogen are the elements of the water molecule (see Genesis 1:2, 6-8). Their size is too large and orderly. They are too close to that God-surrogate, the big bang.

But if the speed of light incoming from space were nearly instantaneous that would mean that the Earth is very, very, very, very special.

I have wondered if one could save the big bang by acknowledging as nearly instantaneous the speed of the incoming light to the earth. All of that hypothesized stellar evolution would no longer have to be there. However, that would likely be too much for secularists (or even Christians trapped by the charm of the big bang’s unbiblical beginning) to pay. They would no longer be able to assert how old the universe was. They would no longer be able to say that the Earth is just some insignificant blue dot lost in space. Rather they would be admitting that such light were specifically aimed toward the earth. And although it might save the big bang in the eyes of its followers it would demote it to an unfalsifiable, pseudo-scientific myth. So, I guess that wouldn’t save it after all.

Jason Lisle could make his predictions with confidence not only because he accepted Reichenbach’s conventionality of simultaneity thesis, but also because Genesis 1:14-19 told him that the heavens were set there “to give light upon the earth”. And, as soon as God spoke the heavens into existence, “it was so”. When the heavenly lights reached the earth, they did what they were told to do that very day, that very moment, nearly instantaneously.

Genesis 1:14-19 KJV
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Genesis 1:2, 6-8 KJV
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
…
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The Liar: Paradox or Deception

In the 19th century logicians simulated, and thereby simplified, the real world understanding of truth by assigning true/false (one/zero) values to logical connectives in truth tables. Although this was ingenious, the ancient liar paradox remained to haunt the simulation.

The liar paradox gets started by assuming the existence of a Liar who always lies. It immediately reaches its punchline by having that Liar assert as true: This statement is false.

What was forgotten in modern attempts to sanitize the liar was that a truth table only discerns between true and false, one and zero, not between truth and lie. The real world ethical understanding of truth gets covered by a coat of white paint in modern logic. Even in the ancient paradox, the ethical problem got a white-wash as well because a real world deceiver is worse than this hypothetical Liar. A real world deceiver is even more deceptive because he doesn’t always lie.

There’s an older story than the Greek one about the Liar. In Genesis 3, we read about the first deception with death being its real world consequence.

There are many today who see themselves as too “rational” to believe that the deception and fall as mentioned in Genesis 3 actually happened. I suspect that their belief in modern rationality has led them to prefer reality white-washed into truth tables containing only ones and zeros. With a truth table it is easy to forget that a falsehood is the word of a lying deceiver. Speaking such deception is an act of evil, not just a zero in a computer program.

A solution to the Liar paradox would be to reject the Liar without taking seriously anything he had to say. This is what people do in the real world. When they hear lies, they reject the liars. They don’t fret about the English language’s ability to express garbage. People are free to lie. The structure of language itself doesn’t stop them.

If falsehood is a lying deception, what then is truth? The truth has been white-washed as well. We find it easier today to think of truth as an “it”. But if one wants to recover the real world significance of falsehood as deception, as I do, then truth would have to be ethical as well.

Only a living person can be ethical. Only an ethical person can show others through His true words the way to life. Such a Person could be seen as being the truth.

It’s Not Just Dinosaurs Anymore

I was aware that soft tissue had been found in dinosaur fossils.

What I didn’t realize until watching this 11 minute video is that soft tissue has now been found all over the fossil record including tissue from a worm that allegedly lived over half a billion years ago.

What can I conclude from this?

Well, for one thing, when I told my aunt decades ago that chickens came from dinosaurs, I was wrong. The only things that come from dinosaurs are more dinosaurs.

Another conclusion I can safely make is that the earth isn’t anywhere near as old as “scientists” claim it to be.

The Trinity and First Order Logic with Identity

In Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought Vern Poythress attempted to write a textbook on western logic from a Christian perspective. Although he discussed other logics, his main focus was on justifying first order logic with identity (FOL⁼) as a platonic reflection of “God’s logic” and, because of that, personal and loving.

This reflection bridges the Creator-creature distinction. However, when he sets up this reflection between FOL⁼ and “God’s logic” he assumes that FOL⁼ is not just another example of man’s desire for autonomy from God. This is where he makes a mistake.

To see why this characterization of FOL⁼ is problematic, consider that Poythress would not want to describe the Tower of Babel as a reflection of “God’s tower”. Because the Tower of Babel is an example of man’s desire for autonomy from God, it should not reflect anything from God.

