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.
Monday, November 28, 2005
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)