On Ontology and Action Theory

The point of Matthew 7:15-20 is that believers know the difference between a false prophet, who are ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing (difficult to tell on a superficial level), by their fruit. This of course implies that false prophets and Christians are different. More specifically, this text argues that different plant produce different fruits. And, going deeper, this text has interesting implications that bring to light the differences between those of God and those not of God.

What exactly can be inferred? Answer: ontology and action theory. Otherwise known as being and ability, Scripture is rather clear concerning the reality that there are (at least) two different plants (vs. 16) and that each plant can only produce fruit in correspondence to its species (vvs. 17-19). Namely, the plant type determines the fruit, the nature determines ability, and ontology determines action. The point that Christians can differentiate between wolves and sheep (Christians and false prophets) seem to hinge on this reality. Conclusively, it's the only way the text makes sense.

15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits.

- Matthew 7:15-20 (NASB)

Before I end, a word of application: what fruit do you produce (action/ability)? What kind of plant does that make you (ontology/being)? May the Holy Spirit convict your soul, and may God draw you to Himself. He who has ears, let him hear.

On Words, Hell, and Morons

21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

- Matthew 5:21f (NASB)

Jesus' teachings from the Sermon on the Mount are already convicting. After reading it in the Greek I was all the more convicted. Here is what struck me the most. In vs. 22 fiery hell is literally... fiery hell (hies ten geennen tou puros) and fool is the word moros (the word where moron comes from). The summary is, words are not simply noises. With intention and meaning there is eternal ramification. Even with something as mundane and simple as words my soul must submit to Christ. It's something simple but it's a good reminder: indeed, I am great sinner. And thankfully I have a great Savior who appeased the wrath of God, nullified the curse of death, and died in my place for my sins. Indeed, I am justified by faith in Christ alone.

On 9/11 Eight Years Ago

A time to remember:

8 years ago I was a freshman at University of Texas at Austin. While passing Gregory gym Huay-ying Lo asked, "did you hear what happened?" I of course I didn't because I was making a rare and sporadic attendance in my 8am class. I went into Jester west and saw a crowd gawking at the huge TV. By then only the north tower had been hit. A few minutes later, the south tower was hit. I didn't take it seriously until the buildings collapsed. In retrospect, honestly, I couldn't tell if it was a TV show or a movie. And even today I can't believe it really happened.

On Descartes and Purpose

I've just spent the entire day reading Rules for the Direction of the Mind and Discourse on Method. And, I finished the reading and understand what he is saying. However, I sit here and ask, "so what?"

1. Rene Descartes, Rules for the Direction of the Mind, in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. 1 trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 7-76.

2. __________, Discourse on Method 4th ed. trans. Donald A. Cress (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998).

Edit: I quickly have learned that this is superficial, introduction reading. When I can quote philosophical fragments like I can Scripture I will be on par with Dr. Sepper. He passionately claimed that the Medievals are bullshitting us. Aristotelian phantasms were never meant to abstract a form. They were merely the place where we see the forms. Then he practically threw down his book in disgust concerning a Latin translation. Fun class? Indeed.

On School vs. Seminary

This fall I have started graduate school the University of Dallas. As of the first week, there are noticeable differences from my time at Seminary:

1. Where in Seminary I was young for the general student population, at a University I am old -really old.

2. Where in Seminary I was relatively in shape (comparatively speaking), at a University I fail the standard of being a skinny 18 year old kid.

3. Where in Seminary I was smart and people liked it, at a University I am just a nerd.

4. Where in Seminary the material was usually comparatively narrow, Evangelical, and conservative at a University everything goes.

5. Where in Seminary everything you learn seems obviously to be directed towards God's Kingdom, at a University the Kingdom gain of the information you're processing has less obvious fruit -but fruit nonetheless.

On Truth, Dogma, And Women

In the Preface it is written:

"Supposing that Truth is a woman -what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as the have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women -that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discourages mien -if, indeed, it stands at all! For there are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen, that all dogma lies on the ground -nay more, that it is at its last gasp. But to speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all dogmatising in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive and decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble puerilism and tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it be once understood what has actually sufficed for the basic of such imposing about absolute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition, which, in the form of subject -and ego-superstition, has not yet ceased doing mischief); perhaps some play upon words, a deception on the part of grammar, or an audacious (sic) generalisation of very restricted, very personal, very human -all -too-human facts."

Of course, I couldn't disagree more.

- Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1907), 4f.

On Missions, Marriage, Martyrdom And The Glory Of God

John Piper begins his text This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence (Wheaton, Crossway Books, 2009) with an argument for one flesh union even in death. Namely, in so far as marriage is the symbol of unity and covenant faithfulness on earth, it is fully realized after death of Christ's love and faithfulness for the church. He provides an except for an object lesson; it is simply a powerful read invoking a passion and respect for missions, marriage and martyrdom. And in the end, he argues that this is not tragedy in so far as, in Christ, nothing is lost in death.

"Never was the little one more precious than when they looked their last on her baby sweetness, as they were roughly summoned the next morning an led out to die.... Painfully bound with ropes, their hands behind them, stripped of their outer garments, and John barefooted (he had given Betty his socks to wear), they passed down the street where he was known to many, while the Reds shouted their ridicule and called the people to come and see the execution.

Like their Master, they were led up to a little hill outside the town. There, in a clump of pine trees, the Communists harangued the unwilling onlookers, too terror-stricken to utter protest -But no, one broke the ranks! he doctor of the place and a Christian, he expressed the feelings of many when he fell on his knees and pleaded for the life of his friends. Angrily repulsed by the Reds, he still persisted, until he was dragged away as a prisoner, to suffer death when it appeared that he too was a follow of Christ.

John had turned to the leader of the band, asking mercy for this man. When he was sharply ordered o kneel -and the look on his face, afterwards, told of the unseen Presence with them as his spirit was released -Betty was seen to quiver, but only for a moment. Bound as she was, she fell on her knees beside him. A quick command, the flash of a sword which mercifully she did not see -and they were reunited."

- Mrs. Howard Taylor, The Triumph of John and Betty Stam (Philadelphia: China Inland Mission, 1936), 107f. The Child had been hidden and was found by Christians and saved.