religious tolerance

Here's a big surprise, not everyone who professes to be Christian really is. The New York Times reports that, "although a majority of Americans say religion is very important to them, nearly three-quarters of them say they believe that many faiths besides their own can lead to salvation." The article acknowledges that "many Americans ... hold beliefs that might contradict the doctrines of their professed faiths."

I'm a simple minded man. If one holds beliefs that is in contradiction to the core of what one claims to believe, then it seems to me that one doesn't really believe what is claimed. Or perhaps this person has abandoned absolutes as a possibility leaving us able to claim anything without really meaning it.

The survey concluded that "70 percent of Americans affiliated with a religion or denomination said they agreed that “many religions can lead to eternal life,” including majorities among Protestants and Catholics. Among evangelical Christians, 57 percent agreed with the statement, and among Catholics, 79 percent did. Among minority faiths, more than 80 percent of Jews, Hindus and Buddhists agreed with the statement, and more than half of Muslims did."

Oddly, 20% of those identifying themselves as atheists said they believe in God. Huh?

I see this as just another data point reinforcing the fallenness and deception that has gripped our world. Unorthodoxology thinks this "less exclusive view of God" is "amen" worthy. Perhaps there is a play on words there that was wasted on me but his limited commenters also seem happy with the news.

For those that fit into the category identified in this survey as religiously tolerant, here are some kind words from Francis Schaeffer in A Christian Worldview:

How do we obtain salvation? Salvation is obtained by faith in Christ, plus nothing.

• John 3:15, 16, 18 We have used these verses a number of times, but they are worth looking at again to see how clearly Christ says that salvation is received by faith in Him, plus nothing.
• John 3:36 John the Baptist emphasizes that salvation is through faith plus nothing.
• Romans 3:9-20 By the deeds of the law — that is, by good works — no man is or can be just in the sight of God.
• Isaiah 64:6 Even our best works are not good enough in the sight of the holy God. Even when the outward acts are good, who can completely untangle all the mixed and complex motives which move us?
• Galatians 3:24 God never gave the law (the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, or any other commands) as though salvation would come through the keeping of it. As far as salvation goes, each of God’s laws shows us that we need Christ.
• Romans 2:1-3 Men do not even keep their own made-up norms, by which they judge others.
• Acts 16:30-33 Just as moral good works cannot save us, so also religious good works cannot save us. Baptism is a sign of salvation, not the basis for it.
• Romans 4:9-11 It was the same in the Old Testament. Abraham put his faith in God. Circumcision came later. Religious good works cannot save.
• Romans 9:6 Not all the Old Testament Jews were true spiritual Israel. Neither today will church membership in itself save. Salvation is indeed ours only on the basis of faith in Christ, plus nothing.
• Romans 9:30-33 Those Jews who were not true spiritual Israel were those who tried to come to God on the basis of their religious and moral “good works” instead of by faith.
• Galatians 2:16 Salvation is never on the basis of any kind of good works.
• Romans 3:21-26 Good works cannot save us, but faith in Christ will. The word “freely” in 3:24 means “gratis.” There is no cost to us.
• John 8:24 There is only one way of salvation. If we do not accept Christ as our Savior, we remain under the judgment of God.
• John 14:6 There are not many ways of salvation. There is only one way to come to God the Father. There is no way to come to God the Father except through Christ.
• Acts 4:12 It is faith in Christ or nothing.

The basis is the finished, substitutionary death of Christ. The instrument by which we accept the free gift is faith. Faith has a double significance: it is believing God’s promises, and it is the empty hand which accepts the gift without trying to add humanistic religious or moral good works to it.

church-a-plex

From out of ur ...

Technorati Tags: humor

providence redux

As a Calvinist, I am often approached with the question, "how much control does God have?" I tend to read into that question more of a statement, i.e., "if you only realized that you are saying God had complete control, you would change your mind." Which is interesting because the more I understand just how in control God is, the more convinced it is true and cannot be any other way.

John Piper posted today a list of examples from Scripture of God's providence.

• “I have commanded the ravens to feed you there” (1Kings 17:4)
• “The Lord God appointed a plant and made it come up over Jonah” (Jonah 4:6).
• “God appointed a worm that attacked the plant, so that it withered” (Jonah 4:7).
• “I will send swarms of flies on you and your servants” (Exodus 8:21).
• “He summoned a famine on the land and broke all supply of bread” (Psalms 105:16).
• “He gave them hail for rain” (Psalms 105:32).
• “He spoke, and the locusts came” (Psalms 105:34).
• “The Lord will whistle for . . . the bee that is in the land of Assyria” (Isaiah 7:18).
• “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Proverbs 16:33).
• “Even the wind and the sea obey him” (Mark 4:41).
• “He removes kings and sets up kings” (Daniel 2:21).
• “Even the unclean spirits, and they obey him” (Mark 1:27).
• “He upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3).

He then quotes excerpts from the Heidelberg Catechism.

What do you mean by the providence of God? (Question 27)

The almighty and everywhere present power of God; whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs heaven, earth, and all creatures; so that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, and all things come, not by chance, but by his fatherly hand.

What advantage is it to us to know that God has created, and by his providence does still uphold all things? (Question 28)

That we may be patient in adversity; thankful in prosperity; and that in all things, which may hereafter befall us, we place our firm trust in our faithful God and Father, that nothing shall separate us from his love; since all creatures are so in his hand, that without his will they cannot so much as move.

the cross and sin

"The grace of God reveals One who loves us so much as to have made Calvary possible, but who hates sin so much as to make Calvary necessary." ~ T.S. Mooney

HT:Philip

“Q: Who has truly pondered the weight of sin?

A: The one who has truly pondered the weight of the cross.”

~ Anselm of Canterbury, quoted by Micahel D. Williams in Far as the Curse is Found

HT:OFI

where's brian head welch?

“Unlike most people, I had a childhood dream to become a rock star that came true. I was able to do what I wanted to do, go where I wanted to go, and buy what I wanted to buy. Unlike most people, I gave all this up - my music, my band, my career, everything - when I had an encounter with God.” ~ Brian ‘Head’ Welch, formerly of KoRn.

Today Brian is living at his orphanage in India. More details available by Paul Del Signore.

Technorati Tags: current events

advertising

Not all is as advertised ...



See more ...

proper trusting

The Christian life is built upon the foundation of (1) facing who you really are and (2) trusting who Christ truly is. Everything you do will be shaped by the degree to which you act on the blessings that are yours in Christ.

If you only look at yourself and carry around a load of guilt, you will hide, excuse, blame, rationalize, and cover up your shame rather than enjoy the freedom of confession and the joy of forgiveness. You will not enjoy the lasting fruit that comes from following the wisdom that is already yours in Christ! Instead, you will reduce the Christian life to a simplistic list of rules and behaviors that never touch the real problems, and you will be blind to the gaps in your relationship to Christ. ~ Timothy S. Lane & Paul David Tripp, How People Change

jesse jackson ... oh noooooo ...

“What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance,” declared Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Chicago.

Technorati Tags: politics

360 degrees

From Common Errors in English:

When you turn 360 degrees you’ve completed a circle and are back where you started. So if you want to describe a position that’s diametrically opposed to another, the expression you want is not “360 degrees away” but “180 degrees away.”

mahaney on god's holiness

Adrian Warnock recently posted this sermon on The Holiness Of God by CJ Mahaney. The key point is that the "holiness of God has been neglected to our detriment." I didn't relate to much of the joking/story-telling (probably because you "had to be there") but the message is essential.

I found it to be informative, correct, and inspirational. At the same time I want to demonstrate some fairness by saying Mahaney overstepped when he said, "I believe all attributes of God need to be understood in light of the holiness of God. And that the starting point for understanding any attribute of God is the holiness of God. So I don't believe we can just isolate mercy and love and faithfulness on their own. I believe it's a holy mercy. I believe it's a holy love. I believe it's a holy faithfulness. I don't believe we can understand who we are apart from the holiness of God. And I believe the more we understand God's holiness and the more we understand our sinfulness, the more we appreciate the grace and the mercy of God."

I agree with (and love) every aspect of the above except the base premise that holiness (substitute love or any other attribute) should not be singled out above the others. The point that Mahaney makes regarding the need to understand God's attributes in light of holiness could be said for each of His attributes. It is impossible to attain a clearer understanding of God if not considering who He is in light of all He is. As with Mahaney, "I don't believe we can just isolate mercy and love and faithfulness on their own" but nor can we isolate holiness.

That caveat aside, this is a wonderful lesson. He speaks to individuals who are unable to grasp the grace of God but can become secure in the love of God by helping to understand the holiness of God. We can only understand the depth of the grace and of the love of God to the degree that we understand the holiness of God.

I particularly appreciated his comment regarding those that see the meanness of God in the Old Testament but a loving God in the New ... I have some close friends struggling with this very point. Some, as Mahaney notes, have a distorted view seeing Jesus as the friend/lover restraining the judgement of the angry Father.

Alright, enough note taking ... sit back and enjoy.




Warnock extracted the following as Mahaney spoke about God's punishment of Adam.

I don't in any way believe that that was too harsh. He was warned. God made every provision ... When you sin, you forfeit any claim you had to human existence, because the purpose of his life and Eve's life, and our lives was to represent the holiness of God. I don't believe it's unjust for God to take away the gift of life that he gave freely if it wasn't used for the purpose for which he gave it. Because when we sin, what we are saying is—we are not just making a mistake—we are saying no to God's law; we are saying your law is not good; we're saying—God, your law does not cut it, I'm not under your authority; my judgment is superior to yours; I'm defying and opposing you, who in reality I owe everything to.


The amazing thing is not that God has judged people in the Bible; it is that God has not judged everybody.

I have seen some people teach on holiness and they almost seemed happy some people were going to hell.

God does not delight in sending people to hell ... His judgment is not like our temper that flares up in an instant.


As soon as that apple hit Adam's lips and Eve's lips, they should have been wasted immediately, but God was merciful . . . justice was delayed so that grace might enter history.


The issue is not why does God punish sin, but why does he permit the ongoing rebellion of man?

know thyself ... and god

Symphony of Scripture brought my attention to this YouTube video of John Piper on the knowledge of God and of ourself.

“Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.” ~ John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion



On the topic of knowledge, Piper just posted Knowledge Increases Mystery. While this may seem to be a contradictio, I think it makes a lot of sense. Piper notes that "God is more honored by worship that rises from what we know about him than by worship that rises from what we don’t know about him." He then builds on Jonathan Edwards' Essay on the Trinity to explain that, "the benefit of increasing mystery this way (rather than by means of preserving ignorance) is that what we do know gives direction to what we don’t know. We do not wonder if the mystery contains a sinister God, because what we do know directs us away from that speculation."

english errors 101

I guess because I work in a global environment or perhaps because I happen to be a genius (not) ... but for whatever reason I am often asked about English phrases. Very often I learn something from my foreign friends, e.g., Polish and polish are two words that are pronounced differently and have different meaning solely based on whether or not the first letter is capitalized.

That aside, from time-to-time I will post a "learning" that I find interesting. Most of it will come from Washington State University's website.

Today's lesson FLESH OUT/FLUSH OUT:

To “flesh out” an idea is to give it substance, as a sculptor adds clay flesh to a skeletal armature. To “flush out” a criminal is to drive him or her out into the open. The latter term is derived from bird-hunting, in which one flushes out a covey of quail. If you are trying to develop something further, use “flesh”; but if you are trying to reveal something hitherto concealed, use “flush.”

worship like the NBA

I've had this sense before ... what if worship was like an NBA game?


HT:TR

Technorati Tags: humor, worship

interview with satan

HT:TR

Technorati Tags: humor

cessationist

Today's theological word of the day ...

Cessationism
(ses-saye-shun-iz-uhm)

The theological position in which the gifts of the spirit have ceased after the apostolic era; gifts such as miraculous healings, tongues, and prophetic revelations. It is to be contrasted with continuationsim (i.e. the gifts are operative after the apostolic age). Though there are some variations in modern views, the consensus agrees that the supernatural elements described in the NT have been done away with in the life of the church.

... I'll add the caveat that most cessationists still believe that God intervenes in creation but not as witnessed in the Apostolic age.

Technorati Tags: cessationism, charismata

christian feedback

I haven't read The Shack (but it's on my wish list). Since it was recommended to me, my eyes/ears were attuned to critique both positive and negative about it. Unfortunately, just as with any other topic Christians discuss, I was impressed with how far we are from the Bride that Christ desires. David Burchett however offers some wonderful advice that while written in regard to critiques of The Shack, these can be refashioned into some really good general principles for all of us.

1) Be careful about disparaging The Shack’s author, William P Young. Please be cautious about assigning motive to a person you don’t know from Adam’s and Eve’s first house cat. ... Mr. Young apparently was deeply wounded by Christians who should have protected him. I don’t believe Mr.Young set out to write a book that would rock the evangelical community. Apparently he didn’t even write the book with the thought of being published. It was originally written for family members to help them deal with their pain. It doesn’t seem that he set out with sinister motives to undermine theological orthodoxy. He is a fellow wounded traveler trying to reconcile his woundedness. When his theology goes astray I am suggesting that we gracefully point out those areas and don’t attack Mr. Young. Defending truth with grace is always the most effective tactic. But our passion for truth too often makes grace the first thing we jettison.