Poythress knows that almost no one, Christian and non-Christian alike, thinks FOL⁼ is personal in any way. To counter this anticipated objection, he accuses those who might reject his argument as being “massively guilty” of “idolatry”. For example, consider this comment about guilt and idolatry on page 84:

Christians too have become massively guilty by being captive to the idolatry in which logic is regarded as impersonal. Within this captivity we take for granted the benefits and beauties of rationality for which we should be filled with gratitude and praise to God.

By committing to FOL⁼ Poythress blinds himself to seeing it as another attempt by man to gain autonomy from God. Given that commitment, perhaps better described as compromise, he now has to defend FOL⁼ even when it attacks the Trinity. We will see how that attack goes next.

FOL⁼ is Non-Trinitarian

If I assume the Trinity in FOL⁼, I can derive a contradiction using rules for manipulating equality. Here is how such a proof might look:

(1) Assume the Father is God.
(2) Assume the Son is God.
(3) Assume the Father is not the Son.
(4) Derive from (2) that God is the Son using symmetry.
(5) Derive from (1) and (4) that the Father is the Son using transitivity.
(6) Derive a contradiction from (3) and (5).

Note that the above is a presuppositional argument that could be used by an atheist to undermine belief in the Trinitarian God. The atheist assumes the Trinity since it would be my admitted presupposition. Then he uses FOL⁼ to derive a contradiction. Finally, the atheist insists that I reject my belief because it is irrational.

Since FOL⁼ forces me to reject the Trinity (or else reject parts of FOL⁼ itself), I can characterize any mathematical formalization of this logic as non-Trinitarian. A non-Trinitarian logic does not “reflect” the Trinitarian God.

Poythress is aware of the contradiction, but he tries to get around it by invoking “mystery”. He writes on page 67:

The Bible also teaches that God is one God, in three persons. How do we understand how these things can be? Do these mysteries violate the laws of logic? Though there is mystery here for us as creatures, there is no mystery for God the Creator. If logic is ultimately an aspect of God’s mind; what for us is a mystery is in full harmony with the logic that is in God.

Call it what you like, a “mystery” is nothing more than a contradiction in FOL⁼. In the context of FOL⁼, the laws of logic are the laws of derivation in FOL⁼. Accepting a contradiction as true would violate the laws of FOL⁼, hence the laws of logic.

How does one get around this? Easy. Don’t take FOL⁼ so seriously. Don’t commit yourself to it the way Poythress does. Don’t think it is neutral ground upon which you can safely compromise. Recall that FOL⁼ is a work of man. It is not a work of God. It can change just as any other man-made philosophy or scientific theory can change when there is something wrong with it.

And, besides, as I will point out next, theologians seeking to rationalize the Trinity are not the only ones who have problems with FOL⁼.

There Are Alternatives to FOL⁼

CONSTRUCTIVIST LOGICS

Although FOL⁼ cannot derive the Trinity it can derive the existence of sets whose cardinalities represent ever increasing transfinite numbers. The logical rules used to derive these sets are the same as those used to reject the Trinity: (1) assume the contrary to what you want to show, (2) derive a contradiction, and (3) given that contradiction, reject the unwelcome assumption as false.

Poythress approves of these set theoretic proofs in part E2. They derive a “ladder” or sequence of sets with each set having a strictly greater infinite cardinality than the one below it. He remarks on page 630,

The ladders reflect the glory of God, who is transcendent. They reflect the original imaging and creativity in the Father eternally begetting the Son.

Rather than seeing these sets as representing an “imitative transcendence” (page 630), Poythress should have warned the reader that such derivations can also be viewed as a red flag that something is wrong with FOL⁼ especially given that FOL⁼ rejects the Trinity.

Constructivists are mathematicians who want nothing to do with these ladders. They see the red flags waving. One of the logics they have created is intuitionistic logic. This logic modifies FOL⁼ to prevent the derivation of such infinite sets.

Although constructivist logics won’t help us rationalize the Trinity they do demonstrate that FOL⁼ is not the only game in town.

QUANTUM LOGICS

FOL⁼ doesn’t handle quantum particles any better than it handles the Trinity. Absolute identity in FOL⁼ requires that we can tell the difference between individual members of a domain, the set of elements which FOL⁼ will range over.

