Saturday, October 24, 2026

 

Narcissism I reproved a narcissist for inappropriate touching

DETECT A MALIGNANT NARCISSIST IN 20 WAYS: 1. Power-focused → Needs dominance, not connection 2. Enjoys others’ pain → Smirks at your distress 3. Charming publicly → Cruel privately 4. No remorse → Apologies are fake or strategic 5. Vindictive → Punishes perceived slights 6. Control-driven → Needs to own people, not love them 7. Gaslighting → Rewrites reality without hesitation 8. Threatening → Uses fear to maintain compliance 9. Smear campaigns → Destroys your reputation quietly 10. Paranoid → Sees enemies everywhere 11. Exploitative → Uses people as tools 12. Boundary-violating → Feels entitled to your body, time, and mind 13. Sadistic humor → Jokes that humiliate or degrade 14. Rage episodes → Explosive when challenged 15. Manipulative intelligence → Strategic, calculated cruelty 16. Zero empathy → Mimics emotions but feels none 17. Obsessed with winning → Must dominate every interaction 18. Punishes independence → Hates when you think for yourself 19. Plays victim → After causing harm 20. Escalates abuse → Gets worse, never better


# posted by Groseys messages @ 4:29 PM
 

H B Charles on Ecclesiastes

Some parents talked to a music teacher about giving their son piano lessons. When they asked how much the piano lessons would cost, they were taken aback by the music teacher's answer. There was a rate for children receiving piano lessons for the first time. It would cost double if the child had previously received piano lessons. Assuming previous lessons were an advantage, the parents asked why they cost more. The music teacher explained that it cost more because it required him to unlearn the learned before he could learn the unlearned.
 
Solomon has an all-important lesson to teach us in Ecclesiastes. He holds this critical life-lesson until the end of the book. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 concludes: “The end of the matter, all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.”
 
To properly understand Ecclesiastes, you must read it backwards. Each passage should be considered in light of the final call to fear God and keep his commandments. Moreover, you should mark the place of Ecclesiastes in progressive revelation. Solomon speaks truth from a limited perspective. The drama of redemption had not finished playing itself out. More specifically, the Lord Jesus Christ had not yet come.
 
How should we understand the argument Solomon makes on the way to his final point? I believe Solomon – like that music teacher – unlearns the learned before he learns the unlearned. The flesh, the world, and the devil teach lies about the meaning and purpose of life.
Proposed answers to these big questions blitz and bombard us from every direction. We all live with assumed answers to these questions. R.C. Sproul wrote a book called “Everyone's A Theologian.” Indeed, we all have thoughts about self, life, death, truth, and God. Ecclesiastes tests our truth claims to reveal what is ultimately right and wrong. This series of tests begins in Ecclesiastes 1:12-18. Solomon will question the meaning of pleasure, vocation, wealth, fame, and success. But he begins with the folly of wisdom itself. No, Solomon does not encourage us to play the fool. He warns us about the limitations of wisdom and knowledge. Life is about more than what you know. Lawrence Richards wrote: “Man's rational capacities may guide in this life but cannot solve its mysteries.”
 
Why is it that the meaning of life cannot be discovered by wisdom and knowledge? Verses 12-18 give three reasons life is about more than you know.
 
The Pursuit of Wisdom
Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived. The Queen of Sheba traveled halfway around the world to meet Solomon. She concluded that half had not been told about Solomon's wisdom and knowledge. Solomon was not a know-nothing who acted like a know-it-all. It would be fair to call Solomon the wisest fool who ever lived. Solomon is qualified to teach us about wisdom's folly because of his perspective and his pursuit.
 
The Preacher's Perspective. Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 introduces the book. Our text begins the main body of Ecclesiastes. This transition is marked by a shift from the third person to the first person. Throughout this book, Solomon speaks personally. Ecclesiastes is the autobiography of one man's search for wisdom. He introduces himself in verse 1: “The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem." He reintroduces himself in verse 12: “I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.” Solomon identifies himself to establish the perspective from which he writes.
 
A Truth-Telling Teacher. Verse 12 begins with the first-person singular pronoun “I.” Solomon speaks this way throughout this text. It's a little troubling how much he refers to himself. Yet Solomon is not merely giving his personal opinion. He writes as “The Preacher.” That's the title of the book and the author. The Hebrew word is Qoheleth. Scholars disagree about how to translate the term. Most translations render it either Preacher or  Teacher. Solomon writes as one who leads the assembly of God's people to the truth.
 
A Trustworthy Teacher. This Preacher was also “king over Israel in Jerusalem.” As David's successor, Solomon reigned as king for forty years. It was Israel's “golden age” of peace, power, and prosperity. Solomon was the beneficiary of his father's godly legacy. He had a lot of time on his hands. He had untold riches to spend freely. He had access to the best scholarship. He was surrounded by learned and experienced sages. That is, Solomon wrote from a privileged perspective. If anyone could find the meaning of life in wisdom and knowledge, it was Solomon.
 