2) Be careful how you share your concerns with others. When I read comments like “Are these people just blind to heresy?” I cringe. Because you reinforce the feelings of so many people that are moved by this book. They have experienced a Christianity that is judgmental and sometimes downright mean. If your heart is to be a guardian of truth you will damage that worthy desire by harsh criticism of those who are touched by The Shack.

3) Be prayerful about why this book has connected so surprisingly with millions. I think I know some reasons why this book is resonating with so many. Those of us raised in the desert of legalism are desperate for the cool, refreshing waters of grace. Those of us who have been wounded by other Christians want more than anything to believe that Jesus does love us and our experience is not how it should be in the church. We need guardians of the truth of God’s Word but we also need those guardians to be shepherds that care and not just condemn. Some of the articles have been so stern that I felt like I would be sent to after school detention when the writer was done. That doesn’t help a wounded believer. Jesus said to both feed and take care of His sheep.

4) Dogmatically telling people to not read the book may not be the best approach. If we know one thing about the law it is that telling us not do something generally inflames our sin nature. If someone wants to read the book give them thoughtful cautions and then discuss how they felt about the book later.

5) Don’t automatically decide you won’t read the book. If you don’t want to contribute to Mr. Young’s income then go to the library and check it out. Why should you consider doing that if you believe the book is off base? Because of a principle that I harp on over and over. When people open spiritual doors we should have enough sense to go through them. Instead we tend to slam those doors and then go knock loudly on doors that are closed. Obviously this book is connecting. There is a deep spiritual hunger in America. If a fellow believer or seeker comments on the book it will do little good to look down our spiritual nose and let them know the book is all wrong. The next question will be this one. “Did you read it?” If the answer is no that will be the end of debate for most that are touched by this book. Because it is an emotional book they will disconnect from your concerns if you did not even have enough intellectual curiosity to read the book. Instead I would suggest you read it and then engage the reader. You will be able to get through some pretty intimate doors that this book opens and have a great discussion of truth and grace.

6) Be aware that God is doing just fine. I have seen some pretty dire warnings about this book. One of the critiques that I read often is that the book makes God small. Aren’t we also making God small by being so concerned about the possible damage done by this book? God can, will and is using this book. I agree the theology gets shaky at times. But the truth is that The Shack is causing many people to think about things they have never considered. Some are willing to try again after being deeply wounded. Shouldn’t we be praying that God will use us to come alongside these souls as they search and seek the truth?

7) Acknowledge that there are the things this book does well. When you go negative it causes people to get defensive. It does more harm to make people who feel abandoned or hurt by the church feel “stupid” because they don’t know as much theology as you do. If you know that much theology don’t forget the grace sections. Mr. Challis writes these words about some of the positives in the book. “He affirms the absolute nature of what is good and teaches that evil exists only in relation to what is good; he challenges the reader to understand that God is inherently good and that we can only truly trust God if we believe Him to be good; he acknowledges the human tendency to create our image of God by looking at human qualities and assuming that God is simply the same but more so; he attempts to portray the loving relationships within the Trinity; and so on. For these areas I am grateful as they provided helpful correctives to many false understandings of God.”

8) Recognize the hunger in the body of Christ. While some of the theology in The Shack is askew I would suggest that the theology of millions of people in the church is also deficient. We have done a poor job of teaching (or understanding) some of the key teachings of Scripture. Most of us get salvation. We could not be reconciled to a Holy God on our own. But then it seems to get a bit spotty. Too many of us don’t understand key theological truths like who we are in Christ, who God says we are and who God says He is. We know truth but don’t trust it. What is in our head doesn’t invade our heart. The Shack has touched the hearts of millions. The door is open for a thoughtful and real discussion. I pray that we don’t blow it.

Each point spoke to me ...

smallest small group

Somehow I missed (probably because I lived in Europe at the time) Lark News' 2003 report on the smallest small group.

WESTCHESTER — Stu Clark belongs to what is believed to be the smallest small group in America: himself.

"I meet at my house every week in the living room," he says. "I bring snacks and my Bible, and after some chit-chat I get down to discussing that week's reading, sharing my burdens, my praise reports. Then I pray for myself."

He enjoys the intimacy he has gained with himself over the weeks, he says.

"There was a lot about me I didn't know," he says. "The small group setting brings out those personal details you might not otherwise share."

He has tried larger small groups, but doesn't get as much from them.

"When you have to be social, it detracts from your real heart issues," he says. "Having other people in the picture complicates things. But I can deepen my relationship with myself much better if it's only me. There's a level of closeness you have when it's just one of you."

Stu's pastor has seen a marked difference in the man.

"He's definitely matured in his faith since starting the group," the pastor says. "I guess it's not the group size that matters, but the quality of the people in it."

Technorati Tags: humor, small groups

god does everything for his own glory

This post from John Piper (HT:PC) seems especially timely given my recent discussions regarding God's love.
Why should we emphasize that God loves, forgives, and saves for his own glory?

Two reasons (among others).

1) Because the Bible does.

I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. (Isaiah 43:25)

For your name's sake, O Lord, pardon my guilt, for it is great. (Psalm 25:11)

Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver us, and atone for our sins, for your name's sake! (Psalm 79:9)

Though our iniquities testify against us, act, O Lord, for your name's sake; for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against you. (Jeremiah 14:7)

We acknowledge our wickedness, O Lord, and the iniquity of our fathers, for we have sinned against you. Do not spurn us, for your name's sake; do not dishonor your glorious throne. (Jeremiah 14:20-21)

God put [Christ] forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26)

Your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake. (1 John 2:12)

2) Because it makes clear that God loves us with the greatest love.

Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory. (John 17:24)

God loves us not in a way that makes us supreme, but makes himself supreme. Heaven will not be a hall of mirrors but an increasing vision of infinite greatness. Getting to heaven and finding that we are supreme would be the ultimate let down.

The greatest love makes sure that God does everything in such a way as to uphold and magnify his own supremacy so that when we get there we have something to increase our joy forever—God’s glory.

The greatest love is God’s giving himself to us for our eternal enjoyment for ever, at the cost of his Son’s life (Romans 8:32).

zeal

Zeal is a colossal waste of energy if its aim is anything other than Christ. Spirituality is a sham if Christ is not its substance. Passion, no matter how intense or well-intended, is a meaningless vapor in the human soul if it is not awakened by the beauty and splendor of Christ and has for its goal the glory and praise of Christ. There simply is no value in religious activity that is not Christological at its core. ~ Sam Storms

love gone awry

As my regular readers (both of them) know, I have been in discussion with a really great guy, Jonathan Brink, who proffers that God's dominant characteristic is love. Based on this, Jonathan defines God's other attributes. I disagree with Jonathan - not because I do not think God is love but because I think it is improper and unhealthy to elevate one characteristic of God (who is in unity) above others. I would say this regardless of the attribute Jonathan would have picked.

Linked to this idea, Jonathan recently pointed to a post, Are We Worthy of God's Love?, by Rachel Held Evans. Jonathan agrees with Evans that creation (no distinction between pre or post redemption and the context indicates pre) is worthy of God's love. Although Jonathan tells us that Doug Pagitt agrees, I do not see that Scripture agrees. The logic of the post feels a bit like an attempt to force fit the world into the aforementioned starting assumption. Nicole seems to share the concern.

Evans begins by celebrating that God loves creation. So far so good.

Evans then quotes the following from Doug Pagitt's A Christianity Worth Believing:

God loves this world and all who are in it. God not only loves humanity but created humanity as the ideal partner for bringing about all that God desires for the world. We are not working against our lesser nature when we seek to live with God; on the contrary, we are living as we were created. The joy of this proper understanding is that we no longer have to feel ashamed of our humanity. It is not a sin to be alive.

This is true but the "we seek to live with God" and "we are living as we were created" are only possible post-redemption.

Then Evans mistakenly describes the "T" part of TULIP, total depravity, as meaning we are totally evil. She doesn't understand that this is not the message of the Doctrine of Election. R.C. Sproul coined the phrase “Radical Corruption” to better articulate the “T” in TULIP. To quote Sproul:

The Bible teaches the total depravity of the human race. Total depravity means radical corruption. We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin.

Perhaps "radical corruption" is a better term to describe our fallen condition than "total depravity." I am using the word "radical" not so much to mean "extreme," but to lean more heavily on its original meaning. "Radical" comes from the Latin word for "root" or "core." Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being. It permeates our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that the Bible says: "There is none righteous, no not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12

Evans then states, "I’ve always found it curious that Christians so passionately defend the sanctity of life, when so many seem to think that human beings are, by their very nature, an affront to God." Well actually, by our very fallen nature we are enemies of God. But GOOD NEWS, He redeems us. So Evans seems a bit confused here. God is really not pleased with rebellious man.

She furthers her error with. "we honor and revere new life because we know all people are created in the image of God and are…dare I say…worthy of being loved by Him and by us." Had she stopped with "we honor and revere new life because we know all people are created in the image of God" she would have been ok. But somehow, because we are created in God's image, she thinks we are worthy of love - apparently missing the Biblical fact that we are broken image-bearers and worthy of wrath. It's marvelous that God loves us in spite of that.

Evans closes with:

What do you think? Are humans inherently good (but in need of a repaired relationship with God) or inherently evil (and incapable of doing any good on their own)? I honestly don’t know the answer to this question. … But I’ve got this nagging and relentless hope that God indeed "adores His creation."

God does love His creation. We are not worthy. We are not inherently good. As she said, we are in need of repair and until then, we are slaves to sin.

I do not know Evans. I sense she is asking honest questions. My concern is the conclusion she and others may (or have drawn). To quote one commenter, "in the end, we must be worthy of God's love, because that love is lavished upon us often." Wrong. How about referencing the Bible instead of this feel-good, humanistic philosophy?

Unorthodoxy thinks, "Humans aren't inherently good or inherently evil. We inherently are. ... No one is worthy of love. It is not earned. It is only given." Of course the Bible tells us a bit different than that. We are unworthy of love but we are loved. And even better, once redeemed, we are really worthy of love - in Christ.

even more on the gospel

Jim Meredith writes the following.

But what is, precisely, the Gospel? I am reminded of a verse I learned years ago:

“You are writing a gospel, a chapter each day, by the deeds you do and the words you say. Men read what you write, distorted or true; now tell me,what is the Gospel according to you?”

...

One of the ... organizations of which I am closely associated has adopted what it calls, “three story evangelism”, or good news from three different perspectives… God’s, mine and yours! Obviously the most important story is God’s, He is Creator, Sustainer, God-in-the-flesh-Man, Savior, Lover, Pursuer, Friend, etc. Anything that is permanent, lasting and good, God is. There are not enough adjectives or names in one’s vocabulary to ever describe Him adequately. But we each one want to talk about him – “our story” – when we are in love with Him, because we always want to talk about the person or thing with which we are in love! ... Then there is “your story”. What is or is not happening in your life as you respond (or fail to) to God’s story? And God’s love story is no more succinctly summarized than John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him, might not perish, but have eternal life.” Such a verse showing up in placards at sporting events,billboards, etc. is bound to be trivialized and may escape being included in “my story” or “your story”, but it is true nevertheless, and is the essence of God’s story. Candidly put, Jesus alone is the story.

...

Jesus is forever the bearer in the fleshof God’s story. He did “write” the gospel by his deeds and the words he said! Jesus simply is the Gospel. He brought good news and an invitation forus to return to Him: “Repent (do anabout face; stop going your ‘death’way; follow me the Lifegiver) for the Kingdom of Heaven (the only real Kingdom that has eternal life and hope and happiness) has arrived!”

(An amplification of Matthew’s story, Chapter 4:17) Jesus demonstrated God’s forgiveness for human failings and doing life “my way”, gave hope for eternal life through the then unheard of resurrection of his body from death back again to life, and relentlessly invited (not coerced) all to follow Him. And all of this was neither in mathematical nor doctrinal equations. For those religious leaders of His day, the man Christ had little good to say:“white washed tombs”… “blind leading the blind”… “searchers of Scriptures who have ‘missed’ that it is all about me!” Jesus lived God’s story; He “was” the story; and He told His story in relevant parables so that common folk like you and me could understand. We should do no less.

Trekker, there is a lot of ferment today about what is preeminent in proclaiming the Gospel. Is it proclaimed best through “Four Spiritual Laws”?(The Pharisee’s certainly had more than four laws, so we are ‘making progress’.)Is it proclaimed best through a set procedure of doctrinal propositions? Maybe. I believe the Gospel is proclaimed best when we reveal God as a relentless lover (the prodigal son will always be one of the greatest stories ever told because it is really all about the Father’s love, not the son’s sins), not as a cruel, demanding law giver and taskmaster. Today, as 2000 years ago, Jesus offers a reserved place in the Kingdom of God to all who will “receive Him” (check John’s story, Chapter 1,vs. 10-13), follow Him (not self or self-serving creeds about Him), continue to love Him and love each other.

Expectations are simple and straightforward. Live and tell “His story”. Then “your story” is His story. Lovingly invite others into the family! Trekker, let’s become good storytellers. What are your parables, your metaphors, the deeds you do and the words you say? Storytelling will trump arguments every time. That’s why the Lord did it; that’s why we love a good story; that’s why we can be included in the greatest story ever told!

TULIP revisited

Ok listen, I'm a "Calvinist" and I post many jokes about Calvinists so I'm declaring that I'm qualified to poke fun at those who are not. So, no need to beat me up for this one just in from Reformed Voices.


