Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Spirit, Soul, Body?
Is there a difference between the soul and the spirit? Some teachers I respect say no. I was reading in Luke yesterday... what does it mean to "become strong in spirit?" Could you equally say "become strong in soul?" Could you also say that God will "pour His Soul out on all flesh?" It would seem odd to me. But in some scriptures those words are used interchangeably it seems. Maybe the translation has skewed some of that.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Remember Lot... And Take Heed
I have recently contemplated upon the sovreignty of God even among his own people, His own creations. Consider with me Abraham and Lot. The first is lauded by the 3 major theistic religions of the world. Abraham is even today one whom many christians look up to as one to be emulated and an example of how a christian should be towards God. And how could it not be so? He was just one of many in the land of Ur; but God had mercy on him and gave him many blessings and made him a righteous man. But Lot? Why is he forgotten? Why do not men laud him also? Why does scripture itself mostly ignore him? He also was chosen by God and blessed. The difference between the two is the degree of grace that God gave. Both it seems were revived by God spiritually speaking. Of Abraham I will not seek to prove again. But consider with me Lot. That he was, in today's terms, "born again."
First consider how he treated the angels that came to the city of Sodom. He greeted them and urged them (knowing the evils that befall strangers in the city) to stay with him. When men grow excessively depraved their hospitality suffers likewise. But he did not lack anything in his generousity towards the two strangers. He made a feast for them and attempted to protect them from the homosexual gang that attacked his house.
Secondly, consider that when the angels told him of the impending disaster planned against the city by the Lord, he believed them. It was perhaps close to 20 years that he had lived in Sodom, yet after all this time he still recognized that there was great wickedness present and that it was right of God to judge this evil. Not only did he believe for himself, he believed this so strongly, that he warned his sons-in-law to flee also.
Thirdly, consider what the inhabitants of Sodom said of him; "this one came in to stay here and he keeps acting as a judge." When the people came to his house, he was brave enough to declare to them their sin and urge them to depart from it. It is evident from their reaction that he had done this sort of thing before.
Fourth, when Abraham was talking to God he asked that the Lord would not destroy the city if he found as few as 10 righteous men in it. The Lord did indeed destroy the city, but he halted and had mercy on Lot and caused him to be removed. Their seems to be some indication here that Lot was a righteous man, one of those whom Abraham was speaking.
And finally, consider that in the new testament, Lot is called a "righteous soul." Given all this, why does memory of him fade into oblivion? If is because the grace given to him was not as great as that given to Abraham. God freely chose to give many great things to Abraham and not to Lot. It would seem even that to Abraham was given a greater ability to overcome unbelief, fear, and sin. He lived the rest of of days in victory, seeing the Isaac the promised son come. But Lot lived in the rest of his life hiding in a mountain and eventually fathering two nations that would be enemies of Isreal for hundreds of years to come.
These scripture contain an exhortation and a warning. First know that God gives different gifts to different of His people, gifts that are not necessarily equal. And second, let all be warned. It is possible for a believer to largely waste his/her life and live in defeat to a degree.
First consider how he treated the angels that came to the city of Sodom. He greeted them and urged them (knowing the evils that befall strangers in the city) to stay with him. When men grow excessively depraved their hospitality suffers likewise. But he did not lack anything in his generousity towards the two strangers. He made a feast for them and attempted to protect them from the homosexual gang that attacked his house.
Secondly, consider that when the angels told him of the impending disaster planned against the city by the Lord, he believed them. It was perhaps close to 20 years that he had lived in Sodom, yet after all this time he still recognized that there was great wickedness present and that it was right of God to judge this evil. Not only did he believe for himself, he believed this so strongly, that he warned his sons-in-law to flee also.
Thirdly, consider what the inhabitants of Sodom said of him; "this one came in to stay here and he keeps acting as a judge." When the people came to his house, he was brave enough to declare to them their sin and urge them to depart from it. It is evident from their reaction that he had done this sort of thing before.
Fourth, when Abraham was talking to God he asked that the Lord would not destroy the city if he found as few as 10 righteous men in it. The Lord did indeed destroy the city, but he halted and had mercy on Lot and caused him to be removed. Their seems to be some indication here that Lot was a righteous man, one of those whom Abraham was speaking.