The Preacher's Pursuit. Verse 13 summarizes: “And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven.” Note five details about the Preacher's pursuit.
 
A Sincere Pursuit. Solomon says, “I applied my heart.” The heart is the seat of personhood – the mind, the will, and the emotions. It is the control center of life. Solomon's pursuit of wisdom was wholehearted, not halfhearted.
 
A Diligent Pursuit. Solomon says, “I applied my heart to seek and to search out.” The two termsare used synonymously. But there is a subtle distinction.
Solomon pursued wisdom intensively and extensively.
 
A Strategic Pursuit. Solomon says, “I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom.” There is a difference between godly wisdom and worldly wisdom. Solomon refers to the latter here. It was more intellectual and spiritual. “By wisdom” conveys the nature of the pursuit. The end did not justify the means. Solomon strategically pursued the truth by wisdom.
 
A Thorough Pursuit. Verse 13 says, “I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done.” A college student has a major and a minor. They also have required courses that have nothing to do with their major. Solomon treated every subject as a part of his major. His pursuit or knowledge and wisdom was not selective. He wanted to know it all.
 
A Limited Pursuit. Solomon says, “I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven." “Under heaven” in verse 12 is synonymous with “under the sun” in verse 14. It is not a statement about the limitations of his search, not the location of it. Solomon was not atop a skyscraper looking down at life. He was street level, looking around with his perspective limited by the world around him.
 
The Problem of Wisdom
The text summarizes the pursuit of wisdom. Then draws some conclusions. Searching for significance through wisdom and knowledge is problematic for three reasons.
 
It is an unhappy business. Verse 13 says, “It is an unhappy business that God gives to the children of man to be busy with." “Unhappy business” points to the routine, reality, and responsibilities of life. We are all engaged in the business of life. It is a task, a toil, a trial. “Unhappy” translates the word for “evil.” It can refer to physical or moral evil. The term is used here for physical evil. Life is a bad business. Yet we have been hired to take on this business by a sovereign Employer. Verse 13 says God gives us this unhappy business. This is the first mention of God in Ecclesiastes. Solomon uses the name Elohim throughout the book. It indicates God's sovereign authority over creation, history, and providence. The one who holds the world in his hands has given us the unhappy business of life to the “children of man” – literally, “the sons of Adam.” Inherited and personal sin guarantee that we cannot master life on our own. We need God!
 
Jeremiah 9:23-24 says, “Thus says the Lord: 'Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”
 
It is a striving after wind. Verse 14 says, “I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.” Very few people in the world can say, “I've seen it all.” Solomon was one such person. He had seen everything that is done under the sun. Yet he does not advise us to see as much of life as we can while we have a chance. On the contrary, he says, “Let me tell you what I have seen.” Solomon says it is all “vanity.” This is the key word of Ecclesiastes. It means empty, worthless, meaningless, without purpose, absurd. Ecclesiastes 1:2 says, “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
“Striving after wind” is a graphic picture of folly, futility, and frustration. The one who strives after the wind never catches it. It is unattainable. If you somehow succeed in catching the wind, what do you have? A handful of nothing.
A Dog, to whom the butcher had thrown a bone, hurried home with his prize as fast as he could go. As he crossed a bridge, he looked down and saw himself reflected in the water. But the Dog thought he saw a dog carrying a bigger bone. Snapping at the rival, he never got the imaginary bone and dropped his bone in the water. This is how life often works. You lose what you have trying to get what you want.
 
It is an unfixable situation.Verse 15 says, “What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be counted.”There are two problems that knowledge or wisdom cannot fix.
 
The world is crooked. “What is crooked cannot be made straight.” The Bible describes sin as moral crookedness. The term is “iniquity.” It is our inward corruption, perversion, and inclination toward sin. But here “crooked” is not about our sinful nature. It is a picture of what is wrong with the world. The world is like a car that has been in a bad accident. There are not just dents in the fender. The car thing has been totaled.
 
You cannot straighten out this crooked world. This does not mean you shouldn't try to make a difference in the world around you. But do not think you will straighten out what is crooked. Why?Ecclesiastes 7:13 says, “Consider the work of God: who can make straight what has been made crooked?” The crookedness of the world is the work of God to show us that we cannot make it without him.
 
The world is lacking. “What is lacking cannot be counted.” During a do-it-yourself project, you discover that you do not have a critical piece you need. But you figure a way to rig the thing to get the job done. Many people live this way – building life on our own, rigging what we lack along the way. Solomon says we do not know how bad things really are: “What is lacking cannot be counted.”
My dad was always teaching me something. With a sense of wonder, I would say, “I didn't know that.” My father occasionally responded, “Son, there's enough you don't know to start a whole new world. That's what Solomon is saying here. You are busy trying to build your life without God. But you are lacking enough to start a whole new world.
 
The Pain of Wisdom 
The text falls into two sections.
Yet this second section is not redundant. Solomon repeats himself for emphasis and to move the conversation forward. Verses 16-18 make three emphatic points about wisdom's folly.
 