Absolute identity is defined as A = B if and only if all properties of A are also properties of B and all properties of B are also properties of A. A and B are identical because they are indiscernible based on checking all of their properties. Such discernment can’t be done with quantum particles. To get around that some have proposed quantum logics as a modification of FOL⁼.

Although the statistical solutions quantum logics provide don’t help rationalize the Trinity they do point to absolute identity as the problem with FOL⁼ that those attempting to rationalize the Trinity have to face. They also help us see that rationalizing physical reality in FOL⁼ is as problematic as rationalizing the Trinity.

RELATIVE IDENTITY LOGICS

P.T. Geach offered relative identity as an alternative to absolute identity to correct the problem of the falsification of the Trinity in FOL⁼.

Daniel Molto, who continues Geach’s work in support of the consistency of the doctrine of the Trinity, drew the following conclusion in “Relativizing identity” (page 9):

Most actual languages can express no universally reﬂexive relation that satisﬁes the Indiscernibility of Identity without contradiction.

We now have the possibility of a logic that can rationalize the Trinity. This blocks the atheist’s objection to Christianity.

Taking FOL⁼ Too Seriously

One of the dangers of taking FOL⁼ too seriously is that it leads people to think it holds the essence of intelligence. Proof assistants mechanize the search for and validation of FOL⁼ derivations. If we can mechanize the derivations of proofs and intelligence can be reduced to FOL⁼, then we should be able to mechanize intelligence. But if we were able to do that (which we are not), that would reduce us, who have been made in the image of God, to machines.

The use of the term “artificial intelligence” exposes the real “idolatry” with regard to logic that Poythress warned about. He thinks this idolatry has to do with us not seeing FOL⁼ as personal and loving. Just the opposite is the case.

FOL⁼ is an impersonal, even unintelligent, tool that can be mechanized. It gives the atheist hope that he can reduce men and women, made in the image of God, to machines. It also gives the atheist a means of expressing his autonomy from God.

Why Bother Rationalizing the Trinity?

The benefit of rationalizing the Trinity is not to learn anything about God. We already know God is Trinitarian from Scripture. The benefit comes from deflecting presuppositional arguments coming from atheists that Trinitarian theism is irrational because one can derive a contradiction from it in FOL⁼.

It also helps us see the difference that a logic offers, even one that can rationalize the Trinity, from what we have as born-again Christians. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit makes truth very personal for the Christian. Logic by itself does not. As John 14:6 reveals, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Christians after Pentecost follow a truth-filled way of life by obeying the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

Conclusion

Since FOL⁼ has decided against the Trinity, I am faced with a choice: Do I accept the Trinity or do I accept FOL⁼ which rejects the Trinity? Let me make sure my decision is clear:

I choose the Trinity over FOL⁼.

Choosing the Trinity means I will not attempt to view FOL⁼ as reflecting the Trinitarian God. It also means I need to be aware of the limitations of FOL⁼ so I am not deceived by any presuppositional argument coming from atheists.

Because I do not want to encourage fantasies that we can be reduced to machines, I will also not characterize FOL⁼ as loving or personal. I will not create an idol out of it. Atheists have done enough damage already with their promotion of “artificial intelligence”.

If you are a born again Christian, remind anyone who speaks massive guilt over you that you have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

Does the Lord Know Everything?

Hebrews 8:10-12
¹⁰For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
¹¹And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
¹²For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

For those in His new covenant, the Lord remembers our sins and our iniquities no more.

The important questions are Whom do we know? Has His laws been written in our hearts? Are they in our minds? Are we in His new covenant?

Star Formation vs Star Creation

SlimJim reviewed a book by R.J. Rushdoony, The Word of Flux, so I searched to see if Rushdoony believed in a six-day creation as reported in Genesis 1. Not only did he support it (see The Mythology of Science), but he clarified what was at stake. God performed a creative act in Genesis 1. What He did NOT do was participate in a creative process involving natural laws.

If God were merely guiding some natural processes, what were those processes? There is no point in claiming, as Alvin Plantinga has done, that God guided natural processes, if those natural processes do not exist.

