Hello to anyone who's been following my blog! If it's seemed a little barren over here, it's because I've moved this blog to a different location and didn't tell anyone! I am now on the Wordpress system, searchable by tag and category. If you're interested in still reading along, here is the link:
http://sabepashubbo.wordpress.com
Sorry; I would link to it, but for some reason Blogger doesn't like it when I do links. It tries to not show anything. Anyway, feel free to continue with me in our journey over there!
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Daddy's Hands
I came to an understanding this morning as I was with my daughter. You see, she is almost 8 months old, and we are beginning to see a little bit of separation anxiety in her when we try to pass her off for other people to hold. She clearly prefers her parents to other people, which in a way is sad and in a way is comforting.
I've always sort of wondered why separation anxiety occurs. I think I had a revelation this morning. My daughter woke up at 6:00 AM to eat, and after her meal and a few minutes hanging out with daddy, she was ready to go back to bed. I marvel at her ability to just rest her head on my shoulder, getting comfortable, and drifting peacefully off to sleep. Watching her do this, I realized that she felt safety in my arms, and that was able to help her relax and go to sleep. Daddy's hands were her refuge.
It also made me realize how often I take my Father's hands for granted. How often do I try to lean on my own understanding instead of taking my cares to God? Recently, I have been attempting to make prayer more personal, because I know how easy it is for me to make a "God, please..." list of requests for prayer time. But when things get shaky, how often do I turn to the Lord and just let His hands be my refuge? What about you, reader?
Here is a video featuring the song "Daddy's Hands" by Holly Dunn, and while it is a great tribute to all of the earthly fathers, if you listen to it with your Heavenly Father in mind, it also has great meaning. I hope that all of us will re-learn about the safety in our Father's hands, and go to that place of refuge more often.
I've always sort of wondered why separation anxiety occurs. I think I had a revelation this morning. My daughter woke up at 6:00 AM to eat, and after her meal and a few minutes hanging out with daddy, she was ready to go back to bed. I marvel at her ability to just rest her head on my shoulder, getting comfortable, and drifting peacefully off to sleep. Watching her do this, I realized that she felt safety in my arms, and that was able to help her relax and go to sleep. Daddy's hands were her refuge.
It also made me realize how often I take my Father's hands for granted. How often do I try to lean on my own understanding instead of taking my cares to God? Recently, I have been attempting to make prayer more personal, because I know how easy it is for me to make a "God, please..." list of requests for prayer time. But when things get shaky, how often do I turn to the Lord and just let His hands be my refuge? What about you, reader?
Here is a video featuring the song "Daddy's Hands" by Holly Dunn, and while it is a great tribute to all of the earthly fathers, if you listen to it with your Heavenly Father in mind, it also has great meaning. I hope that all of us will re-learn about the safety in our Father's hands, and go to that place of refuge more often.
Friday, May 28, 2010
The Lord is One
Isn't it amazing how something you have heard and read many times can all of a sudden just jump out at you or create a whole new meaning in your mind? This is what happened to me last night.
In our Bible study, we referenced Deuteronomy 6, from which Jesus quoted what He said is the greatest commandment. Most of us have heard this verse before, maybe even in a song by Lincoln Brewster: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." This is a powerful statement, and from it we get that the greatest thing we can do is to love God. Pretty awesome.
But what got me thinking last night was the phrase preceding this commandment. The phrase is in Deuteronomy 6:4, which says, "Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." (emphasis mine) This simple statement conveys multiple meanings, and they are incredible!
The first one that sticks out to me is the number used to describe the Lord: one. To me, this simple phrase speaks to God's sole authority. There are no other gods that have dominion and power the way our God does. Allah or Krishna or Baal (which by the way if you pronounce the way we do in western culture it sounds like "bail," which is pretty funny and somewhat descriptive of this god) cannot do the things that the God of Israel can. The Lord is THE one, which is why Jesus doesn't say, "I am A way, I am A truth..." but instead says, "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life." There is one God, and we believe in His authority.
The other piece to this speaks to God's perfect unity. Christians are well aware that the Bible speaks to three distinct parts to God's nature: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, a phrase like this speaks to the harmony that exists between these entities. The verb in this phrase is singular: "is". The word "one" in this sentence is called in parts of speech a "predicate nominative," which means that it is a noun that refers to the subject of the sentence in a different way (i.e. if you say, "she is my mom," the words "she" and "mom" refer to the same person). This means that God, being three parts, is also a singular being. This simple phrase also references how these three pieces of the picture work together to make up the one God. That is why there are not three authorities; they are all unified with the same authority.
Man it's amazing what God can say with just four words. It's interesting that a lot of times we gloss over these verses as filler verses getting us from one memory verse to the next. It's becoming increasingly evident to me that as the inspired Word of God, the Bible doesn't contain words or phrases that aren't important for us to understand. I thank Him this morning for giving me a reinforcement of His nature, and I hope that the rest of you, like me, will continue to look for these hidden (but not really) gems in the Scriptures.
In our Bible study, we referenced Deuteronomy 6, from which Jesus quoted what He said is the greatest commandment. Most of us have heard this verse before, maybe even in a song by Lincoln Brewster: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." This is a powerful statement, and from it we get that the greatest thing we can do is to love God. Pretty awesome.
But what got me thinking last night was the phrase preceding this commandment. The phrase is in Deuteronomy 6:4, which says, "Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." (emphasis mine) This simple statement conveys multiple meanings, and they are incredible!
The first one that sticks out to me is the number used to describe the Lord: one. To me, this simple phrase speaks to God's sole authority. There are no other gods that have dominion and power the way our God does. Allah or Krishna or Baal (which by the way if you pronounce the way we do in western culture it sounds like "bail," which is pretty funny and somewhat descriptive of this god) cannot do the things that the God of Israel can. The Lord is THE one, which is why Jesus doesn't say, "I am A way, I am A truth..." but instead says, "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life." There is one God, and we believe in His authority.