Wisdom is limited. Verse 16 says, “I said in my heart, 'I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.'” Solomon not only talks about himself; he talk to himself. The preacher is not just talking to the congregation. He is speaking to his own heart. Eric Ortlund said, “One of the fascinating things about Qoheleth is that he does not just make observations; he also observes himself observing. He thinks about his own thinking.”
 
Solomon tells his heart about the great wisdom he has acquired. He has surpassed all who were in Jerusalem before him. His heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. It may seem that Solomon is boasting and bragging. That's not the case. Under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he is making a point for our benefit. Solomon was in a unique position to answer the questions of life that we wrestle with. Yet the wisest man who ever lived was left with questions he could not answer. Wisdom is limited. You cannot figure out life on your own.
 
Wisdom is empty. In high school, a teacher asked me to stand up in front of the class and make an argument against abortion. Then he asked me to give an argument for abortion. His point was that it is ignorant to only know your position. Wisdom and knowledge involve knowing both sides of an issue. Solomon models that principle in verse 17: “And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly.” Solomon did not drink poison to prove that it was dangerous and deadly. He factored in all the relevant positions.
Verse 17 draws a conclusion about all knowledge and wisdom that does not factor in God: “I perceived that this also is but a striving after the wind.”
 
Wisdom is sorrowful. Verse 18 is another proverb: “For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” Why is applying the heart to wisdom and knowledge vanity? Because the more you know, the more it hurts. Ignorance is bliss. What you don't know won't hurt you. But much wisdom brings much vexation. To increase wisdom is to increase sorrow. A young person makes a foolish decision that breaks his parents' hearts. While he revels in his folly, his parents grieve because they know the consequences of his decision. It happens in many and multiple spheres of life. It happened to Jesus. The disciples couldn't understand Jesus wept over Jerusalem. But he knew what would happen, and they did not.
 
Solomon gives good instruction in this text. But he does not have the last word. Matthew 12:42 says, “The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.”Jesus is greater than Solomon!

# posted by Groseys messages @ 7:40 AM

Friday, October 23, 2026

 

Testimonies of history

Uploaded Image


# posted by Groseys messages @ 3:48 PM
 

Narcissists expose themselves

If you listen closely, many narcissists reveal themselves before their actions fully catch up. They expose their mindset through accusations, jokes, stories, double standards, and the way they make you feel after simple conversations. 1. THEY ACCUSE YOU OF THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR If they keep accusing you of lying, cheating, hiding things, being selfish, or manipulating them, pay attention. Sometimes the accusation is not about you. It is a confession wearing a mask. 2. THEY HIDE CRUELTY INSIDE “JOKES” They insult you, embarrass you, mock your pain, then quickly say: “I was only joking.” “You take everything too seriously.” “You are too sensitive.” That is not humor. That is disrespect testing how much you will tolerate. 3. THEY TELL STORIES THAT REVEAL THEIR CHARACTER They may talk badly about an ex, a friend, a coworker, or a family member. But if you listen deeper, you may hear their own mindset inside the story. Sometimes they are not exposing the other person. They are exposing themselves. 4. THEY DEMAND WHAT THEY REFUSE TO GIVE They demand loyalty while betraying trust. They demand honesty while hiding the truth. They demand respect while speaking to you with contempt. That double standard is not confusion. It is entitlement. 5. THEY BRAG ABOUT OUTSMARTING PEOPLE Some narcissists reveal themselves because they are proud of how they control situations. They laugh about using people. They brag about getting away with things. They act like manipulation is intelligence. But healthy people do not feel powerful by deceiving others. 6. THEY TEST YOUR LIMITS EARLY At first, it may look small. A disrespectful comment. A little lie. A boundary crossed. A joke that does not feel like a joke. They are watching your reaction to see what they can normalize later. 7. THEY MAKE SIMPLE CONVERSATIONS FEEL CONFUSING You start explaining yourself too much. You question what you said. You wonder if you are the problem. You leave the conversation feeling mentally tired instead of understood. That confusion is often a warning sign. 8. THEY CONTRADICT THEMSELVES OFTEN They say one thing today and deny it tomorrow. They change the story depending on who is listening. They rewrite facts when accountability gets too close. A person who keeps changing reality is not trying to understand you. They are trying to control the narrative. 9. THEY REVEAL THEIR TRUE SELF WHEN YOU SAY NO As long as you agree, they may seem calm. But the moment you set a boundary, ask a question, or refuse to obey, the mask begins to slip. Their reaction to your boundary tells you more than their words ever could. 10. THEY MAKE YOU FEEL SMALLER OVER TIME You become quieter. More careful. More anxious. More doubtful of yourself. You stop trusting your own instincts because their voice has become louder than yours. That is one of the clearest signs something is wrong. Narcissists often expose themselves before you have proof. Pay attention to the patterns. Pay attention to the contradictions. Pay attention to how your body feels around them. Because sometimes your peace notices the truth before your mind is ready to accept it. © Mental Health with Omoye #narcissisticabuse #mentalhealthwithomoye #fblifestyle


# posted by Groseys messages @ 3:38 PM
 

Losing Your Soul.