And finally, consider that in the new testament, Lot is called a "righteous soul." Given all this, why does memory of him fade into oblivion? If is because the grace given to him was not as great as that given to Abraham. God freely chose to give many great things to Abraham and not to Lot. It would seem even that to Abraham was given a greater ability to overcome unbelief, fear, and sin. He lived the rest of of days in victory, seeing the Isaac the promised son come. But Lot lived in the rest of his life hiding in a mountain and eventually fathering two nations that would be enemies of Isreal for hundreds of years to come.
These scripture contain an exhortation and a warning. First know that God gives different gifts to different of His people, gifts that are not necessarily equal. And second, let all be warned. It is possible for a believer to largely waste his/her life and live in defeat to a degree.
Amendment to thoughts of prayer
Upon reflection, I wanted to amend my last post. I am not against group prayer as may be contrived by reading that post. Rather I think that in the optimal circumstances it is one of the best things a group of christians can do. I presented some strong reasons why I don't think the best circumstances exist for most christians in this country. But let me give you what I think those would be. When one reads through Acts and looks at group prayer as it happens in this book, there are some other circumstances that are strongly correlated with this. Acts 1:14 says that "these all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication." What was also present in that early church?
1) Unity in spirit/purpose (Acts 2:1). Without this unity I do not think that group prayer is of much use. I submit to the reader that there are two types of unity. The first is the unity that Christ grants us, the one spoken of in 1 John. This is the unity of the love of the brethren. All christians love each other because all have been born of God; and with this love comes the first degree of unity. This first degree is bought for us by Christ. The second degree of unity goes deeper than this though and is needed to be won in an experiential way. In my experience and from what I see in scripture, this deeper unity is needed. For example, Paul and Barnabas were brothers in Christ and so had that unity that is imparted from Christ. Yet they quarreled over John Mark and parted ways. Another example is found in Philipians 4 where Paul implores Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Undoubtedly these two were believers, yet Paul urges them to go deeper in their experience and practise of unity. From my own experience I have seen christians of different theological or experiential backgrounds that meet one another and are so different from each other that there is tremendous difficulty in them experiencing anything past the general love of the brothren. This lack of a deeper unity prevents and can preclude group prayer being good or effective.
2) Fellowship is something that seems rare these days in America but (I am firmly convinced) is needed for group prayer to be an edification and a good thing (Acts 2:42-47). These christians that Acts talks of here lived much of their lives together. They were in each other's homes, they worked with one another, played together, and took care of each other. There was a commonality of purpose, a feeling of aloofness from the world. They were the outcasts, the rejects of the Jewish and Roman society. They only had each other. This is a hint of fellowship and is very badly needed in the church of America today. When busy-ness crowds this out, prayer together looses its power. When differences in doctrine become too important or stressed, fellowship is lost. When love and togetherness starts to fade, prayer suffers.
What then? If these two vital things are not present in a church, how is the problem solved? If we force people to pray together with everything else be solved? No. Fellowship and unity come first then the ability to prayer together is found. And all grow together in greater and greater extents.
1) Unity in spirit/purpose (Acts 2:1). Without this unity I do not think that group prayer is of much use. I submit to the reader that there are two types of unity. The first is the unity that Christ grants us, the one spoken of in 1 John. This is the unity of the love of the brethren. All christians love each other because all have been born of God; and with this love comes the first degree of unity. This first degree is bought for us by Christ. The second degree of unity goes deeper than this though and is needed to be won in an experiential way. In my experience and from what I see in scripture, this deeper unity is needed. For example, Paul and Barnabas were brothers in Christ and so had that unity that is imparted from Christ. Yet they quarreled over John Mark and parted ways. Another example is found in Philipians 4 where Paul implores Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Undoubtedly these two were believers, yet Paul urges them to go deeper in their experience and practise of unity. From my own experience I have seen christians of different theological or experiential backgrounds that meet one another and are so different from each other that there is tremendous difficulty in them experiencing anything past the general love of the brothren. This lack of a deeper unity prevents and can preclude group prayer being good or effective.