The other piece to this speaks to God's perfect unity. Christians are well aware that the Bible speaks to three distinct parts to God's nature: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, a phrase like this speaks to the harmony that exists between these entities. The verb in this phrase is singular: "is". The word "one" in this sentence is called in parts of speech a "predicate nominative," which means that it is a noun that refers to the subject of the sentence in a different way (i.e. if you say, "she is my mom," the words "she" and "mom" refer to the same person). This means that God, being three parts, is also a singular being. This simple phrase also references how these three pieces of the picture work together to make up the one God. That is why there are not three authorities; they are all unified with the same authority.
Man it's amazing what God can say with just four words. It's interesting that a lot of times we gloss over these verses as filler verses getting us from one memory verse to the next. It's becoming increasingly evident to me that as the inspired Word of God, the Bible doesn't contain words or phrases that aren't important for us to understand. I thank Him this morning for giving me a reinforcement of His nature, and I hope that the rest of you, like me, will continue to look for these hidden (but not really) gems in the Scriptures.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Lost: A Series Wrap-Up
One of my guilty pleasures over the past five years has been the TV show Lost. I think the writers of this show did something incredibly smart by creating a storyline with enough mystery to hook viewers initially, while spending the first part of the show's run building character backstories. This helped immensely because it caused you to really care about the outcome of the characters when all hell broke loose.
Well, unless you've been living under a rock this month, someone somewhere probably made you aware of the fact that the Lost series was ending. The series finale 2 1/2 hour episode, "The End," aired this Sunday, and I have to say I was somewhat satisfied with the ending. It was interesting enough to make you think back not only to what you've seen this season, but also throughout the previous seasons. So below are some of the answered questions that I was satisfied with, some of the things I was not satisfied with, and some of the questions I think were important to answer, but weren't.
SATISFACTORY
1) The presence of Rose, Bernard and Vincent on the island was somewhat explained.
2) Jack ended up with Kate. After Season 5 and the Sawyer/Juliet thing, and of course the start of the series, this is how it needed to end.
3) They touched on pretty much every character in the alt-universe that we cared about.
4) The numbers. I know that the numbers representing the candidates was not all that we expected them to be, but it does present a logical explanation for why they kept showing up everywhere.
5) Keamy. I loved this guy. Even though he died twice in the show, I'm glad they brought him back in the alt-universe.
6) The resolution to the show was less about science and more about faith. As a Christian, that tells me that the writers at least understand that people are more important than nature in the grand scheme of things.
UNSATISFACTORY
1) Sayid ending up with Shannon. While I understand it, they shouldn't have spent so much time after Shannon died trying to play up the Sayid/Nadia love affair if he was going to end up with Shannon in the end.
2) Dogen. I think I understand what his purpose in the storyline was, but I had to reach to get it, meaning the writers didn't do a good enough job explaining it.
3) Not explaining certain statements happening in the last two episodes. Ana Lucia "not being ready," Desmond telling Eloise that Faraday's "not coming with me," and Boone already being aware of what they were doing when Sayid rescued Shannon really needed a little bit more explaining.
4) Michael not being in the church. Maybe I missed it and he was, but if he wasn't, why not? He was part of the most important time in Jack's life, so he should be there. If his soul is still trapped on the island (which Ana Lucia's should have been then too, and Keamy for that matter), then they needed to reference it.
5) What was the purpose of Zoe? Seems like they just needed another body to kill, because they never explained why Widmore brought a geophysicist on to the island.
6) No Mr. Eko. I understand that they couldn't work out a deal in time with the actor, but come on, you knew when the show was going to end 3 seasons ago. That should've been more than enough time to get something done.
UNANSWERED
1) What happened to Richard? We got his backstory on the island, but how come if he became mortal and aging (as evidenced by the gray hair Miles noticed), shouldn't he have shown up somewhere in the alt-universe as a dead dude? I understand why he wasn't at the church in the end, but if they can show us Eloise, Penny, Keamy, Mikhail and many other peripheral characters in the alt-universe, why not Richard?
2) Was Hurley actually crazy? This one came up when discussing with my family. We know that he can see dead people, but what was with Dave in season two? On the island, this couldn't have been the Man in Black, because he could only take the form of dead people on the island, which Dave wasn't.
3) What was with the temple and the statue? I heard somewhere that they were supposed to be left over from the Egyptians, but how they got there and what purposes they initially served were never answered.
4) The Dharma initiative. What happened between Jughead and the Linus massacre? Seems like if this wasn't an important piece they shouldn't have spent 4 seasons telling us how important the Dharma initiative was.
5) Walt. I hear they're explaining this on the DVD, but that's not good enough for fans who gave six years of their lives.
That's all I can think of for now. I'm sure more things will come up, but maybe some of you readers can answer some of my unanswered questions. Or perhaps you have unanswered questions of your own that you would like to ask about, and maybe I can answer them for you. Drop a comment if you care. Otherwise, that's a wrap!
Well, unless you've been living under a rock this month, someone somewhere probably made you aware of the fact that the Lost series was ending. The series finale 2 1/2 hour episode, "The End," aired this Sunday, and I have to say I was somewhat satisfied with the ending. It was interesting enough to make you think back not only to what you've seen this season, but also throughout the previous seasons. So below are some of the answered questions that I was satisfied with, some of the things I was not satisfied with, and some of the questions I think were important to answer, but weren't.
SATISFACTORY
1) The presence of Rose, Bernard and Vincent on the island was somewhat explained.
2) Jack ended up with Kate. After Season 5 and the Sawyer/Juliet thing, and of course the start of the series, this is how it needed to end.
3) They touched on pretty much every character in the alt-universe that we cared about.
4) The numbers. I know that the numbers representing the candidates was not all that we expected them to be, but it does present a logical explanation for why they kept showing up everywhere.