Devotion. When God made the human soul, He made it in His own image; therefore, human souls are endless, timeless, dateless, and measureless. The soul is the most valuable part of each of us and, so often, the first thing we sacrifice for the things of this world. Mark 8:35-36 says, “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” It would be a terrible loss because your soul: It is the eternal part of you Our souls are priceless treasures of infinite worth; each one was created by God. Every soul has the potential to be transformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ. Our souls are also valuable because of their durability; they last for all eternity. It is the eternal part of you. Your soul will be in existence somewhere when the sun, moon, and stars have grown cold—either in Heaven or in Hell. You could never cease to exist any more than God Himself could cease to exist. It is the essential part of you Souls are unique. It is your essential personality that lives on after your body has gone. You are not a body with a soul you are a soul with a body for this time on earth. You are unique in your personality, in your experiences and in all that makes you you. Your soul is the Expensive part of you. We must also remember that Jesus died upon the cross, paying the price with His blood and agony to pay for your soul’s sins. Christ died in our place for our sins. In Him we have redemption through His blood the forgiveness of our sins according to the riches of His grace (Eph 1:7). Therefore, we must be extremely careful with our souls. To exchange them for the things of this world would be a foolish transaction. No one ever gains the whole world, and whatever part of the world you would gain, you cannot keep forever. The world cannot meet your deepest longings—neither pleasure, nor possession, nor philosophy could ever satisfy, because God made us for Himself. And He desires for you to have fullness of life through Jesus. When you gamble with your soul you make a foolish choice. Because It would be a Tragic Loss To lose your soul would be a tragic, irreversible loss—after death, we don’t get a second chance. It’s an immeasurable and irreplaceable loss. All the wealth of this world cannot compare to the value of a soul. It’s an inexcusable loss—completely avoidable. To lose your soul is a terminal loss Finally, to lose our souls is a fatal tragedy. Once lost never regained. For all eternity. God holds you accountable for your soul Revelation 20:11-15 CSB [11] Then I saw a great white throne and one seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. [12] I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books. [13] Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. [14] Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. [15] And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. … God holds you accountable about your souls salvation Hebrews 10:26-31 CSB [26] For if we deliberately go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. [28] Anyone who disregarded the law of Moses died without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, who has regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? [30] For we know the one who has said, Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, and again, The Lord will judge his people. [31] It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Your soul is the expensive part of you. He died to save your soul. What will you do about it? Are you playing games, gambling with your soul? To lose it to this world would be a foolish, fatal tragedy. Give it to the Lord Jesus, who died to save it and He keeps it for all of eternity.


# posted by Groseys messages @ 8:38 AM
 

Your soul

When God made the human soul, He made it in His own image; therefore, human souls are endless, timeless, dateless, and measureless. The soul is the most valuable part of each of us and, so often, the first thing we sacrifice for the things of this world.

Mark 8:35-36 says, “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?”


It would be a terrible loss because your soul:

It is the eternal part of you  

Our souls are priceless treasures of infinite worth; each one was created by God. Every soul has the potential to be transformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ. Our souls are also valuable because of their durability; they last for all eternity. 

Adrian Rogers says, “Your soul will be in existence somewhere when the sun, moon, and stars have grown cold—either in Heaven or in Hell. You could never cease to exist any more than God Himself could cease to exist.”


It is the essential part of you   

Souls are also extremely rare; each is unique. We must also remember that Jesus died upon the cross, paying the price with His blood and agony to show how much He desired our souls.

Therefore, we must be extremely careful with our souls. To exchange them for the things of this world would be a foolish transaction. 

No one ever gains the whole world, and whatever part of the world you would gain, you cannot keep forever. The world cannot meet your deepest longings—neither pleasure, nor possession, nor philosophy could ever satisfy, because God made us for Himself.


It would be a Tragic Loss

To lose your soul would be a tragic, irreversible loss—after death, we don’t get a second chance.

It’s an immeasurable and irreplaceable loss. All the wealth of this world cannot compare to the value of a soul. It’s an inexcusable loss—completely avoidable. 


To lose your soul is a terminal loss

Finally, to lose our souls is a fatal tragedy; our souls are worth billions of worlds like ours.

God holds you accountable for your soul  

Revelation 20:11-15 CSB

[11] Then I saw a great white throne and one seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. [12] I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books. [13] Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. [14] Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. [15] And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. …


God holds you accountable about your souls salvation 


Hebrews 10:26-31 CSB

[26] For if we deliberately go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. [28] Anyone who disregarded the law of Moses died without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, who has regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? [30] For we know the one who has said, Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, and again, The Lord will judge his people. [31] It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


Your soul is the expensive part of you.  He died to save your soul.  What will you do about it? 


Apply it to your life

Are you playing games, gambling with your soul? To lose it to this world would be a foolish, fatal tragedy. Give it to Jesus, who saves it and keeps it for all of eternity



# posted by Groseys messages @ 8:14 AM
 

Your soul

When God made the human soul, He made it in His own image; therefore, human souls are endless, timeless, dateless, and measureless. The soul is the most valuable part of each of us and, so often, the first thing we sacrifice for the things of this world.