2) Fellowship is something that seems rare these days in America but (I am firmly convinced) is needed for group prayer to be an edification and a good thing (Acts 2:42-47). These christians that Acts talks of here lived much of their lives together. They were in each other's homes, they worked with one another, played together, and took care of each other. There was a commonality of purpose, a feeling of aloofness from the world. They were the outcasts, the rejects of the Jewish and Roman society. They only had each other. This is a hint of fellowship and is very badly needed in the church of America today. When busy-ness crowds this out, prayer together looses its power. When differences in doctrine become too important or stressed, fellowship is lost. When love and togetherness starts to fade, prayer suffers.
What then? If these two vital things are not present in a church, how is the problem solved? If we force people to pray together with everything else be solved? No. Fellowship and unity come first then the ability to prayer together is found. And all grow together in greater and greater extents.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Where in the world did group prayer come from?
Group prayer... such a uncontested practise in most evangelical churches. But how did it become like that? Was Jesus a teacher of group prayer the way its presented now? I don't think so, and I for one dare to challenge the status quo. Here's why I do.
1) Group prayer meetings represent the only significant prayer time that most evangelicals engage in on a weekly basis. When the average evangelical really thinks about the praying he/she engages in, usually the thought process turns to some sort of church/small group prayer meeting. Jesus never meant group prayer to suplant private prayer.
2) Group prayer was never a common supported practise in the new testament or the old. Read through scripture for yourself, and you'll discover that by far, the vast amount of emphasis of scripture is on private speaking/communion with God. Rarely and hardly ever does one see people gathered together to speak to God that is presented in a positive way in scripture. Generally it seems in scripture (and today) that when one was playing around with God and religion, one was inclined to do so a group setting. When one was serious and desirous to spend time with God, one went out alone to do so.
3) Group prayer indirectly promotes pride. Jesus spoke of this in Matthew 6. When one prays with others around, usually the knowledge that others are watching/listening interferes with the conversation with God that taking place. There is something sacred and holy in that realtionship between Christ and one of his servants that no one else should break into. Jesus did not tell his disciples that they needed to have more personal discipline and break through this temptation. He didn't tell them to pray like the pharisees prayed but to refrain from being proud like them. No, he told them to leave and flee that temptation. They were to go into the inner room, away from the crowds, away from both unbelievers and believers.
Group prayer can be good on occasion. For example, in Acts 12:12 many were gathered together praying for Peter who was in prison. This is clearly presented as a good thing. I do not oppose all group prayer, merely the place to which it has been exalted in the church today.
1) Group prayer meetings represent the only significant prayer time that most evangelicals engage in on a weekly basis. When the average evangelical really thinks about the praying he/she engages in, usually the thought process turns to some sort of church/small group prayer meeting. Jesus never meant group prayer to suplant private prayer.
2) Group prayer was never a common supported practise in the new testament or the old. Read through scripture for yourself, and you'll discover that by far, the vast amount of emphasis of scripture is on private speaking/communion with God. Rarely and hardly ever does one see people gathered together to speak to God that is presented in a positive way in scripture. Generally it seems in scripture (and today) that when one was playing around with God and religion, one was inclined to do so a group setting. When one was serious and desirous to spend time with God, one went out alone to do so.
3) Group prayer indirectly promotes pride. Jesus spoke of this in Matthew 6. When one prays with others around, usually the knowledge that others are watching/listening interferes with the conversation with God that taking place. There is something sacred and holy in that realtionship between Christ and one of his servants that no one else should break into. Jesus did not tell his disciples that they needed to have more personal discipline and break through this temptation. He didn't tell them to pray like the pharisees prayed but to refrain from being proud like them. No, he told them to leave and flee that temptation. They were to go into the inner room, away from the crowds, away from both unbelievers and believers.
Group prayer can be good on occasion. For example, in Acts 12:12 many were gathered together praying for Peter who was in prison. This is clearly presented as a good thing. I do not oppose all group prayer, merely the place to which it has been exalted in the church today.
Monday, September 26, 2005
What Are the Essentials of the Gospel?