5) Keamy. I loved this guy. Even though he died twice in the show, I'm glad they brought him back in the alt-universe.
6) The resolution to the show was less about science and more about faith. As a Christian, that tells me that the writers at least understand that people are more important than nature in the grand scheme of things.
UNSATISFACTORY
1) Sayid ending up with Shannon. While I understand it, they shouldn't have spent so much time after Shannon died trying to play up the Sayid/Nadia love affair if he was going to end up with Shannon in the end.
2) Dogen. I think I understand what his purpose in the storyline was, but I had to reach to get it, meaning the writers didn't do a good enough job explaining it.
3) Not explaining certain statements happening in the last two episodes. Ana Lucia "not being ready," Desmond telling Eloise that Faraday's "not coming with me," and Boone already being aware of what they were doing when Sayid rescued Shannon really needed a little bit more explaining.
4) Michael not being in the church. Maybe I missed it and he was, but if he wasn't, why not? He was part of the most important time in Jack's life, so he should be there. If his soul is still trapped on the island (which Ana Lucia's should have been then too, and Keamy for that matter), then they needed to reference it.
5) What was the purpose of Zoe? Seems like they just needed another body to kill, because they never explained why Widmore brought a geophysicist on to the island.
6) No Mr. Eko. I understand that they couldn't work out a deal in time with the actor, but come on, you knew when the show was going to end 3 seasons ago. That should've been more than enough time to get something done.
UNANSWERED
1) What happened to Richard? We got his backstory on the island, but how come if he became mortal and aging (as evidenced by the gray hair Miles noticed), shouldn't he have shown up somewhere in the alt-universe as a dead dude? I understand why he wasn't at the church in the end, but if they can show us Eloise, Penny, Keamy, Mikhail and many other peripheral characters in the alt-universe, why not Richard?
2) Was Hurley actually crazy? This one came up when discussing with my family. We know that he can see dead people, but what was with Dave in season two? On the island, this couldn't have been the Man in Black, because he could only take the form of dead people on the island, which Dave wasn't.
3) What was with the temple and the statue? I heard somewhere that they were supposed to be left over from the Egyptians, but how they got there and what purposes they initially served were never answered.
4) The Dharma initiative. What happened between Jughead and the Linus massacre? Seems like if this wasn't an important piece they shouldn't have spent 4 seasons telling us how important the Dharma initiative was.
5) Walt. I hear they're explaining this on the DVD, but that's not good enough for fans who gave six years of their lives.
That's all I can think of for now. I'm sure more things will come up, but maybe some of you readers can answer some of my unanswered questions. Or perhaps you have unanswered questions of your own that you would like to ask about, and maybe I can answer them for you. Drop a comment if you care. Otherwise, that's a wrap!
Friday, May 21, 2010
The First Synthetic Cell
WIFE sent me this article this morning, and let me just say that I'm scared. Here's the link if anyone wants to read it in its entirety: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/offbeat/first-synthetic-cell-created-14813834.html
"An American biologist has stepped into the shoes of Baron Frankenstein by breathing life into a bacterium using genes assembled in the laboratory.
The creation of the "synthetic cell", described as a "landmark" by one British expert, is a 15-year dream come true for maverick genetics entrepreneur Dr Craig Venter.
It has major implications for genomics, including the manufacture of artificial organisms designed for specific tasks such as making vaccines or cleaning up pollution.
But experts recognise that as Mary Shelley demonstrated in her famous novel, there are potential dangers too. Synthetic life could, for instance, pave the way to terrifying biological weapons."
The first thing that came to mind when I read this was biological and chemical warfare. Think about the ability to mass-produce anthrax by manipulating the genetic structure of flour, or even to create nuclear energy without having to use radiation. This could potentially have positive effects, like being able to genetically change cancer cells, but where there is good, someone is sure to use this for evil.
Most importantly, I feel like this is tinkering with God's design. God created all cells with a unique purpose (yes, even cancer cells), and the ability to effectively change the purpose for this design is like spitting in the face of God to me. Science, while great in many respects, can be deadly--see atomic bomb--and is continuously searching for ways to phase God out of the equation. What do you all think?
"An American biologist has stepped into the shoes of Baron Frankenstein by breathing life into a bacterium using genes assembled in the laboratory.
The creation of the "synthetic cell", described as a "landmark" by one British expert, is a 15-year dream come true for maverick genetics entrepreneur Dr Craig Venter.
It has major implications for genomics, including the manufacture of artificial organisms designed for specific tasks such as making vaccines or cleaning up pollution.
But experts recognise that as Mary Shelley demonstrated in her famous novel, there are potential dangers too. Synthetic life could, for instance, pave the way to terrifying biological weapons."
The first thing that came to mind when I read this was biological and chemical warfare. Think about the ability to mass-produce anthrax by manipulating the genetic structure of flour, or even to create nuclear energy without having to use radiation. This could potentially have positive effects, like being able to genetically change cancer cells, but where there is good, someone is sure to use this for evil.
Most importantly, I feel like this is tinkering with God's design. God created all cells with a unique purpose (yes, even cancer cells), and the ability to effectively change the purpose for this design is like spitting in the face of God to me. Science, while great in many respects, can be deadly--see atomic bomb--and is continuously searching for ways to phase God out of the equation. What do you all think?
Monday, May 17, 2010
What Will Change Your Worldview?
Recently WIFE and I had a discussion on a pretty controversial topic. One of the interesting things about our marriage is that I grew up in a very conservative (politically) home, while WIFE's household was fairly liberal. The fact that we began dating right before the 2004 presidential election and that we are still together to this day is something we both believe to be a miracle of God.
All this to tell you that we initially fell on different sides of the coin on this issue. I thought that was the end of it; we agree to disagree, respect each other's opinions, and we're still able to kiss good night. After attending a Bible study that night, on the way home WIFE tells me, "Well, you were right," and proceeds to say that Satan has led her astray with yet another lie. What's been interesting to me is that over the course of a couple of years, how the worldview of WIFE has completely shifted.