Mark 8:35-36 says, “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?”


It would be a terrible loss because your soul:

It is the eternal part of you  

Our souls are priceless treasures of infinite worth; each one was created by God. Every soul has the potential to be transformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ. Our souls are also valuable because of their durability; they last for all eternity. 

Adrian Rogers says, “Your soul will be in existence somewhere when the sun, moon, and stars have grown cold—either in Heaven or in Hell. You could never cease to exist any more than God Himself could cease to exist.”


It is the essential part of you   

Souls are also extremely rare; each is unique. We must also remember that Jesus died upon the cross, paying the price with His blood and agony to show how much He desired our souls.

Therefore, we must be extremely careful with our souls. To exchange them for the things of this world would be a foolish transaction. 

No one ever gains the whole world, and whatever part of the world you would gain, you cannot keep forever. The world cannot meet your deepest longings—neither pleasure, nor possession, nor philosophy could ever satisfy, because God made us for Himself.


It would be a Tragic Loss

To lose your soul would be a tragic, irreversible loss—after death, we don’t get a second chance.

It’s an immeasurable and irreplaceable loss. All the wealth of this world cannot compare to the value of a soul. It’s an inexcusable loss—completely avoidable. 


To lose your soul is a terminal loss

Finally, to lose our souls is a fatal tragedy; our souls are worth billions of worlds like ours.

God holds you accountable for your soul  

Revelation 20:11-15 CSB

[11] Then I saw a great white throne and one seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. [12] I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books. [13] Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. [14] Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. [15] And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. …


God holds you accountable about your souls salvation 


Hebrews 10:26-31 CSB

[26] For if we deliberately go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. [28] Anyone who disregarded the law of Moses died without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, who has regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? [30] For we know the one who has said, Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, and again, The Lord will judge his people. [31] It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


Your soul is the expensive part of you.  He died to save your soul.  What will you do about it? 


Apply it to your life

Are you playing games, gambling with your soul? To lose it to this world would be a foolish, fatal tragedy. Give it to Jesus, who saves it and keeps it for all of eternity



# posted by Groseys messages @ 8:14 AM
 

Weaknesses of narcissists

Uploaded Image


# posted by Groseys messages @ 7:56 AM

Thursday, October 22, 2026

 

Narcissism

Uploaded Image


# posted by Groseys messages @ 5:13 PM
 

Narcissism

Uploaded Image

# posted by Groseys messages @ 4:16 PM
 

Matthew 11

Matthew 11:28-30 CSB [28] “Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. [29] Take up my yoke and learn from me, because I am lowly and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” … The Invitation 28 The Instruction 29 The Inspiration 30 He has caught away my heart and run away to heaven with it. Samuel Rutherford. The Lamb is all the glory of Emanuel’s land.


# posted by Groseys messages @ 11:12 AM

Wednesday, October 21, 2026

 

Brett Lee-Price Apologetics

We are living through a rather unique moment in the history of Western Christianity, whereby the faith that has long undergirded our culture and grounded such fundamental assumptions about reality, humanity, and morality is increasingly being questioned and challenged by positions that are profoundly different. Questions surrounding identity, sexuality, marriage, the human body, political authority, and even what it truly means to be human are no longer merely peripheral controversies. They are, at their foundation, theological questions, concerning the nature of creation, our understanding of humanity, and, ultimately, the God who has created us.

Charles Taylor, in his monumental A Secular Age, argues that secularisation is not simply the decline of religious belief but a transformation in the very conditions under which belief takes place. Christianity is no longer the assumed framework through which Western society understands itself.1 Indeed, as Carl Trueman has explored in several recent works, the modern individual increasingly understands identity as something internal—discovered within oneself rather than received from an external authority, especially not least, to be found within a divinely established created order.2 The autonomous self, and its supposedly sovereign capacity to determine what is true and meaningful, has become somewhat central to how many understand the world.

It is within this context that many Christians are looking for answers. Yet many contemporary evangelical churches present a paradox: we profess an ancient faith, and yet much of what we present seems remarkably modern—and not necessarily in a good way. Our worship, language, and approach to ministry can often be shaped by the very culture we seek to challenge. Our songs, rather than reflecting the theological breadth of the Psalms and, indeed, much historic hymnody, can become preoccupied with our immediate feelings and felt needs. Our preaching, whilst rightly seeking to apply Scripture to contemporary life and proclaim the cross of Christ, can become so concerned with individual circumstances that the wider theological framework of Christianity is scarcely considered.