What are the essentials of the gospel? Acknowledging the depravity of man? Really seeing one's own sinfullness? Crying out to God for mercy and new life? Believing in the provision of Christ? Allow me to explore this topic with you by reading you 2 selections from an autobiography of a professing christian that I just finished. Here is the first...
"It is only the infinite mercy and love of God that has prevented us from tearing ourselves to pieces and destroying His entire creation long ago. People seem to think that it is in some way a proof that no merciful God exists, if we have so many wars. On the contrary, consider how in spite of centuries of sin and greed and lust and cruelty and hatred and avarice and oppression and injustice, spawned and bred by the free wills of men, the human race can still recover, each time, and can still produce men and women who overcome evil with good, hatred with love, greed with charity, lust and cruelty with sanctity. How could all this be possible without the merciful love of God, pouring out His grace upon us? Can there be any doubt where wars come from and where peace comes from, when the children of this world, excluding God from their peace conferences, only manage to bring about greater and greater wars the more they talk about peace?...
There is not a flower that opens, not a seed that falls into the ground, and not an ear of wheat that nods on the end of its stalk in the wind that does not preach and proclaim the greatness and mercy of God to the whole world...
(On his conversion) But now I lay on this bed, full of gangrene and my soul was rotten with the corruption of my sins...I was overwhelmed with a sudden and profound insight into the misery and corruption of my own soul, and I was pierced deeply with a light that made me realize something of the condition I was in, and I was filled with horror at what I saw, and my whole being rose up in revolt against what was within me, and my soul desired escape and liberation and freedom from all this with an intensity and an urgency unlike anything that I had known before. And now I think for the first time in my whole life I really began to pray-praying not with my lips and with my intellect and my imagination, but praying out of the very roots of my life and of my being, and praying to the God I had never known, to reach down towards meout of His darkness and to help me to get free of the thousand terrible things that held my will in their slavery."
Now when I read this passage I am amazed at this man's testimony. From his own lips he perceives the wickedness of all men, his very own wickedness, his need of a savior/God, and he cries out for just that. Has this man not fully grasped the essentials of the gospel and done so more excellently than many in our day?
Now, read this second passage, written by the same man.
"Glorious Mother of God, shall I ever again distrust you, or your God before Whose throne you are irresistible in your intercession? Shall I ever turn my eyes from your hands and from your face and from your eyes? Shall I ever look anywhere else but int eh face of your love, to find out true counsel, and to know my way, in all the days and all the moments of my life? As you have dealt with me, Lady, deal also with all my millions of brothers who live in the same misery that I knew then; lead them in spite of themselves and guide them by your tremendous influence, O Holy Queen of souls and refuge of sinners..."
When I read this second passage, all that was good about this man seems to be as nothing. Here he acknowledges a second god, one who offers salvation as Christ does. One who intercedes as Christ does.
Readers, what are the essentials of the gospel? I challenge you to give me a good answer with scripture and good reason.
"It is only the infinite mercy and love of God that has prevented us from tearing ourselves to pieces and destroying His entire creation long ago. People seem to think that it is in some way a proof that no merciful God exists, if we have so many wars. On the contrary, consider how in spite of centuries of sin and greed and lust and cruelty and hatred and avarice and oppression and injustice, spawned and bred by the free wills of men, the human race can still recover, each time, and can still produce men and women who overcome evil with good, hatred with love, greed with charity, lust and cruelty with sanctity. How could all this be possible without the merciful love of God, pouring out His grace upon us? Can there be any doubt where wars come from and where peace comes from, when the children of this world, excluding God from their peace conferences, only manage to bring about greater and greater wars the more they talk about peace?...
There is not a flower that opens, not a seed that falls into the ground, and not an ear of wheat that nods on the end of its stalk in the wind that does not preach and proclaim the greatness and mercy of God to the whole world...
(On his conversion) But now I lay on this bed, full of gangrene and my soul was rotten with the corruption of my sins...I was overwhelmed with a sudden and profound insight into the misery and corruption of my own soul, and I was pierced deeply with a light that made me realize something of the condition I was in, and I was filled with horror at what I saw, and my whole being rose up in revolt against what was within me, and my soul desired escape and liberation and freedom from all this with an intensity and an urgency unlike anything that I had known before. And now I think for the first time in my whole life I really began to pray-praying not with my lips and with my intellect and my imagination, but praying out of the very roots of my life and of my being, and praying to the God I had never known, to reach down towards meout of His darkness and to help me to get free of the thousand terrible things that held my will in their slavery."