Now we are still fairly young, but for an adult to make a hard U-turn when it comes to your worldview is something else; something else being a significant event in your life causing you to look at life in a completely different way. For WIFE, it was beginning a relationship with Jesus Christ. Since then, issues are seen through a completely different lens.
In my own life, the significant event in my life was marrying WIFE. Since she was a new Christian when we got married, some of the excitement in learning about God and His Word was still evident in her life. I realize that the worldview of mine that changed thanks to her was what I will call Latent Christianity. Having professed faith in Jesus since I was 9 years old, I had spent years not paying attention in church, thinking a neck rub from my dad during service was more important than what the pastor had to say about Philippians.
When WIFE started coming to church with my family, and especially when we decided to get married and went through pre-marital counseling, my worldview started to change. It was as if some sleeping giant had been awoken and was stirring, ready to start up again. God began to tug at me, telling me that being a Christian wasn't just something you say; it's something you live.
WIFE and I recently joined a new church, and this time is exciting for me, because I am truly energized about serving and giving to both the body of believers and to those who haven't had Jesus change their worldview yet. For the first time, I have an inkling that I might be able to do outreach, something that I NEVER had a desire to do, because I felt I couldn't connect with people who weren't already Christians. As a part of the worship team at my church, I'm excited to worship God with the talents He's given me every single week, instead of using my musical knowledge to critique and judge those who are just giving what they can to God. I'm taking initiative to be the spiritual leader of my relationship and my family, because I finally realize how important that is to God's plan for my marriage and the rest of my life. I no longer feel chained to Latent Christianity, because my worldview has changed.
So my question to anybody reading this is: what will change your worldview? Can your worldview even be changed, or are you so entrenched in yourself that God can't work? What it really means to be "open-minded" is to allow your eyes and heart to be receptive to whatever God is truly placing there and asking of you. If you open your heart to Him, He won't hesitate to enter. Let Him be your worldview; you won't regret it.
All this to tell you that we initially fell on different sides of the coin on this issue. I thought that was the end of it; we agree to disagree, respect each other's opinions, and we're still able to kiss good night. After attending a Bible study that night, on the way home WIFE tells me, "Well, you were right," and proceeds to say that Satan has led her astray with yet another lie. What's been interesting to me is that over the course of a couple of years, how the worldview of WIFE has completely shifted.
Now we are still fairly young, but for an adult to make a hard U-turn when it comes to your worldview is something else; something else being a significant event in your life causing you to look at life in a completely different way. For WIFE, it was beginning a relationship with Jesus Christ. Since then, issues are seen through a completely different lens.
In my own life, the significant event in my life was marrying WIFE. Since she was a new Christian when we got married, some of the excitement in learning about God and His Word was still evident in her life. I realize that the worldview of mine that changed thanks to her was what I will call Latent Christianity. Having professed faith in Jesus since I was 9 years old, I had spent years not paying attention in church, thinking a neck rub from my dad during service was more important than what the pastor had to say about Philippians.
When WIFE started coming to church with my family, and especially when we decided to get married and went through pre-marital counseling, my worldview started to change. It was as if some sleeping giant had been awoken and was stirring, ready to start up again. God began to tug at me, telling me that being a Christian wasn't just something you say; it's something you live.
WIFE and I recently joined a new church, and this time is exciting for me, because I am truly energized about serving and giving to both the body of believers and to those who haven't had Jesus change their worldview yet. For the first time, I have an inkling that I might be able to do outreach, something that I NEVER had a desire to do, because I felt I couldn't connect with people who weren't already Christians. As a part of the worship team at my church, I'm excited to worship God with the talents He's given me every single week, instead of using my musical knowledge to critique and judge those who are just giving what they can to God. I'm taking initiative to be the spiritual leader of my relationship and my family, because I finally realize how important that is to God's plan for my marriage and the rest of my life. I no longer feel chained to Latent Christianity, because my worldview has changed.
So my question to anybody reading this is: what will change your worldview? Can your worldview even be changed, or are you so entrenched in yourself that God can't work? What it really means to be "open-minded" is to allow your eyes and heart to be receptive to whatever God is truly placing there and asking of you. If you open your heart to Him, He won't hesitate to enter. Let Him be your worldview; you won't regret it.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Do What Your Daddy Tells You
As WIFE and I continue our reading through the Bible this year, certain things tend to jump out at me, depending on what's going on in life around me. Usually it's a particular verse, or the backstory of a man that I had never really studied before. This blog post is about the general nature of an entire book.
We just finished 2 Kings, and let me tell you, Israel and Judah had a bunch of kings. After reading the book, I really wish I knew where "the annals of the kings of Israel" and "the annals of the kings of Judah" were, because apparently everything you need to know is in those, right? I mean, God wouldn't have taken the things He wanted us to know and put them in His book, would He?
I kid, but really it seems like with many of the kings in this book their reigns can be summed up with one line: "He did evil/good in the eyes of the Lord." I went through and tallied up the kings in this book, and of all the kings of Israel and Judah, only 7 can be said that they did good in the eyes of the Lord. Eighteen kings are said to have done evil in the eyes of the Lord, mainly following in the sins of one Jeroboam, who after reading this book I have to believe would be in Dante's seventh circle of hell for all of the people he led astray in betrayal of the Lord.
But as Mother's Day has come and gone, reading this book has really emphasized to me just how important it is to have Godly role models. Many of these kings who did either good or evil did so because they "walked in the way of their father." As a father to an infant, this realization has taken hold of me. It's obvious that the example of a parent can be a HUGE factor in how their children live. Parents influence their kids on things from anywhere to sports teams (thanks to my dad I'm both a Yankees fan and a Cowboys fan, and am therefore hated by at least 90% of sports fans on some level) to what's most important in life (success or happiness, and trust me, there is a distinct difference between the two).