On a serious note I found this timely because I am beginning to engage with some "emerging" types. I formerly thought predisposed, judgmental, lack-of-facts thinking was reserved for the Evangelical camp. I am now finding that Emergers are like other people, they do the same thing.

I have to laugh (or cry) because this has been one of the constants I've seen in my nearly 30 years as a believer. We too often become what we hate. And this isn't just in the big stuff. I remember how we prided ourselves in the early days regarding proper attire for "church" meetings. We weren't like those stuffy religious types who confused their faith with their apparel. They were pharisees and we were normal (well, even better, we were cool - and that was pre-Apple Mac). But it wasn't too many years into it before it was clear that we also had a church uniform. It was easy to spot us and we even mocked those that dressed different.

Ah these emergent kids ... they like us refuse to learn from the mistakes of those that have gone before.

Technorati Tags: Calvinism, Emerging Church, humor

the gospel

To grow in your passion for what Jesus has done, increase your understanding of what He has done. Never be content with your grasp of the gospel. The gospel is life-permeating, world-altering, universe-changing truth. It has more facets than any diamond. Its depths man will never exhaust. ~ C.J. Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life

HT:FE

piper on god's schizophrenia

I align with this line from John Piper, "as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent, and that he has compassion on all people."

This is from Are There Two Wills in God? Piper opens the piece with this ...

My aim here is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all persons to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.

Technorati Tags: Calvinism

rambo jesus

Nakedpastor delivers again ... I know Christians that act like this ... but I also know Christians that presume many Christians that wear certain labels act like this. I don't know which group bothers me more.

lloyd-jones on reconciliation

God never leaves us in a negative position. God does not merely forgive us our sins. It is possible for somebody to forgive you and yet to feel rather distant towards you ... Forgiveness is only the negative aspect and God never stops at that. God always goes on. God is never satisfied with anything less than reconciliation. ~ Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones - "Romans 3:20 - 4:25: Atonement and Justification"

regeneration

Our theological word of the day ....

Regeneration
[ree-jehn’-uh-ray‘-shun]

(Latin regenerare, “to reproduce”)

The doctrine of spiritual renewal, otherwise known as being born-again. According to Titus 3:3-7, in his mercy God saves us by washing away our old nature through the power of the Holy Spirit, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life, as verse 7 states. There is some controversy as to when regeneration happens in the ordo salutis (order of salvation). Calvinists assert that regeneration happens before faith; Arminians believe it happens after faith evidences itself.

i'm a piper heretic

Oh no ... it finally happened (I suppose it was inevitable) ... I read something from John Piper that I disagree with. Who is the man in Romans 7? I'm with Warnock (and Virgo and Lloyd-Jones) on this one.

the books have been opened

Well, the books have been opened and the data analyzed ...


I can't explain it ... talk to this guy ... but what's spooky is I bet a lot of folks think like the above.

Technorati Tags: humor

macarthur on theology

Our theology must be biblical before it can be systematic. We must start with a proper interpretation of Scripture and build our theology from there, not read into God's Word unwarranted presuppositions. Scripture is the only appropriate gauge by which we may ultimately measure the correctness of our doctrine. ~ John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles

wordle

There's a cool on-ling thingy called wordle ... here's what it did with the text from my current blog page ...

the environment

We recently concluded a series of discussions in my small group regarding the environment, dominion, etc.. It was great in that I learned some simple facts but mostly it challenged some stale thinking I had. In the end however I'm not going "green". On the other hand, I like some of Mark Heath's thoughts and will certainly be making an effort to be a better steward of God's wonderful creation.

It seems that the consensus is that global warming is real and man-made, although every now and then I come up against skeptics (some more believable than others). To be honest, I'm not sure I really need to know. Most of the "good for the environment" things you can do have merits of their own irrespective of whether the planet is in immanent peril or not.

...

Conventional wisdom at the moment claims that Christians don't care about the environment because of their eschatology - Jesus is coming back and he'll clean up the mess for us. Maybe there is a little of that, but I'm not sure for two reasons.

First, the reason many Christians don't talk a lot about "the environment" is because we have a different name for it. We call it "Creation", and can be found singing about how wonderful it is almost every week at church. In fact a healthy doctrine of seeing our world as God's creation entrusted to us as responsible stewards should be all the impetus we need to cause us to work against those things that destroy our environment.

Second, I think the reason so many Christians care so little about environmental issues is nothing to do with their eschatology but rather because of syncretism. We have made it possible to mix Christianity with secular materialistic consumerism.

I also just read Virgil Vaduva's take on some environmental issues and I agree with his viewpoint.

As Christians we believe that we are entrusted by our Creator with a planet we need to watch over and maintain for our children and grandchildren; we need to be the kind of "environmentalists" that God wants us to be, to love and care for the world we live in, but not do so by allowing Communists in Gore clothing to manipulate us as they are attempting to do.

the name of jesus

Speaking of the characteristics of God ... Nicole does an interesting analysis regarding how the name of Jesus appears in the Bible.

discernment

John MacArthur posts today on Thinking Biblically. This is a call to discernment which is a good encouragement at all times for all Christians everywhere. I will add two comments:

1) Discernment is not the first step nor the last. That is, it starts with a life-changing touch by the Holy Spirit, a knowledge of some Truth, repentance, etc.. But more, our life does not end with discernment, it is about living Christ-like, day in and day out, moment by moment.

2) The second point builds on the first. I know discerning people our are not Christ-like. They discern all but themselves. Actually that's too harsh. Sometimes they fail to discern the time, that is it may not be the right time to confront a given issue. More often they fail to discern the bigger picture. I suppose I want to say that their use of discernment is not very discerning. Can one say that?

For the purpose of his post, MacArthur did a fine job with his definition: "Discernment — the ability to think biblically about all areas of life — is indispensable to an uncompromising life." In a larger context I might have used the phase "think and act" over "think". I also prefer "Christ-like" over "biblically" - while these may seem the same I think the implication is great.

reformed website scandal

Dr. Charles Hollingsworth, senior pastor, Liberty Baptist Church in Battle Creek, MI, has been caught in a reformed website scandal. His undoing is thanks to Covenant Eyes, a web browsing monitoring software designed to "fight internet temptation". I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are likely many more like Hollingsworth. These men need help. They surf the internet endlessly. They are compelled yet filled with shame. And I suspect their number is growing.

The full story here.

Technorati Tags: humor

spurgeon on revival

Ah ... the quotable C.H. Spurgeon. Here he speaks on revival. I like his words. Some are slinging these as warning to the Lakeland happenings. I don't know about that. But regardless the words are timeless and true.

Every attempt at revival of religion which proves a failure,—and fail it must without the presence of God,—leaves the Church in a worse condition than it was before; because, if it should prove a failure, from the want of any stir at all; then God's people fall back into their former lethargy, with an excuse for continuing in it; or if a false stir be made, a reaction follows of a most injurious character. I suppose the worst time in the Christian Church is generally that which follows the excitement of a revival; and if that revival has had no reality in it, the mischief which is done is awful and incalculable. If no excitement shall come at all, the mischief is still as great; God's people, being disappointed, have little heart to listen to further exhortations to future zealous action, become contented with their Laodicean lukewarmness, and it becomes impossible to bestir them again. If a revival should apparently have success and yet God be not in it, perhaps this is even worse. The wild-fire and madness of some revivals have been a perfect disgrace to the common sense of the age, let alone the spirituality of the Church.

wrath and love

Let us not trifle with God or trivialize his love. We will never stand in awe of being loved by God until we reckon with the seriousness of our sin and the justice of his wrath against us. But when, by grace, we waken to our unworthiness, then we may look at the suffering and death of Christ and say, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the [wrath-absorbing] propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). ~ John Piper, Fifty Reasons why Christ Came to Die

From Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, "Only he who knows the greatness of wrath will be mastered by the greatness of mercy. The converse is also true: Only he who has experienced the greatness of mercy can measure how great wrath must be. For the wrath of God arises from His love and mercy. Where mercy meets with the ungodly will of man rather than faith and gratitude, with goodwill and the response of love, love becomes wrath."

John Stott uses this concept in The Cross of Christ.

"We saunter up to God to claim His patronage and friendship; it does not occur to us that He might send us away. We need to hear again the apostle Peter's sobering words: 'Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives....in reverent fear' (1 Pet 1:7). In other words, if we dare to call our Judge our Father, we must beware of presuming on Him. It must even be said that our evangelical emphasis on the atonement is dangerous if we come to it too quickly. We learn to appreciate the access of God which Christ won for us only after we have first seen God's inaccessibility to sinners. We can cry 'Hallelujah' with authenticity only after we have cried 'Woe is me, for I am lost.' In Dale's words, 'it is partly because sin does not provoke our own wrath, that we do not believe that sin provokes the wrath of God'.

We must, therefore, hold fast to the biblical revelation of the living God who hates evil, is disgusted and angered by it, and refuses ever to come to terms with it. In consequence, we may be sure that, when he searched in His mercy for some way to forgive, cleanse and accept evil-doers, it was not along the road of moral compromise. It has to be a way which was expressive equally of His love and of His wrath. As Brunner put it, 'where the idea of the wrath of God is ignored, there will also be no understanding of the central conception of the Gospel: the uniqueness of the revelation of the Mediator'. Similarly, 'only he who knows the greatness of wrath will be mastered by the greatness of mercy'.

...If we bring God down to our level and raise ourselves to His, then of course we see no need for a radical salvation, let alone for a radical atonement to secure it. When, on the other hand, we have glimpsed the blinding glory of the holiness of God, and have been so convicted of our sin by the Holy Spirit that we tremble before God and acknowledge what we are, namely 'hell-deserving sinners', then and only then does the necessity of the cross appear so obvious that we are astonished we never saw it before."

There is an inevitable collision between Divine perfection and human rebellion. There's an enormous gulf between God as He is and us as we are. Neither our sin nor our guilt alone is what separates us, but also the Divine reaction towards guilty sinners. God's nature demands that He express his holy love without compromising his holiness, and his holiness in judging sinners without frustrating his love.

The idea that God is Holy is foundational to Biblical religion and sin is incompatible with his holiness. Closely related to Gods holiness is his wrath, which is his holy reaction to evil.

good news

Good news for Jews ... giraffes declared kosher. Yep, both the meat and milk of this cloven-hoofed, cud-chewin' beast is kosher. I bet that's good news to someone ... except the giraffe.

justice and love

Nicole pointed me toward John Piper's Fifty Reasons why Christ Came to Die. I had planned to read it while on vacation but just couldn't wait. This excerpt from at the beginning of chapter 1 is great. If the rest of the book is anything like this I am in for a treat.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.” Galatians 3:13

God put [Christ] forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. Romans 3:25

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:10

If God were not just, there would be no demand for his Son to suffer and die. And if God were not loving, there would be no willingness for his Son to suffer and die. But God is both just and loving. Therefore his love is willing to meet the demands of his justice.

gospel jazz

We do not need to jazz up or somehow enhance a weak gospel. We need to faithfully teach and preach the biblical gospel and see to it that identifiably faithful men will take the unadulterated gospel to the next generation. That is how to grow a church biblically. ~ Steve Martin, p. 310, Dear Timothy: Letters on Pastoral Ministry

HT:JB

kids' rock

This is great ... Kids' Rock by Tim Hawkins.


HT:TR

Technorati Tags: humor, music

incommunicable attribute - omnipresence

From Wayne Grudem, Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine (173)...

Just as God is unlimited or infinite with respect to time, so God is unlimited with respect to space. This characteristic of God’s nature is called God’s omnipresence (the Latin prefix omni- means “all”). God’s omnipresence may be defined as follows: God does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places.

The fact that God is Lord of space and cannot be limited by space is evident first from the fact that he created it, for the creation of the material world (Gen. 1:1) implies the creation of space as well. Moses reminded the people of God’s lordship over space: “Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it” (Deut. 10:14).

a. God Is Present Everywhere: Yet there are also specific passages that speak of God’s presence in every part of space. We read in Jeremiah, “Am I a God at hand, says the Lord, and not a God afar off ? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord” (Jer. 23:23–24). God is here rebuking the prophets who think their words or thoughts are hidden from God. He is everywhere and fills heaven and earth.

God’s omnipresence is beautifully expressed by David:

Whither shall I go from your Spirit?
Or whither shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me. (Ps. 139:7–10)

There is nowhere in the entire universe, on land or sea, in heaven or in hell, where one can flee from God’s presence.

b. God Does Not Have Spatial Dimensions: While it seems necessary for us to say that God’s whole being is present in every part of space, or at every point in space, it is also necessary to say that God cannot be contained by any space no matter how large. Solomon says in his prayer to God, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house which I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27). Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain God; indeed, he cannot be contained by the largest space imaginable (cf. Isa. 66:1–2; Acts 7:48). While the thought that God is everywhere present with his whole being ought to encourage us greatly in prayer no matter where we are, the fact that no one place can be said to contain God should also discourage us from thinking that there is some special place of worship that gives people special access to God: he cannot be contained in any one place.