Now when I read this passage I am amazed at this man's testimony. From his own lips he perceives the wickedness of all men, his very own wickedness, his need of a savior/God, and he cries out for just that. Has this man not fully grasped the essentials of the gospel and done so more excellently than many in our day?
Now, read this second passage, written by the same man.
"Glorious Mother of God, shall I ever again distrust you, or your God before Whose throne you are irresistible in your intercession? Shall I ever turn my eyes from your hands and from your face and from your eyes? Shall I ever look anywhere else but int eh face of your love, to find out true counsel, and to know my way, in all the days and all the moments of my life? As you have dealt with me, Lady, deal also with all my millions of brothers who live in the same misery that I knew then; lead them in spite of themselves and guide them by your tremendous influence, O Holy Queen of souls and refuge of sinners..."
When I read this second passage, all that was good about this man seems to be as nothing. Here he acknowledges a second god, one who offers salvation as Christ does. One who intercedes as Christ does.
Readers, what are the essentials of the gospel? I challenge you to give me a good answer with scripture and good reason.
Friday, September 23, 2005
New trend in Governmental Participation?
The past few weeks I have have been thinking again about several long term trends that have seemed evident to me in the way the American people view and participate in Government. First of all, one big trend I have watched for a while and really believe will continue is the rising of a new generation of conservative/Christian/evangelical type people that are very positive on the power of the populace to change the morality of the nation through political means. I can remember back in the early 1990's. There were very few conservative radio talk show hosts or media at all. Now there are hundreds. I have listened to people such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Schlessinger, and Dobson. The change of both the numbers of this group and their political fevor in the past 15 years is amazing to me. Many people call this the Evangelical block that was responsible for electing George W in 2004.
The second trend I have seen, is the despair and discouragement of the non-conservative block in this country. Outside of the hardcore liberal section, many people seem to be disillusioned with the political process and with government in general. Here is an article by an author I respect who talks about (in the middle) the affect that Hurricane Katrina seems to have or will have on a lot of people in the southwest. I agree with him. In my personal life, I have noticed both these trends. Whenever I talk to conservatives, they seem very energetic and upbeat regarding the possibility of change occurring through governmental processes. Whenever I talk to moderate/liberal types, often they are far more suspicious of government as a whole and despair of change ever occurring.
When analyzing the trends of a nation/world, an important part is to see how varias trends match up. What seems to be the long term implicatation from just these two trends here is that this country will continue to turn conservative in nature. One part will be almost euphoric over this, another part will despair more, distrust more, and dis-engage more.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
The second trend I have seen, is the despair and discouragement of the non-conservative block in this country. Outside of the hardcore liberal section, many people seem to be disillusioned with the political process and with government in general. Here is an article by an author I respect who talks about (in the middle) the affect that Hurricane Katrina seems to have or will have on a lot of people in the southwest. I agree with him. In my personal life, I have noticed both these trends. Whenever I talk to conservatives, they seem very energetic and upbeat regarding the possibility of change occurring through governmental processes. Whenever I talk to moderate/liberal types, often they are far more suspicious of government as a whole and despair of change ever occurring.
When analyzing the trends of a nation/world, an important part is to see how varias trends match up. What seems to be the long term implicatation from just these two trends here is that this country will continue to turn conservative in nature. One part will be almost euphoric over this, another part will despair more, distrust more, and dis-engage more.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Monday, September 19, 2005
Dangers for Followers of Christ
I have had a heavy heart the past few years for the apparent weakness of the professing Christians of this country to fall into a major error in regards to rightly discerning good from evil. This error is the inability or unwillingness to critically examine issues or material in the light of God's word and of reason. I find increasingly that the church insulates itself from having to think about issues by clinging to some approved teacher's writings or spoken opinion and refusing to allow the mind to critically engage. Let me give two examples of this.