In the video from Answers In Genesis below Dr. Terry Mortenson brings home the point that the problem with star formation is that there are no natural processes that permit star formation. In particular at (20:00), he quotes Neil deGrasse Tyson:

The scary part is that if none of us knew in advance that stars exist, frontline research would offer plenty of convincing reasons for why stars could never form. (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2007, p. 187)

On the other hand, the origins of stars as a creative act of God, as Rushdoony would put it, is not a problem. An act of creation (when God does it) does not require a natural process to explain it. All it requires, which is more than any atheist and even some Christians can tolerate, is accepting a Creator Who can do what He says He did in Genesis 1.

Some people I know are attracted to the creative process (rather than creative act) views of Hugh Ross. They like to think they are being “rational”. Dr. Mortenson puts a special focus on Ross (starting about 3:30) showing how he exaggerates what naturalists themselves claim they know to justify his own handwaving. If one takes being rational seriously, one would no longer trust anything someone had to say who is willing to exaggerate.

Bottom Line

If you want to accept the atheist fairy tales, the handwaving stories, that naturalists and Ross want you to believe, then you might as well give up on Christianity as many have already done as a result of such philosophical diversions.

Why? Because Jesus said “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6 and other verses).

If the fairy tales are right then Jesus got that wrong, because the beginning of Ross-style process creation happened a god-awful number of years prior to the appearance of men and women.

Now continue that deductive chain to see what else it entails.

If Jesus got something wrong, then He is not God.
If Jesus is not God, then the Trinity is false.
If the Trinity is false, then the death of Jesus could not have been the sacrifice that Christianity has made it out to be.

So, who are you going to believe?

If you are at all tempted to believe atheists because they like to portray themselves as “scientists” (more accurately, pseudo-scientists which is all one is when someone abandons operational science) consider that the earliest “historical date of any real certainty” goes back no further than 5000 years which falls in line with a global flood of about 5300 years ago.

If you are tempted to doubt that a global flood occurred, consider the signs of a global catastrophic water event: glaciers, continent wide sedimentary strata, catastrophic plate tectonics, planation surfaces.

If you are still tempted to think that naturalistic processes can pop a universe into existence, then which natural process gets us something from nothing? And which natural process takes us from pond scum to human beings before the observable natural process of genetic entropy drives humanity to extinction?

______

And if you are still tempted after that, remind the devil (for me) that he’s a doofus and soon it will all be over.

The River School of Healing

I just finished attending a two-week long session in February of the River School of Healing made available by Revival Ministries International (RMI) centered at Tampa Bay, Florida. If you are looking for a never-the-same-again transformation experience I highly recommend this.

I don’t have any life-threatening issue affecting me, but I know people who do. I wanted to know what healing meant in a biblical context. That is, I wanted to experience healing as a Christian. And I wanted to be confident I was doing the right thing should I recommend this school to my relatives and friends.

About the School

Although pre-registration is required, the sessions are free. They do accept donations to RMI during the last hour of the last day of the session, but only if the Holy Spirit tells you to do so. Participants themselves are responsible for transportation, food and lodging. A new two-week session starts every two weeks.

Being near the RMI campus there are opportunities to participate in other events such as The Stand every evening except Saturday from 7 pm to about 10:30 pm and Sunday services at The River Church. The instructors, PJ and DNA, of the healing school, led Night 1334 of The Stand.

Finally, this school of healing is NOT a medical school. If you are seeking that kind of training you will need to look elsewhere. The Bible is the only focus in the teaching and even that is from a believing, Holy Spirit led, Christian perspective.

The Two Bookends of the Session

In the classroom many Bible verses appeared on the monitors. The aim of the instructors was to revive us by getting us to receive those verses into our hearts so we could respond with our own words. This blog post is an example of such a response.

There were two verses that acted as bookends. Here is the first one:

Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.

That verse should make sense to everyone even to those reading this who aren’t smiling. So, receive it. Don’t take offense. Don’t just think, but receive. Then respond with joy coming out of your mouth. Be that person people want to be around because they know, whatever comes out of your mouth, that you don’t hate them. You might even, and probably do, love them.

The alternative is dry bones. The alternative is death.

Everyone knows this. So, why isn’t everyone merry and healthy? I don’t know of any meaningful justification for such deep rejoicing that does not involve the death and resurrection of Jesus, but no one is going to smile based merely on a theological justification for doing so. Every Christian with a frown on his face, or even a dumb stare, proves that point. They have the doctrine, that is, they have the logical propositions, but they clearly don’t have the heartfelt joy.