We should guard against thinking that God extends infinitely far in all directions so that he himself exists in a sort of infinite, unending space. Nor should we think that God is somehow a “bigger space” or bigger area surrounding the space of the universe as we know it. All of these ideas continue to think of God’s being in spatial terms, as if he were simply an extremely large being. Instead, we should try to avoid thinking of God in terms of size or spatial dimensions. God is a being who exists without size or dimensions in space. In fact, before God created the universe, there was no matter or material so there was no space either. Yet God still existed. Where was God? He was not in a place that we could call a “where,” for there was no “where” or space. But God still was! This fact makes us realize that God relates to space in a far different way than we do or than any created thing does. He exists as a kind of being that is far different and far greater than we can imagine.

We must also be careful not to think that God himself is equivalent to any part of creation or to all of it. A pantheist believes that everything is God, or that God is everything that exists. The biblical perspective is rather that God is present everywhere in his creation, but that he is also distinct from his creation. How can this be? The analogy of a sponge filled with water is not perfect, but it is helpful. Water is present everywhere in the sponge, but the water is still completely distinct from the sponge. Now this analogy breaks down at very small points within the sponge, where we could say that there is sponge at one point and not water, or water and not sponge. Yet this is because the analogy is dealing with two materials that have spatial characteristics and dimensions, while God does not.

hold me

Hold Me
(John Barnett)

Father, You’re so good
Father, You’re so wise
There’s healing in Your hands
Compassion in Your eyes
And what is to become of me?
I’m captured by Your love
You touch the deepest part of me
I just can’t get enough

You are everything to me
I come like a child
Lift my arms like a child
Oh hold me
Hold me, right now

the answer to everything

This cartoon reminded me of someone I know ... actually, it reminds me of almost everyone I know. Most of my friends are very passionate about some small number of things. For me it's small groups and community. Almost any time I speak with someone, the solution to whatever we discuss is small groups. I was thinking about another friend who has found help framing everything about God using the term love. I have another friend with whom every conversation circled back to the Doctrine of Election/Grace. And so it goes.

I like my friends. I like that they have passion. Even if it makes us looks silly.

Technorati Tags: humor

egalitarianism

Today's theological word of the day ...

Egalitarianism
French egal “equal”

Theological position which believes that the Bible does not teach that women are in any sense, functionally or ontologically, subservient to men. Women and men hold positions in society, ministry, and the family according to their gifts, not their gender. The principle of mutual submission teaches that husbands and wives are to submit to each other equally. Promenade egalitarians include Doug Groothuis, Ruth Tucker, William Webb, Gorden Fee, and Linda Belleville.

Technorati Tags: women

incommunicable attribute - eternity

Another wonderful characteristic of God is Hie eternity. That is, He has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in His own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet sees events in time and acts in time. Time does not limit or change God. Wayne Grudem writes clearly on this in Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine (168).

Time has no effect on God’s knowledge. He never learns new things or forgets things - He always knows perfectly, i.e., He knows past, present, and future equally vividly.


God Is timeless is seen in Psalm 90:2: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” Similarly, in Job 36:26, Elihu says of God, “the number of his years is unsearchable.” He always exists. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8; cf. 4:8).

God’s own being does not have a succession of moments or any progress from one state of existence to another. To God himself, all of his existence is always somehow “present".

For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done
saying, “My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose. (Isa. 46:9–10)

God somehow stands above time and is able to see it all as present in his consciousness.

Even so, God sees events in time and acts in time. Paul writes, “when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law” (Gal. 4:4–5). God observed clearly and knew exactly what was happening with events in his creation as they occurred over time. We might say that God watched the progress of time as various events occurred within his creation. Then at the right time, “when the time had fully come,” God sent forth his Son into the world.

It is evident throughout Scripture that God acts within time and acts differently at different points in time. For example, Paul tells the men of Athens, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed...” (Acts 17:30–31). This statement includes a description of a previous way in which God acted, God’s present way of acting, and a future activity that he will carry out, all in time.

Indeed, the repeated emphasis on God’s ability to predict the future in the Old Testament prophets requires us to realize that God predicts his actions at one point in time and then carries out his actions at a later point in time. And on a larger scale, the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation is God’s own record of the way he has acted over time to bring redemption to his people.

We must therefore affirm both that God has no succession of moments in his own being and sees all history equally vividly, and that in his creation he sees the progress of events over time and acts differently at different points in time; in short, he is the Lord who created time and who rules over it and uses it for his own purposes. God can act in time because he is Lord of time.17 He uses it to display his glory. In fact, it is often God’s good pleasure to fulfill his promises and carry out his works of redemption over a period of time so that we might more readily see and appreciate his great wisdom, his patience, his faithfulness, his lordship over all events, and even his unchangeableness and eternity.

complementarianism

Here's our theological word of the day ...

Complementarianism

Theological position held by many Christians believing the Bible teaches that men and women are of equal worth, dignity, and responsibility before God (ontological equality), but that men and women have different roles to play in society, the family, and the church (relational distinct roles). For the complementarian, these roles do not compete but complement each other. Prominent modern complementarian are Tomas Schreiner, Wayne Grudem, and John Piper.

Technorati Tags: women

the larger story

Only as we see our story enfolded in the larger story of redemption will we begin to live God-honoring lives. Lasting change begins when our identity, purpose, and sense of direction are defined by God’s story. When we bring this perspective to our relationships, we will have a dramatically different agenda. It will take the principles and commands of Scripture and use them as God intended. We will see how each principle, promise, and command finds its meaning and fulfillment in Christ. Separate them from Christ and they lose their God-intended meaning and get hijacked by other agendas. ~ Paul David Tripp, Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands

HT:FE

piety

While I don't share the degree of concern regarding the 'target' to whom this particular quote has been reapplied, I certainly agree with the quote itself.

Pushing aside important [doctrinal] differences makes the church more energetic about a moralism focused on man than true piety focused on God. This in turn creates a pragmatism, and eventually a relativism, that will destroy the love of truth and with it the sense of oughtness that gives perseverance to righteous action. ~ Tom Nettles

We most be very careful to sort out what is foundational and to not compromise that. Of course even what constitutes the basics seems to be up for debate these days but surely something fits that category and whatever it is, it should not be compromised.

With that said I should add that the converse of the quote is also true. A piety toward God that does not result in a love for His creation demonstrated through good words and deeds leads toward legalism. This ultimately results in a lost focus on our true love Himself.

the problem with religion

Here's a good word from Tim Keller to Christians regarding the problem with religion.

scandel

There's a lot of talk regarding the Lakeland 'scandel' but I heard one today that tops that.

The ultimate scandal of Christianity is in this: that God is merciful to the undeserving, to sinners, to those who have no merit but the merit of Christ to plead, and no argument but the humble, believing cry, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner.' ~ Alistair Beg, What Angels Wish They Knew

HT:RV

what a friend i've found

What A Friend I've Found

What a friend I've found
Closer than a brother
I have felt your touch
More intimate than lovers

Jesus, Jesus
Jesus, friend forever

What a hope I've found
More faithful than a mother
It would break my heart
To ever lose each other

Written by Martin Smith ©1996 Curious? Music UK

laughing

This simple cartoon by NakedPastor reminded me of the time I was sitting at my friend Randy Clark's church in St. Louis in the mid-80's. David Ruis was speaking. It wasn't so interesting. Nothing funny was happening. I hadn't been drinking. But suddenly I fell out of my seat onto the floor laughing.

I couldn't stop. I didn't want to do that (no one else was). It was if someone was tickling me and I couldn't resist. I somehow knew it was God. I asked Him to stop. I was laughing so hard tears were in my ears, my side was hurting, etc.. I asked Him again and again.

He said, "No - you need to lighten up and I won't stop until you really agree."

I did.

Technorati Tags: personal

unchangeable

Today's attribute of God is His unchangeableness (or immutability). God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations.

Psalm 102 contrasts things that we may think to be permanent such as the earth or the heavens to God.

Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you endure;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You change them like raiment, and they pass away;
but you are the same, and your years have no end.
(Ps. 102:25–27)

Again Wayne Grudem sheds some good light on the topic (Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine, p163) [emphasis mine].

God existed before the heavens and earth were made, and he will exist long after they have been destroyed. God causes the universe to change, but in contrast to this change he is “the same.”

Referring to his own qualities of patience, long-suffering, and mercy, God says, “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed” (Mal. 3:6). Here God uses a general statement of his unchangeableness to refer to some specific ways in which he does not change.

James reminds his readers that all good gifts come ultimately from God “with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17). His argument is that since good gifts have always come from God, we can be confident that only good gifts will come from him in the future, because his character never changes in the slightest degree.

The definition given above specifies that God is unchanging—not in every way that we might imagine, but only in ways that Scripture itself affirms. The Scripture passages already cited refer either to God’s own being or to some attribute of his character. From these we can conclude that God is unchanging, at least with respect to his “being,” and with respect to his “perfections” (that is, his attributes or the various aspects of his character).

The great Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck notes that the fact that God is unchanging in his being is of the utmost importance for maintaining the Creator/creature distinction, and for our worship of God:

The doctrine of God’s immutability is of the highest significance for religion. The contrast between being and becoming marks the difference between the Creator and the creature. Every creature is continually becoming. It is changeable, constantly striving, seeks rest and satisfaction, and finds this rest in God, in him alone, for only he is pure being and no becoming. Hence, in Scripture God is often called the Rock....

The definition given above also affirms God’s unchangeableness or immutability with respect to his purposes. “The counsel of the Lord stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations” (Ps. 33:11). This general statement about God’s counsel is supported by several specific verses that talk about individual plans or purposes of God that he has had for all eternity (Matt. 13:35; 25:34; Eph. 1:4, 11; 3:9, 11; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Peter 1:20; Rev. 13:8). Once God has determined that he will assuredly bring something about, his purpose is unchanging, and it will be achieved. In fact, God claims through Isaiah that no one else is like him in this regard:

I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, “My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose” . . .
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.
(Isa. 46:9–11)

Furthermore, God is unchanging in his promises. Once he has promised something, he will not be unfaithful to that promise: “God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?” (Num. 23:19; cf. 1 Sam. 15:29).

is god narcissistic?

We have been taught that WE are the center of His universe. We have been shown verse after verse that talks about His love for us. Which is, of course, true, but there is context for that as well… We believe that God cannot possibly love God most - that would be narcissistic. And yet, could God be holy, if He placed infinite worth on anything but that which is infinitely valuable?? Namely Himself? ~ Nicole Sagert

a jealous god

From Sam Storms today ... this is excellent and fits well with my continuing posts regarding the nature of God. Here we can see that love and jealousy work together, they are not contradictory, nor is one above the other.

In fact, if I had any disagreement with Storms it would be that at one point in this he elevates jealousy above other attributes (using words such as primary and defining). God's attributes are in balance and in unity with each other. I believe Storms holds them in balance but I resisted the urge to edit his language to one of more balance. I resisted for the sake of those that want to contend some other characteristic might be His defining characteristic. I think every attribute of God is so awesome that anyone could easily argue that any one of them is the primary, most wonderful, defining, whatever one. We must resist that. We must step back and marvel in the beauty of the unity and integration of all that defines God.

Now ... to Stoms' piece.

The Jealousy of God in the Heart of a Human
(2 Corinthians 11:1-2)

"I feel a divine jealousy for you," says Paul, "for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:2). There is much in this passage to note, but here I want to focus solely on the "divine jealousy" that fills Paul's heart.

This statement in v. 2 might more literally be rendered, "I am jealous for you with God's own zeal" or the jealousy that comes from God himself or, perhaps, my heart is filled with a jealousy that is just like God's.

Whoah! God gets jealous? Are you kidding? No, I'm deadly serious, and so is God. Consider just a few texts that affirm this remarkable truth.

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me" (Exod. 20:4-5; emphasis mine).

Or again,

"for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Exod. 34:14; emphasis mine).

Here we see that the primary reason for worshiping God alone is the fact that God's name is Jealous! In the ancient world one's name was not merely a label or a tag, but a declaration of one's character. Thus, in the very depths of God's divine character burns the fire of jealousy. Jealousy is central to the essence of who God is. Jealousy is at the core of God's identity as God. Jealousy is that defining characteristic or personality trait that makes God God. Whatever other reasons you may find in Scripture for worshiping and serving and loving God alone, and there are many of them and they are all good, paramount among them all is the fact that our God burns with jealousy for the undivided allegiance and affection of His people.

Consider also these texts:

"Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy" (Num. 25:11).

"For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God" (Deut. 4:24).

"You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you, for the Lord your God in your midst is a jealous God, lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth" (Deut. 6:14-15; cf. 29:20).

"They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger" (Deut. 32:16; cf. 32:21).

An especially interesting text is the following passage from Ezekiel.

"He put out the form of a hand and took me by a lock of my head, and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the gateway of the inner court that faces north, where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provokes to jealousy" (Ezek. 8:3).

The Israelites had placed an idol of some sort at the entrance to the north gate of the temple. Literally, it reads "the jealousy that provokes jealousy", a reference to the passion that this object ignites in God's heart. "Look," says the Lord, "look at that abominable statue which draws away the hearts of my people. They are loving it, not Me. They are bowing down to it, not Me. I am red hot with jealousy, for I will not stand for anything or anyone to come between me and the devotion of my bride!"

The pervasive presence in Scripture of this remarkable truth is simply undeniable. I encourage you to read 1 Kings 14:22; Ezekiel 16:38,42; 23:25; 36:5ff; 38:19; 39:25; Joshua 24:19; Psalm 78:58; 79:5; Joel 2:18; Nahum 1:2; Zephaniah 1:18; 3:8; Zechariah 1:14; and 1 Corinthians 10:22.