Suppose an average American baptist is one day challenged to read a pamphlet about the "filling of the Holy Ghost." In my experience, most average baptists would immediately disregard this and refuse to even think about the possibility of being wrong about their theology of the Holy Spirit. Their inability to think critically is suffocating them spiritually. I sincerely believe that this happens in some measure to every Christian; to the extent that we rid ourselves of of this, we are most likely better off as believers.
To be fair and to avoid unnecessary criticism, let me give another example. Suppose a pentacostal is given a phamplet that addresses the need for church order and talks about how tongues are a sign for unbelievers. Once again, in my experience, the pentacostal will tend to disengage before he even starts reading the phamplet.
The correct way for each of these individuals to approach their respective issues is to first examine the writings by scripture. Once those parameters are set up, the second task is to reason through what is given. Allow me to give a third example.
If someone should come to me and say, "The moon is made of real cheese!" I could choose to not even think about that person's assertion. He's wrong, turn the mind off. The correct action and godly action (all else held constant) I believe is to examine his claim. Really? What does God have to say about your issue?Why do you think so? What evidence do you have? What reasoning can you give? To the best of my knowledge, I think this person's claim would show to be false. But I try not to start out with that mind-suffocating conclusion; it is best shown by taking the evidence while thinking critically and scripturally.
If we the church could stand on the powerful Word of God and reason critically, it would eliminate so much false teaching and destruction in our lives. I challenge the readers of this article who are believers to make a conscious effort to change in this regard
Suppose an average American baptist is one day challenged to read a pamphlet about the "filling of the Holy Ghost." In my experience, most average baptists would immediately disregard this and refuse to even think about the possibility of being wrong about their theology of the Holy Spirit. Their inability to think critically is suffocating them spiritually. I sincerely believe that this happens in some measure to every Christian; to the extent that we rid ourselves of of this, we are most likely better off as believers.
To be fair and to avoid unnecessary criticism, let me give another example. Suppose a pentacostal is given a phamplet that addresses the need for church order and talks about how tongues are a sign for unbelievers. Once again, in my experience, the pentacostal will tend to disengage before he even starts reading the phamplet.
The correct way for each of these individuals to approach their respective issues is to first examine the writings by scripture. Once those parameters are set up, the second task is to reason through what is given. Allow me to give a third example.
If someone should come to me and say, "The moon is made of real cheese!" I could choose to not even think about that person's assertion. He's wrong, turn the mind off. The correct action and godly action (all else held constant) I believe is to examine his claim. Really? What does God have to say about your issue?Why do you think so? What evidence do you have? What reasoning can you give? To the best of my knowledge, I think this person's claim would show to be false. But I try not to start out with that mind-suffocating conclusion; it is best shown by taking the evidence while thinking critically and scripturally.
If we the church could stand on the powerful Word of God and reason critically, it would eliminate so much false teaching and destruction in our lives. I challenge the readers of this article who are believers to make a conscious effort to change in this regard
Friday, September 16, 2005
Don’t call me an Evangelical. No, I used to be one…but not anymore. Yeah, I was home schooled, ten years of it. I went to a non-denominational church every week of my life. I knew the party line cold. The Evangelical Manifesto goes something like this in a loose order of importance:
1) There is one God ruler of all who created heaven and earth around 10,000 years ago. This God has many names, but usually just goes by “God.” Anyone who talks about “God” can generally be labeled a friend, until shown otherwise.
2)
3) God has a great love for all humans on earth and desires the peace, prosperity, and happiness of all. His atoning death in the person of Jesus Christ makes this a possibility for all.
4) It is the responsibility of all good evangelicals everywhere to talk to everyone about this loving God who wants the best for them.
5) If enough evangelical Christians gain prominence in politics, science, and the media then the country can be returned to its godly roots, and then the whole world can be influenced toward godliness as well.
This is an accurate, though general statement. Some evangelicals would see some wrong in these 5 points. However some would think they are too specific, thus leading me to believe that it is a fairly precise belief statement for the average evangelical in
Thursday, September 15, 2005
First Post!
This is my first post on my new blog. Am hoping that this site will be a place for me to express my views of the world and how it works or should work. It will be more often on how it should work I suspect, lol. I hope to load many of the articles I have written before this date so they are readibly accessible for those who wish to read them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)