Most importantly, our parents influence our spiritual behavior as well. Those parents who are committed to bringing up their children in a Godly home, where roles are clearly defined by His Word and carried out by the dad and mom, are more likely to see the success found in Proverbs 22:6, which says, "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he's old he will not depart from it." That means following God's commands explicitly and without reservation. That means if God says something in His book, you write it on your heart.
Though my little girl likely has no concept of what it means to be a Godly woman, as her dad I'd sure better, so that when she's old enough to understand I can teach her what God wants of her. But on a personal level, I need to make sure I'm in line with what God wants of me, so that if my daughter "walks in the way of her father" I won't be ashamed, but instead proud that she is who God has called her to be. And that would be "good in the eyes of the Lord."
We just finished 2 Kings, and let me tell you, Israel and Judah had a bunch of kings. After reading the book, I really wish I knew where "the annals of the kings of Israel" and "the annals of the kings of Judah" were, because apparently everything you need to know is in those, right? I mean, God wouldn't have taken the things He wanted us to know and put them in His book, would He?
I kid, but really it seems like with many of the kings in this book their reigns can be summed up with one line: "He did evil/good in the eyes of the Lord." I went through and tallied up the kings in this book, and of all the kings of Israel and Judah, only 7 can be said that they did good in the eyes of the Lord. Eighteen kings are said to have done evil in the eyes of the Lord, mainly following in the sins of one Jeroboam, who after reading this book I have to believe would be in Dante's seventh circle of hell for all of the people he led astray in betrayal of the Lord.
But as Mother's Day has come and gone, reading this book has really emphasized to me just how important it is to have Godly role models. Many of these kings who did either good or evil did so because they "walked in the way of their father." As a father to an infant, this realization has taken hold of me. It's obvious that the example of a parent can be a HUGE factor in how their children live. Parents influence their kids on things from anywhere to sports teams (thanks to my dad I'm both a Yankees fan and a Cowboys fan, and am therefore hated by at least 90% of sports fans on some level) to what's most important in life (success or happiness, and trust me, there is a distinct difference between the two).
Most importantly, our parents influence our spiritual behavior as well. Those parents who are committed to bringing up their children in a Godly home, where roles are clearly defined by His Word and carried out by the dad and mom, are more likely to see the success found in Proverbs 22:6, which says, "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he's old he will not depart from it." That means following God's commands explicitly and without reservation. That means if God says something in His book, you write it on your heart.
Though my little girl likely has no concept of what it means to be a Godly woman, as her dad I'd sure better, so that when she's old enough to understand I can teach her what God wants of her. But on a personal level, I need to make sure I'm in line with what God wants of me, so that if my daughter "walks in the way of her father" I won't be ashamed, but instead proud that she is who God has called her to be. And that would be "good in the eyes of the Lord."
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Concept of Salvation
So I finally read the book "Easy Chairs, Hard Words" and have to say it was definitely an interesting read. Lots of real-world examples that make very compelling arguments. At the end of it, I had to sit back and think about whether or not my theological perspective had changed. I came to the conclusion that mostly it had not. However, as I started thinking about one particular position, it led me to an interesting idea, and one that I've tried to defend: that salvation only affects us as we cross from this life into eternity.
Here's my thinking. If salvation is a gift from God (as is explained in Ephesians 2:8), then it seems like if we have free will we have the choice to open the gift or not. However, God has predestined some to open that gift, and others not to. This allows for the idea of unconditional election while still giving credence to unlimited atonement. I've been thinking that if salvation is really being "saved from our sins," it doesn't really take affect while we're still on the earth, because it doesn't really stop us from sinning. In that sense, salvation is the removal of our sins from us when we die, so we can be made perfect (the concept of glorification) and fit for heaven.
However, WIFE brought up a good point earlier this week. She said that salvation isn't necessarily just from our sins, but from being enslaved to past sins and tied down to them. Another friend, who we'll just call Theology Man, said something similar in a brief text discussion. I tend to think this is more in line with the concept of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, the point at which we accept Jesus as Lord in our lives and the Holy Spirit begins to work in our lives (sanctification). This is how 2 Corinthians 5:17 becomes a part of our lives, as the old is gone and the new has come.
Interestingly, I was surprised that Paul addressed this very issue of salvation vs. sanctification in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which says, "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." It seems evident from this verse that salvation and sanctification are tied together with faith. So what is the relationship between salvation and sanctification? The relationship between salvation and glorification?
In short, my theological perspective has changed slightly. I now believe (which I assume is not an uncommon position) that the 3 big Bible words (sanctification, justification, glorification) are encompassed by the overarching concept of salvation. Salvation includes these three things, which is why God is able to use the past, present and future tenses in the Bible when discussing the salvation He has given us. I still believe that salvation is an eternal decision that is extended to all men, but I think at least now I better understand why.
Is WIFE correct? Yep. Is Theology Man correct? Most definitely. Am I correct? I think so now. What once was a belief that salvation is tied to glorification has now turned into glorification as the final step to salvation. Thank you Lord, for providing a Word that gives us a glimpse into Your awesome ability to do such works in us, and what exactly that means in the course of eternity!
Here's my thinking. If salvation is a gift from God (as is explained in Ephesians 2:8), then it seems like if we have free will we have the choice to open the gift or not. However, God has predestined some to open that gift, and others not to. This allows for the idea of unconditional election while still giving credence to unlimited atonement. I've been thinking that if salvation is really being "saved from our sins," it doesn't really take affect while we're still on the earth, because it doesn't really stop us from sinning. In that sense, salvation is the removal of our sins from us when we die, so we can be made perfect (the concept of glorification) and fit for heaven.