God is an emotional being. He experiences within the depths of his being genuine passions and affections. The fact that we balk at the suggestion that God is jealous indicates that we have a weak, insipid view of the divine nature. Absolutely fundamental to God's being God is the presence in his nature of an inextinguishable blaze of immeasurable love called jealousy.

Most of us have seen or felt or been on the receiving end of human jealousy that is destructive and sinful and ugly. We naturally recoil from the suggestion that God might to any degree be tainted with such a terrible flaw of character. But to say that God is jealous certainly does not mean that he is suspicious because of some insecurity in his heart. This kind of jealousy is the result of ignorance and mistrust, features that are utterly absent from the heart of God. Neither does it mean he is wrongfully envious of the success of others. Jealousy that is sinful is most often the product of anxiety and bitterness and fear. But surely none of this could be true of God. Sinful jealousy is the sort that longs to possess and control what does not properly belong to oneself; it is demanding and cares little for the supposed object of its love.

But as J. I. Packer explains, "God's jealousy is not a compound of frustration, envy, and spite, as human jealousy so often is, but appears instead as a . . . praiseworthy zeal to preserve something supremely precious" (Knowing God, 153). Divine jealousy is his zeal to protect a love relationship or to avenge it when it is broken. Jealousy in God is that passionate energy that provokes and stirs and moves him to take action against whatever or whoever stands in the way of his enjoyment of what he loves and desires. The intensity of God's anger at threats to this relationship is directly proportionate to the depths of his love.

This is no momentary or sporadic or infrequent or occasional burst of anger or minor irritation in the heart of God. This is no passing twinge in God's mind. This is the incessant, intensely persistent burning in the heart of the infinitely powerful, uncreated God. In the ancient near east, the word for "jealousy" literally meant to become intensely red, a reference to the effects of anger on one's facial complexion. Jealousy in God is not a "green-eyed monster" but a "red-faced lover" who will brook no rivals in his relationship with his people. Let's look briefly at the two primary ways this jealousy is expressed.

First of all, God is most jealous for his own glory, fame, and honor. He desires above all else that his name be preserved and promoted and he will act quickly and powerfully to vindicate his glory. "The jealousy of Yahweh," writes Ray Ortlund, "is his profoundly intense drive within to protect the interests of his own glory (Ex. 20:4-6; Ezk. 39:25), for he 'will admit no derogation from his majesty.'" (Whoredom: God's Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology) [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], p. 29, n. 15).

Second, God is also jealous for the devotion and wholeheartedness and loyalty and love of his bride, his people. Just as a husband cannot be indulgent of adultery in his wife, so also God cannot and will not endure infidelity in us. What would we think of a man or woman who does not experience jealous feelings when another person approaches his/her spouse and threatens to win his/her affection? We would regard such a person as deficient in moral character and lacking in true love. John Calvin explains:

"The Lord very frequently addresses us in the character of a husband . . . As He performs all the offices of a true and faithful husband, so He requires love and chastity from us; that is, that we do not prostitute our souls to Satan . . . As the purer and chaster a husband is, the more grievously he is offended when he sees his wife inclining to a rival; so the Lord, who has betrothed us to Himself in truth, declares that He burns with the hottest jealousy whenever, neglecting the purity of His holy marriage, we defile ourselves with abominable lusts, and especially when the worship of His deity, which ought to have been most carefully kept unimpaired, is transferred to another, or adulterated with some superstition; since in this way we not only violate our plighted troth, but defile the nuptial couch by giving access to adulterers" (Institutes, II.viii.18).

In summary, the fire of divine zeal will consume and destroy and leave in a pathetic rubble of worthless ash, anything and everything that we have built or worked for or given our hearts to or relied upon that in any way or to any degree detracts from the glory of his name or threatens the purity of his relationship with his bride, the Church.

And it is this very jealousy, this same divine and godly zeal, that now fills the heart of Paul as he contemplates the dangerous path down which so many of the Corinthians appear to be walking. It is this jealousy that alone accounts for the passionate appeal that is to follow. In Paul's case it is a "mixture of love, outrage, and fear: love for the Corinthians manifest in deep concern for their spiritual well-being; outrage at their fickleness, the ease and speed by which they have been seduced; fear for their future if they do not repent and return to the Lord" (Carson, 85).

Yes, our God is a jealous God in whose heart burns a passionate love for his people, a love that will forever labor to win our full affection and unqualified devotion.

in christ

On "...in Christ at Colossae" (Col 1v2): Remember... whatever geographical location you call home that you are in Christ. They are true simultaneously. You do not live in Christ only while you are at church, on your knees, or in a home group, then return to being simply in your city when you leave that more holy atmosphere. Your 'in-Christness' is not simply a heavenly reality that obtains only somewhere up there. You are in Christ even when you are in sin, although the reality of the former ought to progressively diminish your experience of the later. ~ Sam Storms ; The Hope of Glory

HT:PD

Wow!!!!!

resolved

There's a great post by Steven Lawson at Ligonier Ministries entitled Resolved. Lawson writes:

Edwards began his Resolutions with what he desired to be the driving force of his life -- an all-absorbing passion to pursue the glory of God.

"Resolved: that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God's glory and to my own good, profit, and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved: to do whatever I think to be my duty, and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved: to do this whatever difficulties I meet with, how ever so many and how ever so great."

...

What is the glory of God? The Bible speaks of it in two ways. First, there is His intrinsic glory, the revelation of all that God is. It is the sum total of all His divine perfections and holy attributes. There is nothing that man can do to add to His intrinsic glory. Second, there is God's ascribed glory, which is the praise and honor due His name. This is the glory that man must give to God.

For Edwards, to be resolved to live for God's glory means to exalt His most glorious name. It means to live consistently with His holy character. It means to proclaim and promote His supreme greatness. This is the highest purpose for which God created us.

Why did Edwards place this resolution first? He understood that Scripture places the glory of God first in all things. Edwards was gripped with a transcendent, high view of God. As a result, in writing his "resolutions," he knew he must live wholeheartedly for this awesome, sovereign God.

Thus, Edwards intentionally chose to "do whatsoever I think is most to God's glory." Here is the interpretive principle for everything in life. You want to know what God's will is? You want to know whom to marry? You want to know what job to take? You want to know what ministry to pursue? You want to know how to invest your resources? You want to know how to spend your time?

There it is! Everything in life fits under this master theme. Anything out of alignment with this principle pursuit is in dangerous territory. Sometimes our decisions are not between right and wrong. Sometimes they are between good, better, and best. These are sometimes the hardest decisions. Edwards said that he would not live for what is merely good. Nor for what is better. He purposed to live only for what is best. Whatever is most to the glory of God -- that is what is best!

Edwards believed that God's glory was inseparably connected with his "own good, profit, and pleasure." Whenever he sought God's glory, he was confident that it would inevitably yield God's greatest good for his life. The glory of God produced his greatest "pleasure." So it is with us. Would you know unspeakable joy? Abundant peace? True contentment? Then pursue God's glory.

With unwavering determination, young Edwards chose this first resolution to mark "the whole of my duration." As long as he was alive, this was to be the driving thrust of his life. He must always live for God's glory. He would never outgrow this central theme. He must never exchange it for a lesser glory.

Also, Edwards' believed that his commitment to God's glory would bring the greatest "good of mankind." By seeking God's honor, the greatest advantage would accrue to others. Thus, living for the glory of God would lead to the greatest influence of the Gospel upon the world. Souls would be converted. Saints would be edified. Needs would be met.

Would you have maximum impact upon this world? Would you lead others to Christ? Would you live for eternity? There it is! Live for God's glory.

No matter what, Edwards resolved to live for God's glory despite "whatever difficulties I meet with, how ever so many and ever so great." Regardless the cost, despite the pain, he would pursue God's honor. Even if it meant persecution or poverty, his mind was made up, his will resolved. He would pay any price to uphold the glory of God, regardless of the hardship that awaited him.

This is my challenge to the next generation: Would you seek the highest goal? Would you know the deepest joy? Would you realize the greatest good? Would you cast the widest influence? Would you overcome the greatest difficulties?

Then make this first resolution of Jonathan Edwards your chief aim. Be resolved to live for God's glory.

incommunicable attribute - independence

Independence - God does not need us or the rest of creation for anything, yet we and the rest of creation can glorify him and bring him joy.

I like that this is coincidently the first attribute listed by Wayne Grudem. I say that because some would say that love is God's base attribute that defines all others. Here, God's independence is not defined by love but instead His independence gives greater meaning to how deep His love is. He would still be independent if He didn't love and we can understand His love more accurately by understanding His independence. A wrong definition of love is possible (even probable) without a right understanding of His independence.

The following is from Wayne Grudem, Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine (160):

God does not need any part of creation in order to exist or for any other reason. God is absolutely independent and self-sufficient. Paul proclaims to the men of Athens, “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24–25). The implication is that God does not need anything from mankind.
God asks Job, “Who has given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine” (Job 41:11). No one has ever contributed to God anything that did not first come from God who created all things. Similarly, we read God’s word in Psalm 50, “every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the air, and all that moves in the field is mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world and all that is in it is mine” (Ps. 50:10–12).

People have sometimes thought that God created human beings because he was lonely and needed fellowship with other persons. If this were true, it would certainly mean that God is not completely independent of creation. It would mean that God would need to create persons in order to be completely happy or completely fulfilled in his personal existence.

Yet there are some specific indications in Jesus’ words that show this idea to be inaccurate. In John 17:5, Jesus prays, “Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made.” Here is an indication that there was a sharing of glory between the Father and the Son before creation. Then in John 17:24, Jesus speaks to the Father of “my glory which you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world.” There was love and communication between the Father and the Son before creation.

These passages indicate explicitly what we can learn elsewhere from the doctrine of the Trinity, namely, that among the persons of the Trinity there has been perfect love and fellowship and communication for all eternity. The fact that God is three persons yet one God means that there was no loneliness or lack of personal fellowship on God’s part before creation. In fact, the love and interpersonal fellowship, and the sharing of glory, have always been and will always be far more perfect than any communion we as finite human beings will ever have with God. And as the second verse quoted above speaks of the glory the Father gave to the Son, we should also realize that there is a giving of glory by the members of the Trinity to one another that far surpasses any bestowal of glory that could ever be given to God by all creation.

With regard to God’s existence, this doctrine also reminds us that only God exists by virtue of his very nature, and that he was never created and never came into being. He always was. This is seen from the fact that all things that exist were made by him (“For you created all things and by your will they existed and were created” [Rev. 4:11]; this is also affirmed in John 1:3; Rom. 11:35–36; 1 Cor. 8:6). Moses tells us that God existed before there was any creation: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Ps. 90:2). God’s independence is also seen in his self-designation in Exodus 3:14: “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.”’ It is also possible to translate this statement “I will be what I will be,” but in both cases the implication is that God’s existence and character are determined by himself alone and are not dependent on anyone or anything else. This means that God’s being has always been and will always be exactly what it is. God is not dependent upon any part of creation for his existence or his nature. Without creation, God would still be infinitely loving, infinitely just, eternal, omniscient, trinitarian, and so forth.

God’s being is also something totally unique. It is not just that God does not need the creation for anything; God could not need the creation for anything. The difference between the creature and the Creator is an immensely vast difference, for God exists in a fundamentally different order of being. It is not just that we exist and God has always existed; it is also that God necessarily exists in an infinitely better, stronger, more excellent way. The difference between God’s being and ours is more than the difference between the sun and a candle, more than the difference between the ocean and a raindrop, more than the difference between the arctic ice cap and a snowflake, more than the difference between the universe and the room we are sitting in: God’s being is qualitatively different. No limitation or imperfection in creation should be projected onto our thought of God. He is the Creator; all else is creaturely. All else can pass away in an instant; he necessarily exists forever.

The balancing consideration with respect to this doctrine is the fact that we and the rest of creation can glorify God and bring him joy. This must be stated in order to guard against any idea that God’s independence makes us meaningless. Someone might wonder, if God does not need us for anything, then are we important at all? Is there any significance to our existence or to the existence of the rest of creation? In response it must be said that we are in fact very meaningful because God has created us and he has determined that we would be meaningful to him. That is the final definition of genuine significance.

God speaks of his sons and daughters from the ends of the earth as “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory whom I formed and made” (Isa. 43:7). Although God did not have to create us, he chose to do so in a totally free choice. He decided that he would create us to glorify him (cf. Eph. 1:11–12; Rev. 4:11).

It is also true that we are able to bring real joy and delight to God. It is one of the most amazing facts in Scripture that God actually delights in his people and rejoices over them. Isaiah prophesies about the restoration of God’s people:

You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord,
and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
You shall no more be termed Forsaken
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate;
but you shall be called My delight is in her,
and your land Married;
for the Lord delights in you
and your land shall be married....
as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride
so shall your God rejoice over you. (Isa. 62:3–5)

Similarly, Zephaniah prophesies that the Lord “will rejoice over you with gladness, he will renew you in his love; he will exult over you with loud singing as on a day of festival” (Zeph. 3:17–18). God does not need us for anything, yet it is the amazing fact of our existence that he chooses to delight in us and to allow us to bring joy to his heart. This is the basis for personal significance in the lives of all God’s people: to be significant to God is to be significant in the most ultimate sense. No greater personal significance can be imagined.

scripture brings life

Matthew 5:17-19; Do not think I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. v. 17

John Michael Talbot explains:

Jesus was not a rebel, he was a good Jew and an obedient son of an ancient faith - the faith of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets. All of Jesus’ actions and teachings were based on the law. Although he sometimes seemed to break the law, he always fulfilled the heart of the law, and he supported his action with scripture.