Now, I do not wish to suggest that all contemporary worship is inherently shallow, nor that an older hymn is necessarily superior to a newer one, and definitely not that that faithful preaching ought to dispense with personal application. That would be, rightly, considered an altogether lazy criticism. Rather, there is a difference between making Christianity intelligible to contemporary society and letting contemporary society determine how Christianity is understood. When ecclesiastical life is governed by relevance, experience, and individual fulfilment, we ought to ask what sort of Christian understanding we are seeking to cultivate.3

Mark Noll famously opened his 1994 The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind with the observation that ‘the scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.’4 Perhaps we might extend that criticism further: much contemporary evangelicalism has become historically forgetful, theologically minimalistic, and largely disconnected from the wider Christian tradition. We possess an ancient faith, and yet sometimes behave as though Christianity began within living memory.

Consequently, it should come as little surprise that when Christians discover Athanasius, Augustine, the ecumenical councils, Aquinas or classical theism, they encounter a theological depth that seems completely alien to their evangelical experience. For some, the conclusion becomes increasingly attractive: perhaps the answer is Rome, or perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy. Perhaps, just perhaps, historic Christianity requires abandoning Protestantism altogether.

This is a concern that should, I believe, be taken seriously. Indeed, those asking these questions have quite often recognised a genuine problem. However, recognising the problem is not the same thing as identifying its solution. What if the Christianity they are leaving behind is not especially representative of historic Protestantism? What if the Reformers themselves, and the generations of Protestant theologians who followed them, possessed precisely the theological depth, catholicity, and historical consciousness that many are now searching for elsewhere?

The Knowledge of God and the Reformed Tradition

In contrast to society’s fundamental assumption that the individual stands at the centre of his own understanding of reality, Christianity begins not with man, but with the God who created man and on whom all things depend. It is for this reason that John Calvin opens his Institutes of the Christian Religion by considering the relationship that exists between the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves. Calvin recognises that these are inseparably connected, yet argues that we cannot rightly understand ourselves without first contemplating God.5 In other words, the modern crisis of anthropology cannot be divorced from the doctrine of God.

The Reformed orthodoxy theologians, particularly those writing in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, developed this point through what have been described as the principia theologica—the first principles of theology.6 The first, the principium essendi, is God Himself: the living God who exists independently of creation and is the foundation of all things. God does not derive His existence, goodness, or perfection from anything outside Himself. He is the Creator, and we are His creatures. Our knowledge of God is not an exercise in autonomous human enquiry.

Franciscus Junius developed this distinction through his account of archetypal and ectypal theology. God knows Himself perfectly and infinitely; creatures know Him truly albeit finitely, through the knowledge that He graciously accommodates and communicates to them. We can, therefore, know God without presuming to comprehend Him exhaustively. Indeed, the very possibility of theology to begin with rests upon the act of divine condescension.7

This leads to the principium cognoscendi externum, the external principle of theological knowledge. If God is the source of theology, then how can we know Him? The answer is that He has revealed Himself. Hebrews begins by declaring that the God who spoke through the prophets has now spoken in His Son, whilst John tells us that the only begotten Son has made the Father known (Heb. 1:1-3; John 1:18). God’s revelation is not restricted to Scripture—He also reveals Himself in creation, and supremely in Christ—but His inspired Word serves as the unique and infallible written norm of Christian doctrine. Scripture possesses this authority notbecause the church confers it, norbecause the individual Christian independently grants it, but because its ultimate author is God Himself.8

The third principle, the principiumcognoscendi internum, concerns the inward reception of divine truth. This is because, as sinful creatures, we do not merely require revelation; we also require the gracious work of the Holy Spirit to receive it rightly (1 Cor. 2:10-14). Herman Bavinck brings these principles together in his Reformed Dogmatics. That is, God Himself, His self-revelation, and the illumination of His Spirit. While Reformed authors used different terminology, the theological order was relatively clear: Theology begins with God, is made possible by His self-disclosure, and is received savingly through the work of His Spirit.9

These were not merely distinctions developed abstractly in a theologian’s study. They helped to shape how Reformed churches received and articulated doctrines to be confessed throughout Christian history. Consider the Second London Baptist Confession, substantially following the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration. It confesses God as infinite, eternal, immutable, and incomprehensible, ‘a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions’.10 This is the language of classical Christian theism. Divine simplicity affirms that God is not composed of parts; immutability, that He does not change as creatures do. The Reformers neither invented these doctrines nor unintentionally retained them as remnants of medieval philosophy. They were consciously received, defended, and confessed as part of the church’s understanding of the triune God.

Therein lies a problem with contemporary discussions of classical theism. We encounter divine simplicity in Aquinas, or read Athanasius on the Trinity, and assume that these doctrines somehow belong more properly to Rome or Constantinople. But the historic Reformed churches confessed this same triune God with considerable theological care, while constantly engaging with the patristic and medieval theologians who preceded them.

Scripture and Tradition

The question, then, is not whether the Christian past ought to be received, but upon the precise grounds it should be received, interpreted, and judged. One of the most persistent misnomers of sola Scriptura is that it represented the rejection of tradition altogether: that the Reformation left the individual Christian with little more than his Bible and his own interpretation of it. Yet, such an this understanding owes far more to modern individualism and would have been seen as utterly alien to the Reformers. The disagreement in which they held concerned more with the nature and limits of ecclesiastical authority and particularly as to whether the church’s inherited theological judgements could possess authority independent of, or ultimately equal to, Holy Scripture.