Nor do I know of any power whether that comes from some New Age meditation technique or some mind over matter gymnastics that opens the floodgates of rejoicing except what comes from the Holy Spirit. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus which makes you a child of God, a child of the Father, and without the power of the Holy Spirit within you there is only fake rejoicing.

We fake a merry heart through our various addictions and ideologies, but they lead to broken spirits which dry our bones. If you’re smiling right now with true joy that you can feel from your heart, treasure it as a supernatural miracle. Many have no clue what I’m talking about nor what you’re experiencing. It is the pearl without price.

Mark 16:18
…they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

This second bookend relates healing specifically to believers in Jesus. Believing Christians have the authority to lay hands on the sick in the name of Jesus with the expectation that the sick will recover.

It is important to keep in mind that this assumes those who are sick want to recover. This healing is not a magic trick nor is it a mechanical procedure. It does not go against the wills of those who are sick.

There are many people who feel so unloved that they want to die. They need to know that they are loved. There are some who don’t want to lose their disability benefits. They need to lose their fears. And there are some who just plain enjoy what they’re addicted to (sugar, porn, anger, dubious “highs”). They need to grow up.

Let’s exclude those classes of people who want to be sick (unless they choose to repent). The rest shall recover.

Testimony

When we think of healing in terms of having the authority to lay hands on someone and of recovery as a sign, testimonies become the way those signs are made known to others. So, if we’re sick and we honestly want to recover, we should be ready to give our testimonies. It is our joyful response to what we have received in our hearts.

______

And that’s it!

That’s my testimony of how my view of the world changed in two weeks at The River School of Healing. I had a sick view going in without even knowing it, but I am seeing more clearly today. Thank you, Jesus! Hallelujah!

Either Stand in the Gap or Take the Mark of the Beast

Ezekiel 22:30
And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.

Revelation 13:16-17
¹⁶And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
¹⁷And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

When I woke up this morning the dots were connected between these verses. If I’ve got this wrong let me know in the comments.

______

Those with the mark of the beast show their support of the beast when they speak or through the things they do, because through their words or actions their support is visible to all just as if it were written on their foreheads or on their outstretched right hands. Those who stand in the gap refuse through their words and actions (indeed, even their unspoken thoughts) to be an advertisement for the beast.

We have a choice: either stand in the gap or take the mark.

Although this has been going on for thousands of years, it is hard to avoid today in the market place of ideas and in the physical things we buy and sell.

We can still repent and change sides. That mark is not a permanent tattoo. Although it is visible to all, it may be difficult to discern just what one is advertising and what one needs to repent of. If anyone is in doubt about what is true, remember what Jesus said and ask the Holy Spirit for help.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

When we make sure we are standing in the gap,
we have rejected the mark.
When we reject the mark,
we become an offense which puts us in the gap.

Blessings to you!

______

Also posted on Substack.

A Remembrance, Three Recommendations and a Song

Remembrance

I just heard that Oneta Hayes, a blogger whom I have read for some years, passed away on January 4th.

May the Lord bless the entire Hayes family and all of those who knew Oneta. Thank you, Jesus, for her faithfulness and love.

Three Recommendations

Jan writing in Mercy for the Day began the story, Book of Names, with the following:

Court documents were unsealed this week. Previously unpublished names were released. Trouble is. These people want to remain anonymous.

I wasn’t sure if I missed some political event which is likely since I don’t follow politics. Then I found out the story was going way beyond politics. The released names were those missing from the Book of Life.

______

Pat Barrett’s book, Lives Forever Changed: My Spiritual Adventures With the Lord, recently became available from Barrett Publishing.

This is a book of Pat’s remembrances from 30 years of deliverance ministry written for those who would like to minister to people influenced by such darkness. It read like it could even be valuable for those suffering from such influences.

Pat told me that he was told that all we need do is get the hunger for the Lord out of our heads and into our hearts.

______

Esperanza Dia (not her real name) published a memoir of faithfulness called Twisted Sisters of Bating Hollow: From Cult to Freedom: the Story of Hope.

With names changed she tells her story of 28 years in an Anglican nunnery where manipulators gained power and took advantage of the women who gave their lives to God. This is a story of how she was set free and how she continued to love Jesus even after the experience.

She helps lead a worship service at the Upper Room in Fort Mill, SC, which we often attend on Saturday evenings.

Song

Finally, a song I heard this evening that reminds me of Oneta Hayes.