However, WIFE brought up a good point earlier this week. She said that salvation isn't necessarily just from our sins, but from being enslaved to past sins and tied down to them. Another friend, who we'll just call Theology Man, said something similar in a brief text discussion. I tend to think this is more in line with the concept of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, the point at which we accept Jesus as Lord in our lives and the Holy Spirit begins to work in our lives (sanctification). This is how 2 Corinthians 5:17 becomes a part of our lives, as the old is gone and the new has come.
Interestingly, I was surprised that Paul addressed this very issue of salvation vs. sanctification in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which says, "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." It seems evident from this verse that salvation and sanctification are tied together with faith. So what is the relationship between salvation and sanctification? The relationship between salvation and glorification?
In short, my theological perspective has changed slightly. I now believe (which I assume is not an uncommon position) that the 3 big Bible words (sanctification, justification, glorification) are encompassed by the overarching concept of salvation. Salvation includes these three things, which is why God is able to use the past, present and future tenses in the Bible when discussing the salvation He has given us. I still believe that salvation is an eternal decision that is extended to all men, but I think at least now I better understand why.
Is WIFE correct? Yep. Is Theology Man correct? Most definitely. Am I correct? I think so now. What once was a belief that salvation is tied to glorification has now turned into glorification as the final step to salvation. Thank you Lord, for providing a Word that gives us a glimpse into Your awesome ability to do such works in us, and what exactly that means in the course of eternity!
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Centurion Believed - Why Can't We?
Given that this past weekend was Easter weekend, the subject matter of many church sermons (including the one at my own church) centered on both the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. While many people surely know the events of the crucifixion, and there have been in recent years plenty of accounts of what exactly Jesus endured leading up to His death on the cross, it was a verse after the actual death of Jesus that caught my eye this weekend.
Matthew 27 tells the account of Jesus death. The verse in question is Matthew 27:54, which says, "When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the son of God!'"
I'm sure the timing of the earthquake had something to do with the terror felt by the Roman guards, but in thinking about it, it probably wouldn't have meant anything if not for what triggered it. Verse 50 says, "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit."
For those of us who know a bit about crucifixion, we are aware that most of those who died on the crosses did so of asphyxiation. Those nailed finally lacked the strength to pull themselves up on their nailed hands to get breath, and the pleura would fill their lungs and cause them to suffocate and die. This is a long process and at the end the crucified was probably exhausted and extremely weak.
Yet not so with Jesus! No, He "cried out again in a loud voice." If Jesus had mumbled His final cry (which we know from other gospels to be "It is finished!") and then the earthquake happened, it would have been easy for those around to call it a coincidence or make up an excuse. But that Jesus was not suffocating was surely a powerful thing for a centurion, who had likely been to many crucifixions, to see. He was still full of energy, and with His loud cry and the subsequent earthquake, the centurion had to believe that the timing of the two was not coincidental, but divine.
Note also that in verse 50 it doesn't say, "And then Jesus died." No, it is, "He gave up his spirit." Jesus had full power, even in death. Death did not overcome Him; He gave His spirit to death to fulfill the promise of His sacrifice. These powerful occurrences were easily enough to sway those who so recently had been mocking Jesus. I wonder where the centurion went after this. Perhaps he went to see Jesus' buried to pay homage to the man he now believed to be the Son of God. No doubt this centurion was less surprised (and more in awe) when he found out that Jesus was no longer in the tomb three days later; He already knew firsthand that Jesus was capable of more than the average man.
So I guess my question for you as the reader is what it will take for you to change your heart in the way that this Roman centurion and his soldiers were changed. How loud does Jesus need to cry for you to listen to Him? And what is evident in the world today that you would attribute to coincidence instead of the power of the Lord working mightily?
Matthew 27 tells the account of Jesus death. The verse in question is Matthew 27:54, which says, "When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the son of God!'"
I'm sure the timing of the earthquake had something to do with the terror felt by the Roman guards, but in thinking about it, it probably wouldn't have meant anything if not for what triggered it. Verse 50 says, "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit."
For those of us who know a bit about crucifixion, we are aware that most of those who died on the crosses did so of asphyxiation. Those nailed finally lacked the strength to pull themselves up on their nailed hands to get breath, and the pleura would fill their lungs and cause them to suffocate and die. This is a long process and at the end the crucified was probably exhausted and extremely weak.
Yet not so with Jesus! No, He "cried out again in a loud voice." If Jesus had mumbled His final cry (which we know from other gospels to be "It is finished!") and then the earthquake happened, it would have been easy for those around to call it a coincidence or make up an excuse. But that Jesus was not suffocating was surely a powerful thing for a centurion, who had likely been to many crucifixions, to see. He was still full of energy, and with His loud cry and the subsequent earthquake, the centurion had to believe that the timing of the two was not coincidental, but divine.
Note also that in verse 50 it doesn't say, "And then Jesus died." No, it is, "He gave up his spirit." Jesus had full power, even in death. Death did not overcome Him; He gave His spirit to death to fulfill the promise of His sacrifice. These powerful occurrences were easily enough to sway those who so recently had been mocking Jesus. I wonder where the centurion went after this. Perhaps he went to see Jesus' buried to pay homage to the man he now believed to be the Son of God. No doubt this centurion was less surprised (and more in awe) when he found out that Jesus was no longer in the tomb three days later; He already knew firsthand that Jesus was capable of more than the average man.
So I guess my question for you as the reader is what it will take for you to change your heart in the way that this Roman centurion and his soldiers were changed. How loud does Jesus need to cry for you to listen to Him? And what is evident in the world today that you would attribute to coincidence instead of the power of the Lord working mightily?
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Psalm 1: The Degeneration of the Sinful Man
I just found Charles Spurgeon's "Treasury of David" stuff online, and if everything is as interesting as this first dive into Psalm 1, I'm excited to continue reading these! Within the exposition that Spurgeon does on this chapter is a really interesting portrait of a sinful man and what must be done to keep from going down this path. Let's look at just the first 2 verses:
"Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful.
But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in this law he meditates day and night."