In his masterful Harvest of Medieval Theology, Heiko Oberman distinguished two distinct medieval understandings of tradition. Under Tradition I, Scripture remained the normative source of revealed doctrine, with tradition understood in relation to its ecclesiastical interpretation and transmission. Under Tradition II, unwritten apostolic tradition could also convey revealed teaching not contained in Scripture. Not every medieval theological teaching work neatly fit these categories, but they remind us that the relationship between Scripture and tradition was contested long before Luther.11

Augustine, in his correspondence with Jerome, reserved unconditional confidence in the freedom from error of canonical Scripture, which he reserved for it alone; other Christian writers could be corrected. In On Baptism, Against the Donatists, he distinguished Scripture’s authority from the decisions of bishops and councils, allowing that later councils could correct earlier ones.12 Likewise, Thomas Aquinas distinguished the authority of canonical Scripture from arguments that were drawn from subsequent theologians (Summa Theologiae I, q.1, a. 8). Now neither Augustine nor Aquinas were Protestants, and it would be irresponsible to conscript them into a sixteenth-century dispute without ensuring proper acknowledgement is paid to their wider ecclesiologies. Yet both demonstrate that differentiating theological authorities was not a Reformation innovation.13

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), associated with Heinrich Bullinger, makes the Reformed position particularly clear: ‘the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin Fathers’ are not despised, but neither are they exempted from the judgement of Scripture.14 The same applies to councils. Scripture remains the norming norm, while creeds and confessions are normed norms—genuine ecclesiastical authorities, but subordinate to the Word of God. Sola Scriptura, therefore, did not mean nuda Scriptura.The church receives, teaches, and confesses the Word; it does not stand above the Word by which it is itself constituted and reformed.

This also helps us to correct an unfortunately common Protestant misunderstanding of the Reformation, and one in which the motto post tenebras lux—after darkness, light—is sometimes taken to mean. Namely, the gospel had disappeared for a millennium, only to be rediscovered in the sixteenth century. Yet even Calvin, despite his severe criticism of Rome, acknowledged that God had continued to preserve remnants of His church.15 There is a difference between arguing that the church had become corrupted and claiming that it had ceased to exist. It would do us well to remember that the word Reformation presupposes something to be reformed; it is not the reconstruction of Christianity from nothing. 

Consider William Perkins, whose 1597 work bore the revealing title A Reformed Catholic, with the subtitle A Declaration Showing How Near We May Come to the Present Church of Rome in Various Points of Religion, and Wherein We Must Forever Depart from Them. Perkins was not conceding the term catholic to Rome. He was asking where the Reformed churches shared Christianity’s inheritance and where Scripture required them to depart from their opponents.16 Or, several decades earlier, the Bishop of Salisbury, John Jewel, in his Apology of the Church of England (1562) challenged Rome’s exclusive claim to Christian antiquity, calling upon his opponents to demonstrate from Scripture and the Fathers precisely where the Reformers had departed from the apostolic faith.17Likewise, Peter Martyr Vermigli engaged extensively with Augustine, Aquinas, and Gregory of Rimini, critically appropriating theological resources acquired within the medieval church.18 The succeeding generation of Reformed orthodox, including Zanchi, Turrentin, Van Mastricht, and Owen, continued to employ scholastic distinctions and methods without adopting every medieval doctrinal conclusion. As Richard Muller has demonstrated, the Reformation’s relationship to the preceding theological tradition is far richer than the persistent account of a complete rupture would suggest.19

In that sense, the Reformation ought to be understood as being both catholic and reformational. But this raises another question. If Protestantism is so frequently accused of departing from Rome’s supposedly unified and continuous theological tradition, how historically accurate is this portrayal of Roman Catholicism itself?

History is Complicated

Consider the Immaculate Conception of Mary as formally defined by Pius IX in 1854. Aquinas maintained that Mary was sanctified before her birth, but did not affirm that she was preserved from original sin from the first instant of conception. John Duns Scotus, by contrast, defended an account of her preservation through the merits of Christ. This was no minor disagreement: it reflected a controversy between two influential strands of medieval theology. A doctrine that is now considered binding on Roman Catholics was not articulated uniformly by the two most significant medieval theologians recognised by the Church.20

And this history becomes even more complicated when we turn to the matter of ecclesiastical authority. The Western Schism, beginning in 1378, divided the Western Church between rival papal claimants and, due to both political intrigue and good-faith attempts to resolve the matter, eventually led to a period of three rival papal contenders.21 At the Council of Constance (1414-1418), which sought to resolve this matter, the decree Haec Sancta asserted that a general council derived its authority directly from Christ, and that even the pope was bound to obey it on matters of faith and reform. While the authority and subsequent reception of that decree remain contested, its historical significance is unmistakable. The relationship that existed during the medieval period—and, indeed, going back to the Early Church—between papal and conciliar authority was the subject of profound medieval disagreement, and while it was the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) that saw the decline of the conciliarist position, it was only Vatican I, in Pastor Aeternus (1870) that defined the pope’s supreme and immediate universal jurisdiction, together with his infallibility, granted under specified conditions.