Jesus, the Living Word, appointed living men to be his apostles and preach his word of salvation. They were anointed by the Spirit of the living God at Pentecost and empowered to fulfill their commission. Thus it was that the living God sent a living Word to a living people through the life of Jesus Christ and the apostles. The word is not written in stone, it is written in the life of Christ! "He is the God of the living, not of the dead."

The early church of Acts 2 did not follow scripture alone, it followed "apostolic instruction." From this living apostolic tradition, the Old Testament was interpreted, and the New Testament itself was brought forth. It is because of this living tradition that Paul was able to say, "Owe no debt to anyone except the debt that binds us to love one another. He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law ... love never wrongs the neighbor, hence love is the fulfillment of the law."

Do we see the scriptures as oppressive laws from the past or as life-giving guidance for the future? Do we seek to "flesh out" the authority of scripture within the authority of the Spirit-filled church? Do we let both the scripture and the church speak to us with God-given authority?

Do the laws of Scripture and the church become complicated and burden some to us, or do we retain the simplicity of love through them all? Remember, Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with your whole mind ... you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole law is based, and the prophets as well."

god's name

In the Bible, a person’s name is a description of his or her character. This is certainly true of the names of God.

There are many individual names given to God in Scripture, all of which reflect some true aspect of his character. Many of these names are taken from human experience or emotions in order to describe parts of God’s character, while many other names are taken from the rest of the natural creation. In a sense, all of these expressions of God’s character in terms of things found in the universe are “names” of God because they tell us something true about him.

The following is from Grudem, W. A., Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine (157); emphasis mine ...

Herman Bavinck, in The Doctrine of God gives a long list of such descriptions of God taken from creation: God is compared to a lion (Isa. 31:4), an eagle (Deu 32:11), a lamb (Isa. 53:7), a hen (Mat 23:37), the sun (Psa 84:11), the morning star (Rev 22:16), a light (Psa 27:1), a torch (Rev 21:23), a fire (Heb 12:29), a fountain (Psa 36:9), a rock (Deu 32:4), a hiding place (Psa 119:114), a tower (Pro 18:10), a shadow (Psa 91:1), a shield (Psa 84:11), a temple (Rev 21:22), and so forth.

Taken from human experience, Bavinck finds an even more extensive list, which is reproduced here only in part: God is called bridegroom (Isa. 61:10), husband (Isa. 54:5), father (Deut. 32:6), judge and king (Isa. 33:22), man of war (Ex. 15:3), builder and maker (Heb. 11:10), shepherd (Ps. 23:1), physician (Ex. 15:26), and so forth. Furthermore, God is spoken of in terms of human actions such as knowing (Gen. 18:21), remembering (Gen. 8:1; Ex. 2:24), seeing (Gen. 1:10), hearing (Ex. 2:24), smelling (Gen. 8:21), tasting (Ps. 11:5), sitting (Ps. 9:7), rising (Ps. 68:1), walking (Lev. 26:12), wiping away tears (Isa. 25:8), and so forth. Human emotions are attributed to God, such as joy (Isa. 62:5), grief (Ps. 78:40; Isa. 63:10), anger (Jer. 7:18–19), love (John 3:16), hatred (Deut. 16:22), wrath (Ps. 2:5), and so forth.

Even though God does not have a physical body, Scripture uses various parts of the human body to describe God’s activities in a metaphorical way. Scripture can speak of God’s face or countenance (Ex. 33:20, 23; Isa. 63:9; Ps. 16:11; Rev. 22:4), eyes (Ps. 11:4; Heb. 4:13), eyelids (Ps. 11:4), ears (Ps. 55:1; Isa. 59:1), nose (Deut. 33:10), mouth (Deut. 8:3), lips (Job 11:5), tongue (Isa. 30:27), neck (Jer. 18:17), arms (Ex. 15:16), hand (Num. 11:23), finger (Ex. 8:19), heart (Gen. 6:6), foot (Isa. 66:1), and so forth. Even terms describing personal characteristics such as good, merciful, gracious, righteous, holy, just, and many more, are terms whose meaning is familiar to us through an experience of these qualities in other human beings. And even those terms that seem least related to creation, such as eternity or unchangeableness, are understood by us not intuitively but by negating concepts that we know from our experience (eternity is not being limited by time and unchangeableness is not changing).

The point of collecting all these passages is to show, first, that in one sense or another all of creation reveals something about God to us and that the higher creation, especially man who is made in God’s image, reveals him more fully.

The second reason for mentioning this long list is to show that all that we know about God from Scripture comes to us in terms that we understand because they describe events or things common to human experience. Using a more technical term, we can say that all that Scripture says about God uses anthropomorphic language—that is, language that speaks of God in human terms. Sometimes people have been troubled by the fact that there is anthropomorphic language in Scripture. But this should not be troubling to us, for, if God is going to teach us about things we do not know by direct experience (such as his attributes), he has to teach us in terms of what we do know. This is why all that Scripture says about God is “anthropomorphic” in a broad sense (speaking of God either in human terms or in terms of the creation we know). This fact does not mean that Scripture gives us wrong or misleading ideas about God, for this is the way that God has chosen to reveal himself to us, and to reveal himself truly and accurately. Nonetheless, it should caution us not to take any one of these descriptions by itself and isolate it from its immediate context or from the rest of what Scripture says about God. If we did that, we would run the risk of misunderstanding or of having an imbalanced or inadequate picture of who God is. Each description of one of God’s attributes must be understood in the light of everything else that Scripture tells us about God. If we fail to remember this, we will inevitably understand God’s character wrongly.

For example, we have an idea of love from human experience. That helps us to understand what Scripture means when it says that God is love, but our understanding of the meaning of “love” when applied to God is not identical with our experience of love in human relationships. So we must learn from observing how God acts in all of Scripture and from the other attributes of God that are given in Scripture, as well as from our own real-life experiences of God’s love, if we are to refine our idea of God’s love in an appropriate way and avoid misunderstanding. Thus, anthropomorphic language about God is true when it occurs in Scripture, but it can be understood rightly only by continual reading of Scripture throughout our lives in order that we may understand this language in the context of all of Scripture.

There is yet a third reason for pointing out the great diversity of descriptions about God taken from human experience and from the natural world. This language should remind us that God made the universe so that it would show forth the excellence of his character that is, that it would show forth his glory. God is worthy to receive glory because he created all things (Rev. 4:11); therefore, all things should honor him.

Psalm 148 is an example of all creation being summoned to give praise to God:

Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!...
Praise the Lord from the earth,
you sea monsters and all deeps,
fire and hail, snow and frost,
stormy wind fulfilling his command!
Mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and all cedars!...
Kings of the earth and all peoples...
Let them praise the name of the Lord,
for his name alone is exalted;
his glory is above earth and heaven. (Ps. 148:3, 7–11, 13)

As we learn about God’s character from Scripture, it should open our eyes and enable us to interpret creation rightly. As a result, we will be able to see reflections of the excellence of God’s character everywhere in creation: “the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isa. 6:3).

It must be remembered that though all that Scripture tells us about God is true, it is not exhaustive. Scripture does not tell us everything about God’s character. Thus, we will never know God’s full or complete “name” in the sense that we will never understand God’s character exhaustively. We will never know all there is to know about God. For this reason theologians have sometimes said, “God has many names, yet God has no name.” God has many names in that we know many true descriptions of his character from Scripture, but God has no name in that we will never be able to describe or understand all of his character.

human history

Put simply, the Christian story unravels unless God brings the entire course of human history under His visible and perfect judgment, unless God’s justice is perfectly displayed, unless the Christ is revealed in glory so that every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father [Phil. 2:11], unless Christ claims His redeemed people, unless God’s triumph in Christ over death, sin, evil, and injustice is made universal. Put simply, unless every eye is dry and every tear is wiped away.

There is no Christian Gospel if history simply unwinds into a meaningless puddle, if the cosmos simply escapes into a cataclysmic black hole, or if the universe finally dies of exhausted energy. Without belief in a biblical eschatology, there is no Christian hope. Without a sense of perfect moral judgment in the end, the human heart is homeless. ~ Albert Mohler, The End of History — The Moral Necessity of Eschatology

HT:OFI

I thought this interesting in light of the current "theme" of some of my recent and future posts, i.e., "is the base characteristic of God love?" I believe the Mohler quote to be true and in it I clearly see the love of God but in it I also see the beauty and truth of some of His other characteristics. If I strip away the others and focus on love, I am left answerless to some important questions that spring from this. And more so, the enormity of the overall concept becomes lost.

justification and imputed righteousness

A simple explanation by R.C. Sproul on the concept of justification and imputed righteousness. I like it. In Christ, we are just.



HT:SOS

Technorati Tags: justification

attributes of god

When we think of attributes of God, it is a little helpful to think of them in two categories because it is impossible to say everything the Bible teaches about God's character all at once. As with nearly anything helpful, this approach has inherent risk but I find it useful so I'll go with it. These categories are:

• Incommunicable - those attributes that God does not share or “communicate” to others
• Communicable - those attributes that God shares or “communicates” with us

The following is taken directly from Grudem, W. A. (1994). Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine (156). I post this as part of several potential posts related to some excellent dialog I've had with Jonathan Brink. The stems from his posts here and here (and even here, here, here, ...) and relates to an important post I made here and a lesser one here. Note; Jonathan is a really good guy. He loves God. This is not to debate him but to simply record some thoughts. You will see Jonathan is original while I am not - I typically quote someone who says what I want to say but does it better. That doesn't mean I have no thoughts, I just don't think I'm a good communicator. Anyway, here's Grudem on at least part of the topic.

Examples of the incommunicable attributes would be God’s eternity (God has existed for all eternity, but we have not), unchangeableness (God does not change, but we do), or omnipresence (God is everywhere present, but we are present only in one place at one time). Examples of the communicable attributes would be love (God is love, and we are able to love as well), knowledge (God has knowledge, and we are able to have knowledge as well), mercy (God is merciful, and we are able to be merciful too), or justice (God is just and we, too, are able to be just). This classification of God’s attributes into two major categories is helpful, and most people have an initial sense of which specific attributes should be called incommunicable and which should be called communicable. Thus it makes sense to say that God’s love is communicable but his omnipresence is not.

However, upon further reflection we realize that this distinction, although helpful, is not perfect. That is because there is no attribute of God that is completely communicable, and there is no attribute of God that is completely incommunicable! This will be evident if we think for a moment about some things we already know about God.

For example, God’s wisdom would usually be called a communicable attribute, because we also can be wise. But we will never be infinitely wise as God is. His wisdom is to some extent shared with us, but it is never fully shared with us. Similarly, we can share God’s knowledge in part, yet we shall never share it fully, for God’s thoughts are higher than ours “as the heavens are higher than the earth” (Isa. 55:9). We can imitate God’s love and share in that attribute to some degree, but we will never be infinitely loving as God is. So it is with all the attributes that are normally called “communicable attributes”: God does indeed share them with us to some degree but none of these attributes is completely communicable. It is better to say that those attributes we call “communicable” are those that are more shared with us.

Those attributes we call “incommunicable” are better defined by saying that they are attributes of God that are less shared by us. Not one of the incommunicable attributes of God is completely without some likeness in the character of human beings. For example, God is unchangeable, while we change. But we do not change completely, for there are some aspects of our characters that remain largely unchanged: our individual identities, many of our personality traits, and some of our long-term purposes remain substantially unchanged over many years (and will remain largely unchanged once we are set free from sin and begin to live in God’s presence forever).

Similarly, God is eternal, and we are subject to the limitations of time. However, we see some reflection of God’s eternity in the fact that we will live with him forever and enjoy eternal life, as well as in the fact that we have the ability to remember the past and to have a strong sense of awareness of the future (unlike much of God’s creation; cf. Eccl. 3:11). God’s attributes of independence and omnipresence are perhaps those that are least easy to see reflected in our own natures, but even these can be seen to be faintly reflected in us when we compare ourselves with much of the rest of God’s creation: as we grow to adulthood we attain some degree of independence from others for our existence; and, though we cannot be at more than one place at one time, we have the ability to act in ways that have effects in many different places at once (this again sets us apart from most of the rest of creation).

These are not entirely precise classifications (there's a lot of overlap) but they serve the purpose of providing a grid for further discussion.

knowledge of the holy

We cannot grasp the true meaning of the divine holiness by thinking of someone or something very pure and then raising the concept to the highest degree we are capable of. God’s holiness is not simply the best we know infinitely bettered. We know nothing like the divine holiness. It stands apart, unique, unapproachable, incomprehensible and unattainable. The natural man is blind to it. He may fear God’s power and admire His wisdom, but His holiness he cannot even imagine. Only the Spirit of the Holy One can impart to the human spirit the knowledge of the holy. ~ A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy

HT:KMC

weird stuff

Matt Dabbs brought my attention to this video that he guarantees will make you "feel like you just lost one standard deviation of IQ." Here it is, Party in My Tummy.