What is interesting is how quickly the man can degenerate according to this passage. Note the verbs used in the first verse. First the man simply walks, then he stands (or perhaps a better way to think about it is that he both STOPS and stands) and finally he sits. This illustrates how sin so easily ensnares us, as someone who is not focused on the Lord and His Word can move so quickly from a passer-through to stopping to see what's going on to finally joining in to the world of sin.
What is also of note is that at each level the company becomes increasingly worse to involve oneself with. Initially it is only the ungodly, which could mean simply those who are lost and have no knowledge of God. From there, the company becomes sinners, or those who deliberately do things against the will of God, with some awareness of the wrong they are doing. Lastly, the company becomes the scornful, or those who openly mock the truth of the Word of God, and some may even go so far as to attempt to explain away the Lord. The further away one gets from God (which can be directly correlated with how much time is spent seeking God), the easier it gets to act not only in ignorance to God but in direct opposition to His commands.
So how does one escape such company? Verse 2 gives a pretty clear answer. One has to delight in the law of the Lord. Notice that it is not just "the Lord," but rather "the law of the Lord." As Spurgeon points out, this man is not under the law, but rather in it. This man is someone who not only loves the Lord, but also keeps His commandments (John 14:15) and does so with delight (Colossians 3:23).
A friend passed along a blog post written recently about frustration concerning those who feel they are saved based on one single experience but show no evidence of God's fruit in their lives. The "blessed man" of Psalm 1 is a Berean; his fruit is shown as he meditates on the law day and night.
Think of the New Age movement's practice of meditation. What does it entail? You must block out all distractions and immerse yourself in the process. The idea behind Biblical meditation is similar; you must dive deep into the law, and if you are immersed in such law "both day and night," odds are you have a better shot of keeping His commandments and avoiding the type of company talked about in verse one.
Lord, give us the desire to delight in Your Word, and help us to put aside all distractions to focus on the glory of the things You've spoken to us. Help us to not merely be hearers of Your Word, but also to take action and to put it on our minds both day and night. Amen.
"Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful.
But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in this law he meditates day and night."
What is interesting is how quickly the man can degenerate according to this passage. Note the verbs used in the first verse. First the man simply walks, then he stands (or perhaps a better way to think about it is that he both STOPS and stands) and finally he sits. This illustrates how sin so easily ensnares us, as someone who is not focused on the Lord and His Word can move so quickly from a passer-through to stopping to see what's going on to finally joining in to the world of sin.
What is also of note is that at each level the company becomes increasingly worse to involve oneself with. Initially it is only the ungodly, which could mean simply those who are lost and have no knowledge of God. From there, the company becomes sinners, or those who deliberately do things against the will of God, with some awareness of the wrong they are doing. Lastly, the company becomes the scornful, or those who openly mock the truth of the Word of God, and some may even go so far as to attempt to explain away the Lord. The further away one gets from God (which can be directly correlated with how much time is spent seeking God), the easier it gets to act not only in ignorance to God but in direct opposition to His commands.
So how does one escape such company? Verse 2 gives a pretty clear answer. One has to delight in the law of the Lord. Notice that it is not just "the Lord," but rather "the law of the Lord." As Spurgeon points out, this man is not under the law, but rather in it. This man is someone who not only loves the Lord, but also keeps His commandments (John 14:15) and does so with delight (Colossians 3:23).
A friend passed along a blog post written recently about frustration concerning those who feel they are saved based on one single experience but show no evidence of God's fruit in their lives. The "blessed man" of Psalm 1 is a Berean; his fruit is shown as he meditates on the law day and night.
Think of the New Age movement's practice of meditation. What does it entail? You must block out all distractions and immerse yourself in the process. The idea behind Biblical meditation is similar; you must dive deep into the law, and if you are immersed in such law "both day and night," odds are you have a better shot of keeping His commandments and avoiding the type of company talked about in verse one.
Lord, give us the desire to delight in Your Word, and help us to put aside all distractions to focus on the glory of the things You've spoken to us. Help us to not merely be hearers of Your Word, but also to take action and to put it on our minds both day and night. Amen.
Jesus -- Of Judah
I had a weird mental pathway today to my topic. I was thinking about looking for a commentary on Judges to see if anyone else had some interesting takes on the man Jephthah was, which led me back to my blog yesterday. I remembered Rahab and wondered if any other women would be worth mentioning in this group. Certainly some might say Ruth or Esther could be included, perhaps Hannah or Sarah or even Bathsheba. However, one crossed my mind that little is known about: Tamar. Would Tamar be worthy of such an honor? We know she was Judah's niece and tricked him into sleeping with her to conceive a child that would be his heir, since her husband and husband's brother were both killed by the Lord.
That put another question in my mind. Judah slept with his niece, who was masquerading as a prostitute. And yet it is this man from whom Jesus chose to be a descendant. Looking at the tribes of Israel and the men from which they came, one would suspect that Jesus would come from the line of Joseph, or perhaps Levi, since He is described in Hebrews as "High Priest," and the Levites were the priests. But no, Jesus is the "lion of the tribe of Judah." Why did He choose (and it most definitely was a choice; I have no desire to debate the sovereignty of God in this post) the lineage of Judah?
It got me thinking about what we really know about Judah. For starters, his name lends more to the future Messiah as one of his descendants. The name Judah is derived from the Hebrew word for praise. Joseph comes from the Hebrew for may he add, while Levi comes from the Hebrew for attached.
After Judah's birth, we don't hear about him again until his incident with Tamar. Genesis 38 tells this story, but at the end, it is noteworthy that Judah keeps the promise he made to Tamar in attempting to bring her a goat and honoring the cord and seal he gave to her as his sign, even though he says, "She is more righteous than I."