Roman Catholic theologians can, of course, appeal to legitimate doctrinal development to account for these matters, and we cannot dismiss an argument simply because development has occurred; but nevertheless, the arguments for the historical primacy of Rome, as well as the ecclesiastical claims defined at Vatican I, are certainly not identical propositions. The latter cannot simply be assumed from the former. Likewise, it was the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the effectual Roman Catholic response to the Reformation, that oversaw a significant doctrinal consolidation of Roman Catholicism, pushing through very real theological differences that existed between the different orders that existed, such as the Dominicans, Franciscans, and Jesuits (among others), and even then it did not bring every debate to an end. The subsequent Dominican-Jesuit debates de auxiliis, concerning the interplay between grace and human freedom, provide evidence that institutional unity did not always entail theological uniformity.22

Something similar could be said of Eastern Orthodoxy. While its continuity with ancient Christianity is real, its history is hardly theologically immobile. The Byzantine iconoclastic controversies saw competing ecclesiastical judgements about images between the eighth and ninth centuries, culminating in the restoration of icon veneration in 843.23 In the fourteenth century, Gregory Palamas and his opponents disputed fundamental questions about God’s essence, His uncreated energies, and creatures’ participation in the divine life. Palamas’ position was hardly unanimous, and it was only after his position was vindicated through a series of Constantinopolitan synods, that it became deeply embedded within Orthodox theology.  

Or consider the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445), where much of the Greek episcopal delegation accepted reunion with Rome, with a concession on Roman primacy and the Filioque, only for the agreement to be rejected later in the Orthodox world. Here the question is not simply which bishops signed a particular decree, but how the church recognises an authoritative council and receives its theological judgements. Eastern Orthodox theologians have serious accounts of Holy Tradition and ecclesiastical reception. Yet, nevertheless, these accounts, like Rome’s magisterial claims, require their own historical and theological justification.

I remember being struck, while studying the patristic period at Macquarie University, by how complicated the early church itself was. The Fathers did not agree upon every theological question, any more than their medieval successors. And while neither Rome nor Eastern Orthodoxy maintain that every opinion of every Father is infallible, the question must be asked: when the Fathers disagree, by what standard is one interpretation received and another rejected? At what point does a particular theological judgement become binding upon the church, and by what authority is that judgement made? Appeals to antiquity and continuity do not, by themselves, answer those questions.

Beholding the God Who Has Spoken

None of this, of course, necessarily proves that Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is false simply because theological controversies have occurred within their histories. Certainly, that would be a remarkably poor argument and one that could, with equal ease, be turned back against Protestantism. Rather, it establishes that neither tradition can resolve the question of theological authority merely by appealing to an allegedly unbroken consensus. Historical claims must be demonstrated, and ecclesiastical claims must be justified.

Most importantly, recovering classical Christian theism does not necessitate a return to Rome or Constantinople. To confess that God is simple, immutable, eternal, and triune is to confess profound truths concerning God. But does divine simplicity establish the universal jurisdiction or infallibility of the bishop of Rome? Does Nicene orthodoxy necessitate the Immaculate Conception? Does the patristic doctrine of God establish the obligation to venerate icons, or one particular account of ecclesiastical reception? None of these conclusions follows without further biblical, historical, and theological argument.

And here we return to the principia theologica. God Himself is the source of theology; His self-revelation, normatively given to His church in Holy Scripture, remains its infallible rule; and His Spirit enables us to receive that Word. The church’s inheritance is therefore neither to be dismissed, but neither is it to be enthroned. We should—no, we must receive it with humility, whilst refusing to confer upon our forefathers an authority that belongs to God alone.

Craig Carter is right to insist that ‘the purpose of theology is … to enable contemplation and worship of God while avoiding heresy’.24 That is worth remembering, particularly when theological retrieval itself can become another marker of ecclesiastical identity. The object is not to establish that Protestants have read more of the Fathers than their opponents, or to transform the doctrine of God into another argument to be battled and won on the internet. It is to know, to confess, and to worship the God who has graciously made Himself known in Jesus Christ.

Perhaps, then, what contemporary evangelicalism really needs is not another attempt to reinvent itself to remain relevant to the modern world, but a serious recovery of the theological and ecclesiastical inheritance it has too often ignored and neglected. Not because our forefathers were infallible, but because they too sought to understand the God who has spoken. The answer to the theological poverty of our time is not less Scripture, history, tradition, ecclesiology or metaphysics; it is to recover these things in their proper order—under the authority of God’s Word and fore the worship of His name. For at the beginning of theology stands neither Rome, Constantinople, nor even Geneva, but God Himself.

And it is this God whom we are called to behold.



Sent from my iPhone

# posted by Groseys messages @ 6:19 PM

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Free Hit Counter