And then Prodigal Jon brings us this quiz to determine how metrosexual your worship leader is. I sent it to ours. Here are some of the questions:

3. Has Rob Bell, black rimmed glasses = +1

4. They are not prescription, but just for effect = +2

11. Has a goatee = +2

13. Drinks coffee on stage = +1

14. Drinks some kind of coffee you did not know existed = +2

15. Brings a French Press on stage and makes his own coffee during service = +5

18. Has a haircut that covers one of his eyes while singing = +1

34. Has a man bag or European Carry All = +2

35. Brings said bag on stage with him = +2

36. Has a tattoo = +2

37. Has a visible tattoo = +4

44. Owns every Nooma video = +2

45. Has a soul patch = +3

Technorati Tags: humor

photos

Just when I think I am making some progress in my photography I come across stuff like this.

Technorati Tags: personal

law and grace

The law took the disobedience of Adam and condemned us all - grace took the obedience of Jesus and declared us all to be perfectly righteous in the Father's eyes. ~ Rob Rufus - "Do Christians Need To Confess Their Sins To God?" - City Church International, Hong Kong - Sunday 8th June 2008

HT:DB

Technorati Tags: grace

propagation

I like Steve Addison's post Life with Limits:

Every living thing has limits to growth. Ever living thing dies. Growth has its boundaries in both space and time.

God made elephants big. He made whales enormous. But even their size has is finite. There are trees on this planet that last thousands of years. Even they die.

Growth is not the point. Size is not the point. Long life is not the point.

In this fallen world everything dies. Everything has limits.

There’s only one way for life to continue. It’s called propagation. In the real world if you’re not propagating, you’re finished. Eventually.

You can be a mega church of 10,000. You can be a cafe church of 10. If you’re not reproducing, you’re finished.

Church growth is not the point. Church propagation is.

We were created to (1) be image bearers and (2) propagate the earth with more image bearers. I suggest to those I can that "Healthy things give birth to healthy things; healthy Christians bear healthy Christians, healthy small groups bear healthy small groups, and healthy churches bear healthy churches." That's not a "church growth" thing - that's a healthy living thing.

The other aspect to this is that one measure of healthy offspring is when they give life to another. So one cannot draw conclusions from the first generation, it's about having grandkids.

Technorati Tags: Church growth

from inside out

From The Inside Out

A thousand times I've failed
Still your mercy remains
And should I stumble again
Still I'm caught in your grace

Everlasting, Your light will shine when all else fades
Never ending, Your glory goes beyond all fame
In my heart, in my soul, Lord I give you control
Consume me from the inside out Lord
Let justice and praise become my embrace
To love You from the inside out

Your will above all else, my purpose remains
The art of losing myself in bringing you praise

Everlasting, Your light will shine when all else fades
Never ending, Your glory goes beyond all fame
In my heart, in my soul, Lord I give you control
Consume me from the inside out Lord
Let justice and praise become my embrace
To love You from the inside out

Chorus 2x
Everlasting, Your light will shine when all else fades
Never ending, Your glory goes beyond all fame
And the cry of my heart is to bring You praise
From the inside out Lord, my soul cries out

learning mercy

This is brilliant. From Zack Eswine in Preaching to a Post-Everything World:

Until we remember that God drew us to himself and nourished us before we even knew where to find the book of Exodus in the Bible or that such things as Arminianism and Calvinism even existed, we will withhold from others the same mercy that was required for us to learn what we now know.

HT:DD

the combat report

I found this on Mt Si Dad's blog ... loved it.

Technorati Tags: politics

right counts

The following is an excellent word from R.C. Sproul (yep - the dude that led me down to the pits of Reformed Theology).

Right Now Counts Forever

The nineteenth-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is famous for his declaration that "God is dead." That brief dictum does not give the whole story. According to Nietzsche, the cause of the Deity's demise was compassion. He said, "God is dead; He died of pity." But before the God who was the God of Judeo-Christianity perished, Nietzsche said that there were a multitude of deities who existed, such as those who resided on Mount Olympus. That is, at one time there was a plurality of gods. All of the rest of the gods perished when one day the Jewish God, Yahweh, stood up in their assembly and said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Hearing this, according to Nietzsche's satirical summary, all of the rest of the gods and goddesses died. They died of laughter.

In our day, where pluralism reigns in the culture, there is as much satirical hostility to the idea of one God as there was in Nietzsche's satire. But today, that repugnance to monotheism is not a laughing matter. In the culture of pluralism, the chief virtue is toleration, which is the notion that all religious views are to be tolerated, all political views are to be tolerated. The only thing that cannot be tolerated is a claim to exclusivity. There is a built-in, inherent antipathy towards all claims of exclusivity. To say that there is one God is repulsive to the pluralists. To say that one God has not revealed Himself by a plurality of avatars in history is also repugnant. A single God with an only begotten Son is a deity who adds insult to injury by claiming an exclusive Son. There cannot be only one Mediator between man and God. There must be many according to pluralists today. It is equally a truism among pluralists that if there is one way to God, there must be many ways to God, and certainly it cannot be accepted that there is only one way. The exclusive claims of Christianity in terms of God, in terms of Christ, in terms of salvation, cannot live in peaceful coexistence with pluralists.

Beyond the question of the existence of God and of His Son, and of a singular way of salvation, there is also a rejection of any claim to having or possessing an exclusive source of divine revelation. At the time of the Reformation, the so-called solas of the Reformation were asserted. It was said that justification is by faith alone (sola fide), that it is through Christ alone (solus Christus), that it is through grace alone (sola gratia), and that it is for God's glory alone (soli Deo gloria). But perhaps most repugnant to the modern pluralist is the exclusive claim of sola Scriptura. The idea of sola Scriptura is that there is only one written source of divine revelation, which can never be placed on a parallel status with confessional statements, creeds, or the traditions of the church. Scripture alone has the authority to bind the conscience precisely because only Scripture is the written revelation of almighty God. The implications of sola Scriptura for pluralism are many. Not the least of them is this: It carries a fundamental denial of the revelatory character of all other religious books. An advocate of sola Scriptura does not believe that God's revealed Word is found in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon, the Bible and in the Koran, the Bible and in the Upanishads, the Bible and in the Bhagavad Gita; rather, the Christian faith stands on the singular and exclusive claim that the Bible and the Bible alone is God's written word.


The motto of the United States is e pluribus unum. However, since the rise of the ideology of pluralism, the real Unum of that motto has been ripped from its foundation. What drives pluralism is the philosophical antecedent of relativism. All truth is relative; therefore, no one idea or source can be seen as having any kind of supremacy. Built into our law system is the idea of the equal toleration under the law of all religions. It is a short step in people's thinking from equal toleration under the law to equal validity. The principle that all religions should be treated equally under the law and have equal rights does not carry with it the necessary inference that therefore all religions are valid. Even a cursory, comparative examination of the world's religions reveals points of radical contradiction among them, and unless one is prepared to affirm the equal truth of contradictories, one must not be able to embrace this fallacious assumption.

Sadly, with a philosophy of relativism and a philosophy of pluralism, the science of logic doesn't matter. Logic is escorted to the door and is firmly booted out of the house onto the street. There is no room for logic in any system of pluralism and relativism. Indeed, it's a misnomer to call either a system, because it is the idea of a consistent, coherent view of truth that is unacceptable to the pluralist. The fact that people reject exclusive claims to truth does not invalidate those claims. It is the Christian's duty to hold firm to the uniqueness of God and of His Christ and not compromise with the advocates of pluralism.

Technorati Tags: apologetics

stott on grace and other stuff

Dan Bowen posts a series of great quotes by John Stott.

On Justification:

"Justification is a legal or forensic term belonging to the law courts. It's opposite is condemnation. Both are the pronouncements of a judge. In a Christian context they are the alternative eschatological verdicts which God the Judge may pass on Judgement Day. So when God justifies sinners today, He anticipates His own final judgement by bringing into the present what properly belongs to the last day".

"Some scholars maintain that 'justification' and 'pardon' are synonymous ... But surely this cannot be so. Pardon is negative, the remission of a penalty or debt; justification is positive, the bestowal of a righteous status, the sinner's reinstatement in the favour and fellowship of God".

"Pardon and justification are therefore essentially distinct. The one is the remission of punishment. The other is a declaration that no ground for the infliction of punishment exists".

Sir Marcus Loane has written; "The voice that spells forgiveness will say; "You may go, you have been let off the penalty which your sin deserves". But the verdict which means acceptance (sc. justification) will say; "You may come; you are welcome to all My love and My Presence".

On Grace:

"Grace is God loving, God stooping, God coming to the rescue, God giving Himself generously in and through Jesus Christ".

"If God justifies sinners freely by His grace, on what grounds does He do so? How is it possible for the righteous God to declare the unrighteous to be righteous without either compromising His righteousness or condoning their unrighteousness? This is our question. God's answer is the Cross".

Technorati Tags: grace, justification

need to be green

Here's a calculator that suggests due to my carbon footprint I should die at age 1.3 ... oh noooo ...

How did you do?

freaking out

I don't know why but I was fascinated by several behaviors in this video.



HT:BH

right words

Even true words are not always right.


Thanks David Hayward.

nicole

I bumped into Nicole via Jonathan Brink's blog so I cruised over to her blog and was instantly captivated by the first line of the first post there.

What is it about us humans that allows us to pursue so many useless passions with such fervor?

That's brilliant.

random molecules

In my classes in the seminary, I raise questions like, “Is God in control of every single molecule in the universe?” When I raise that question, I say, “The answer to that question will not determine whether you are a Christian or a Moslem, a Calvinist or an Arminian, but it will determine whether you are a theist or an atheist.” Sometimes the students can’t see the connection.

And I say to them, “Don’t you realize that if there is one molecule in this universe running around loose outside the scope or the sphere of God’s divine control and authority and power, then that single maverick molecule may be the grain of sand that changes the entire course of human history, that blocks God from keeping the promises he has made to his people?” It may be that one maverick molecule that will prevent Christ from the consummation of his kingdom. For if there is one maverick molecule, it would mean that God is not sovereign. If God is not sovereign, then God is not God. If there is any element of the universe that is outside of his authority, then he no longer is God over all. In other words, sovereignty belongs to deity. Sovereignty is a natural attribute of the Creator. God owns what he makes, and he rules what he owns. ~ -R. C. Sproul

HT:SOS

Technorati Tags: sovereignty

ministry idolatry

Darryl Dash writes When Ministry Becomes Idolatry. There are many people set on exposing error of various pop ministries. When I read these I typically wonder why they have to look so far. Dash rightly reminds us "that sin goes a lot deeper than you normally think. It's getting meaning and identity from someone or something else than God. ... Sin is not always the pursuit of bad things; it's inordinate affection for good things."

The prideful person is obsessed with comparisons, always measuring himself/herself against others. The proud person finds his identity in relation to someone he thinks of as a lesser (which encompasses just about everyone). The humble person finds his identity in relation to someone he knows is greater: Jesus! ~ Sam Storms

Technorati Tags: sin

i will change your name

I Will Change Your Name
D.J. Butler

I will change your name
You shall no longer be called
Wounded, outcast
Lonely or afraid

I will change your name
Your new name shall be
Confidence, joyfulness
Overcoming one
Faithfulness, friend of God
One who seeks my face.

unity in character

One of the many things I love about Jonathan Brink is how he causes me to think. In God is Love, I wrote about God's attribute of love because Brink recently wrote that perhaps the wrath of God is love. Brink contends that the base characteristic that defines God is love and everything else is secondary. I think that is not a correct nor a helpful way of thinking about God. Instead, I think it is more correct (true to Scripture) and helpful to think of God in the sense of unity, that is, He is not divided into parts. Here I am not speaking of the concept of the Trinity but of His attributes = different attributes of God are emphasized at different times.


When Scripture speaks about God’s attributes it never singles out one attribute of God as more important than all the rest. It seems that every attribute is completely true of God and is true of all of God’s character. In 1 John 1.5, John can say that “God is light” and just a little later say also that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). Scripture does not suggest that part of God is light and part of God is love, or that God is partly light and partly love, nor that that God is more light than love or more love than light. Instead it is God himself who is light, and it is God himself who is also love.


Exodus 34:6–7 provides a similar list of characteristics. The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” This does not mean that these attributes are only characteristic of some part of God, instead they are characteristic of God himself and therefore characteristic of all of God.

Using these simple graphics, Wayne Grudem depicts that God should not be thought of as a collection of characteristics.



Nor should the characteristics of God be thought of as additions to His real being.

I find it more helpful and correct to understand this as God’s unity. Grudem tries to flesh this out in the following two diagrams. In the first, assume that the horizontal lines represent the attribute of love, and that the vertical lines represent the aspect of God’s justice.



Next imagine the diagonal lines going from upper left to lower right as representing God’s holiness and the diagonal lines going from upper right to lower left as representing God’s wisdom.




This could go on to cover all each of the different attributes of God. But it should be clear that each attribute is simply a way of describing one aspect of God’s total character or being. God himself is a unity a unified and completely integrated whole person who is infinitely perfect in all of these attributes.


God reveals the various aspects of His nature separately and over time simply for our benefit, i.e., due to our inability to fully grasp even one at a time. These should never be set in opposition to one another, they are just different ways of looking at the totality of God’s character. We should not see God as loving at one point and wrathful at another. He is always the same God and He is fully consistent within Himself.


It would be untrue to God Himself to elevate one characteristic above the other.

god is love

A friend of mine, Jonathan Brink, loves God passionately. In a recent post of his, he commented that the base characteristic that defines God is love and everything else is secondary. I disagree with his thinking but I do love the love of God so I thought I take a moment to post on that great love.

God’s love means that God eternally gives of himself to others; that is, His love is self-giving for the benefit of others ... to bring about blessing or good for others.

In 1 John 4.8 we read that “God is love”. Among the Trinity, from the Father to the Son, this attribute was active even before creation and continues through to the present time. That love is also reciprocal and I think we can presume characterizes their relationship with the Holy Spirit. This eternal love within the Trinity makes heaven a world of love and joy because each person of the Trinity seeks to bring joy and happiness to the other two.

This self-giving also finds clear expression in God’s relationship to mankind, and especially to sinful men. Paul acknowledges an awareness of the directly personal application of Christ’s love to individual sinners. What joy to know that the purpose of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was to give of themselves to us to bring us true joy and happiness. God’s nature is to act this way toward those upon whom he has set his love. And even better, he will continue to act that way toward us for all eternity.

In the comments of Brinks post, an astute Raquel noted that we are to imitate this communicable attribute of God. How? By first by loving God in return, and second by loving others in imitation of the way God loves them. This of course means we will obey his commands and not the world. And what's amazing is that all of this is because He first loved us.

God gives His love to make us happy so that we can in return give of ourselves to bring joy to God’s heart.

God’s love in us is seen in our love for others and this is so that the world recognizes us as belonging to Him. God gives us his love to enable us to love each other and even to love our enemies.

Technorati Tags: love

for the willow haters

Many in the blogsphere spend an inordinate amount of their time trying to find what is wrong with others. That should be no surprise since that has been part of the nature of man since the fall. I'm only saddened that so many Christians haven't demonstrated God's redemption in that aspect of their lives.

Bill Hybels and Willow Creek are often in the cross-hairs. While I'm not a big fan of Willow (I say that about many ministries/ministers), I have benefited from that ministry and have used some of their materials to help others.

Here's a decent video response by Bill Hybels to some of the nonsense going around ... it renewed my love for what God has done and is doing through him.

seeing and loving

Three lines from John Piper in God is the Gospel.

The gospel of God and the love of God are expressed finally and fully in God's gift of Himself for our everlasting pleasure.

Love is doing whatever you need to do to help people see and savour the glory of God in Christ forever and ever.

The better we see Him, the better we will reflect Him - to all eternity.

HT:DB

Technorati Tags: love

sovereign grace

The sovereignty of God in grace gives us our only hope of success in evangelism. ... Some fear that belief in the sovereign grace of God leads to the conclusion that evangelism is pointless, since God will save His elect anyway, whether they hear the gospel or not. This . . . is a false conclusion based on a false assumption. . . . So far from making evangelism pointless, the sovereignty of God in grace is the one thing that prevents evangelism from being pointless. For it creates the possibility–indeed, the certainty–that evangelism will be fruitful. Apart from it, there is not even a possibility of evangelism being fruitful. Were it not for the sovereign grace of God, evangelism would be the most futile and useless enterprise that the world has ever seen, and there would be no more complete waste of time under the sun than to preach the Christian gospel. ~ J.I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God

Timmy Brister provides three key points that according to Packer, the sovereign grace of God should produce.

1. It should make us bold.
2. It should make us patient.
3. It should make us prayerful.

Read Brister's post for details.

Technorati Tags: Calvinism, evangelism, sovereignty

cheap shot

Here's a quote from a guy that I absolutely do not support. I cannot align with his theology but when I read this I thought it perfectly said what I would like to say to my cessationist friends.

"In the absence of experience, bad theology is formed". ~ Bill Johnson, Face to Face with God - The Ultimate Quest to Experience His Presence

I find it ironic that many cessationist accuse continuationists of basing their theology on experience while all along I believe it is the cessationist that bases theirs on the lack thereof.

Now go ahead, take your cheap shots at me ... I deserve it since this is clearly one from me.

Technorati Tags: cessationism, charismata

being part of the journey

I'm learning that as a leader, it's not just about helping others "get there" - it's also about being a part of their JOURNEY of getting there. And by acknowledging the slight positive shifts, people feel more empowered to keep making those slight shifts - until eventually.......they're there! ~ Scott Hodge

Technorati Tags: discipleship, leadership

essential doctrine defined

Michael Patton offers these three criterion to determine if a doctrine is essential.

1. Historicity: Does the doctrine have universal historical representation?
2. Clarity (Perspicuity): Is the doctrine represented clearly in Scripture?
3. Explicity: Does the passage of Scripture explicitly teach that a certain doctrine is essential?

Details here.

clear communication

Yet another reminder of the importance of clear communication.



HT:TR

the good news

Here it is, the good news ...

Starbucks will try to lure more customers by offering two hours of free AT&T Wi-Fi a day. TheWi-Fi freebie will be available starting Tuesday to customers who purchase a minimum $5 reloadable Starbucks Card, register online for the Starbucks Rewards Card program, and use the card at least once a month. The two hours must be consecutive. New members also receive a voucher for a free drink.

It just doesn't get gooder.

piper on being born again

Another reason I am eager to focus on the new birth is to help you know what really happened to you when you were born again. It is far more glorious than you think it is. It is also more glorious than I think it is. It is wonderful beyond all human comprehension. But that mystery is not because there is little about it in the Bible. There is much about it in the Bible. It’s because when all is comprehended there is still more. So I hope that you will know more and know better what happened to you when you were born again.

And the reason I want you to know what happened to you in your new birth and others to know what must yet happen to them is threefold.

1) When you are truly born again and grow in the grace and knowledge of what the Lord has done for you, your fellowship with God will be sweet, and your assurance that he is your Father will be deep. I want that for you.
2) If God would be pleased to bring this kind of awakening to his church, then the world will get the real deal of radical love and sacrifice and courage from the church and not all these fake Christians that live just like the world.
3) If you know what really happened to you in your new birth, you will treasure God and his Spirit and his Son and his word more highly than you ever have. And he will be glorified.

John Piper, You Must Be Born Again: Why This Series and Where Are We Going?

motivation

There is, then, a great gulf between the understanding that God accepts us because of our efforts and the understanding that God accepts us because of what Jesus has done. Religion operates on the principle “I obey- therefore I am accepted by God.” But the operating principle of the gospel is “I am accepted by God through what Christ has done- therefore I obey.”

Two people living their lives on the basis of these two different principles may sit next to each other in the church pew. They both pray, give money generously, and are loyal and faithful to their family and church, trying to live decent lives. However, they do so out of two radically different motivations, in two radically different spiritual identities, and the result is two radically different kinds of lives.

“Religion operates on the principle “I obey- therefore I am accepted by God.” But the operating principle of the gospel is “I am accepted by God through what Christ has done- therefore I obey.”

The primary difference is that of motivation. In religion, we try to obey the divine standards out of fear. We believe that if we don’t obey we are going to lose God’s blessing in this world and the next. In the gospel, the motivation is one of gratitude for the blessing we have already received because of Christ. While the moralist is forced into obedience, motivated by fear of rejection, a Christian rushes into obedience, motivated by a desire to please and resemble the one who gave his life for us.

Tim Keller, The Reason for God, pp. 179-180

HT:JF

speaking of lists

I've posted a few lists recently ... here's another. John Piper's 20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists.

1. They are humble and respectful and courteous and even funny (the ones I've met).

2. They believe in truth.

3. They believe that truth really matters.

4. They believe that the Bible is true, all of it.

5. They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world.

6. They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle.

7. They put obedience to Jesus above the approval of man (even though they fall short, like others).

8. They believe in hell and are loving enough to warn people about it.

9. They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there.

10. Their "social action" is the helping the person next door.

11. They tend to raise law-abiding, chaste children, in spite of the fact that Barna says evangelical kids in general don't have any better track record than non-Christians.

12. They resist trendiness.

13. They don’t think too much is gained by sounding hip.

14. They may not be hip, but they don’t go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters.

15. They still sing hymns.

16. They are not breathless about being accepted in the scholarly guild.

17. They give some contemporary plausibility to New Testament claim that the church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

18. They are good for the rest of evangelicals because of all this.

19. My dad was one.

20. Everybody to my left thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left.

humans pray

I'm one of those that follow-up on links to my blog. I'm not sure why, perhaps I feel important that way ... who knows. Paul Hill just linked to me for something I copied from Michael Patton so while I am not likely important, at least I provide a connection. That aside, Hill has a quote of Eugene Peterson that I really like. Perhaps it's not that great but it seems important because of some conversation my small group has recently had regarding humanity v. the animal kingdom (don't ask ...).

Prayer is the most deeply human action in which we can engage. Behavior we have in common with the animals. Thinking we have in common with the angels. But prayer — the attentiveness and responsiveness of the human being before God — this is human. ~ Eugene Peterson in Under the Predictable Plant

Technorati Tags: prayer

know him

The essence of eternal life is not found in having my sins forgiven, in possessing a mansion in heaven, or in having streets of gold on which to walk forever. Rather, the essence of eternal life is intimately knowing God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. Everything else that God gives to me in the gospel serves merely to bring me to Himself so that this great end might be achieved. ~ Milton Vincent

HT:SOS

My only add ... would have been nice to mention the Holy Spirit but ...

his throne

There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne.

On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a foot-ball, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his scepter in his hand and his crown upon his head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon his throne whom we trust. ~ Charles Spurgeon

HT:SOS

Technorati Tags: sovereignty

lakeland

I've resisted posting on the topic of Todd Bentley and the Lakeland revival. There is plenty on the internet about it and you will easily find people on extremes (pro and con) and from time to time find folks in the middle. I was tempted to link to these but that would bring the added weight of discerning what others say in addition to what I see in the Lakeland events. One thing at a time is more than enough for me.

I'll start by saying that I have never been to Lakeland, never read or listened to a full book/sermon/whatever by Bentley, etc.. There is no need. The thoughts I want to share are generic and can be applied to this outpouring as well as any other.

Here's what I know ... I love the Bereans, they exemplify Christian living in terms of being eager and teachable. Here comes a new guy, Paul, proclaiming and doing all kinds of strange things (to them) yet as far as we can tell they were not judgmental, critical, nit-picky, etc.. They loved God and wanted all that He might be doing. At the same time they were not gullible and did not mindlessly accept all that was thrown at them. They were guided by Scripture (and presumably the Holy Spirit speaking through that) rather than by Paul's speaking skill or accompanying signs and wonders.

Some however still want to know whether or not the Holy Spirit is at work in Lakeland. I'm not sure why that is important for me sitting in Cincinnati but here's my guess. Yes and no. I think God is at work everywhere and I'm confident that He has at least a little to do with what is going on there. I understand from some that the Name of Jesus has been and is being lifted up. That's always God. However the presence and power of His Spirit does not necessarily mean He has given His seal of approval on the anointed one or everything that flows from that person's lips (Balaam's donkey, Balaam himself, Samson, Saul, etc.).

Others seem to need to understand if the miracles are real or not. As above, I'm sure some are and I'm sure some are not. I'm not an old man, only 47, but I've been around long enough to know that mixture is likely the case. I think it is foolishness to deny as some do any possibility of the power of God. On the other hand, some number of verifiable anythings does not prove a thing about the rest - but that holds true both ways. Some are eager to show some real miracle as if the proves the rest must be. Even more seem eager to expose a fake or false claim as if this proves all the rest are not real ... or worse, as if that teaches us something about the heart of all of those involved in that thing. I have to say, people mixed up in this kind of analysis expose more about themselves than they do about the thing they are railing on.

What I find interesting about this real or not real point is that I'm unclear what it proves. If a miracle(s) was real, what would that mean? It's interesting that those set on finding false miracles are those that do not believe in them anyway. They think Charismatics are whack because theology is somehow swayed by the presence of God showing up. Frankly, that is what is whack! It is not true and secondly, what do these people say when they cannot prove all of the proclaimed activity is false? I don't get it. And conversely, what if the majority were real and only some false? What does that mean? Does either position change what I think of the great and awesome God that created all the universe? Again, this hunt speaks more about the hunter than the prey.

That leaves us with Bentley's theology. Come on ... really? Are we really going to go there? Read his statement of faith, it is full of excellent stuff. Let me tell you, the devil isn't promoting those beliefs. On the other hand, it isn't the Bible and guess what? There are things in the statement that I completely disagree with. Does that make Bentley a messenger of the enemy? Moreover, I'm sure the things I disagree with are not the same things some others disagree with. So what does this prove? Bentley is clearly not one of the great Bible teachers of our time. So what?

Unfortunately, one doesn't have to wander too far from the statement of faith to begin finding some things that are more than a little arguable (Hebrews co-written by Abraham, partnering with angel of finance, etc.). Bottom line, there's enough that isn't aligned with Scripture that I could safely say, "steer clear" if you are going to this guy for spiritual growth. Does that make him a heretic? An agent of Satan? A deceiver? I don't think so. I'm not willing to say that about cessationists or Arminians so I'm not willing to say that here. But I can say I am not recommending his teaching to others ... in fact I would steer you away from this guy.

A final word; in my nearly 30 years of growing in christlikeness, I have found a few constants. One constant is that while I encourage people to go to conferences, it is inevitable that regardless of the nature of the conference, they will come back excited reporting that the local church needs to adapt what they saw at this other place. When they say that I know that they, like me, have still not reached maturity.

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. ~ 1 The 5.19-22