However, Judah's greatest contribution to the book of Genesis comes in chapters 43-44. Due to the famine, Jacob sends his sons (minus Benjamin) to Egypt to buy grain, and when they come to their brother Joseph (not recognizing him), they are sent back with orders to bring Benjamin with them, and Simeon is imprisoned until they come back. Judah at this point emerges as the leader and asks that Benjamin be entrusted to his care. You would think this would be the request of the firstborn, but no, Judah was 4th in line. Judah takes on the responsibility of caring for the young and inexperienced Benjamin.
As the story continues, when the brothers return Joseph secretly plants a silver cup in Benjamin's grain sack to force Benjamin to stay in Egypt. Judah then does something that up to this point has not been done in the book of Genesis: he sacrifices himself for the good of his younger, inexperienced brother. He pleads with Joseph to let him be the one imprisoned, since Benjamin is entrusted to his care. Joseph can no longer contain himself, reveals himself to his brothers, and they lived happily ever after (er, mostly; those living in the time of Moses might disagree with the move to Egypt).
So what qualities does Judah show in his short time in Genesis? (1) He honors a covenant that he made, (2) he emerges as leader of his "people," (3) he takes responsibility for the weak and inexperienced, and (4) he offers himself as a sacrifice for the weak, so that the weak won't be separated from his father forever.
Anybody see the parallels between Judah and Jesus? While Judah was not perfect, he was the best example of what Jesus came to fulfill. Simeon was chosen to be imprisoned first, but he and Levi both stained their father's name by attacking the town of the man who raped their sister. Reuben, when Joseph was sold by his brothers, merely protested but did not step in himself. No, Judah was the man who showed the character that was later made even more perfect by Jesus Christ. It is only fitting that God chose to personify Himself in the lineage of such a man who, not blameless by any stretch of the imagination, did what needed to be done to protect and bring honor to his own.
That put another question in my mind. Judah slept with his niece, who was masquerading as a prostitute. And yet it is this man from whom Jesus chose to be a descendant. Looking at the tribes of Israel and the men from which they came, one would suspect that Jesus would come from the line of Joseph, or perhaps Levi, since He is described in Hebrews as "High Priest," and the Levites were the priests. But no, Jesus is the "lion of the tribe of Judah." Why did He choose (and it most definitely was a choice; I have no desire to debate the sovereignty of God in this post) the lineage of Judah?
It got me thinking about what we really know about Judah. For starters, his name lends more to the future Messiah as one of his descendants. The name Judah is derived from the Hebrew word for praise. Joseph comes from the Hebrew for may he add, while Levi comes from the Hebrew for attached.
After Judah's birth, we don't hear about him again until his incident with Tamar. Genesis 38 tells this story, but at the end, it is noteworthy that Judah keeps the promise he made to Tamar in attempting to bring her a goat and honoring the cord and seal he gave to her as his sign, even though he says, "She is more righteous than I."
However, Judah's greatest contribution to the book of Genesis comes in chapters 43-44. Due to the famine, Jacob sends his sons (minus Benjamin) to Egypt to buy grain, and when they come to their brother Joseph (not recognizing him), they are sent back with orders to bring Benjamin with them, and Simeon is imprisoned until they come back. Judah at this point emerges as the leader and asks that Benjamin be entrusted to his care. You would think this would be the request of the firstborn, but no, Judah was 4th in line. Judah takes on the responsibility of caring for the young and inexperienced Benjamin.
As the story continues, when the brothers return Joseph secretly plants a silver cup in Benjamin's grain sack to force Benjamin to stay in Egypt. Judah then does something that up to this point has not been done in the book of Genesis: he sacrifices himself for the good of his younger, inexperienced brother. He pleads with Joseph to let him be the one imprisoned, since Benjamin is entrusted to his care. Joseph can no longer contain himself, reveals himself to his brothers, and they lived happily ever after (er, mostly; those living in the time of Moses might disagree with the move to Egypt).
So what qualities does Judah show in his short time in Genesis? (1) He honors a covenant that he made, (2) he emerges as leader of his "people," (3) he takes responsibility for the weak and inexperienced, and (4) he offers himself as a sacrifice for the weak, so that the weak won't be separated from his father forever.
Anybody see the parallels between Judah and Jesus? While Judah was not perfect, he was the best example of what Jesus came to fulfill. Simeon was chosen to be imprisoned first, but he and Levi both stained their father's name by attacking the town of the man who raped their sister. Reuben, when Joseph was sold by his brothers, merely protested but did not step in himself. No, Judah was the man who showed the character that was later made even more perfect by Jesus Christ. It is only fitting that God chose to personify Himself in the lineage of such a man who, not blameless by any stretch of the imagination, did what needed to be done to protect and bring honor to his own.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Hall of Faith - Jephthah???
Most people who either actively read their Bible or attend church on a regular basis have probably heard a reference to the "Hall of Faith." For those who may not know, this points to Hebrews 11, where the author of Hebrews calls out by name some of the Old Testament believers who exemplified great faith, and in some cases specifically where this faith showed its nature.
I recall recently talking about Samson and how he continually let Delilah and the Philistines attempt to take him down, and how he never learned. A friend made a comment in the vein of, "Yeah, and yet he's mentioned in the Hall of Faith. Strange, isn't it?" So I went back to the Hall of Faith chapter to see what exactly it was that earned Samson a place of recognition among the greats. Unfortunately, he is just listed in a series of names, so there is no exact specification for his inclusion, but it was the name after his that got me thinking. Jephthah?!
For starters, WIFE and I just finished the book of Judges in our attempt to read through the entire Bible in a year. After actually reading through the whole book, it's evident to me that Judges is a book filled with chaos. People attacking people and not listening to people and breaking promises and making promises they don't really intend to keep. Indeed, the common phrase running through many of the verses of Judges is, "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
Which brings me to Jephthah. We find this man in the midst of all of the chaos of Judges, yet like Samson he is included in the Hall of Faith. Why? A little background on Jephthah might help.
Jephthah was born the son of a prostitute (which isn't terrible; after all, Rahab --called out by the author of Hebrews as a prostitute-- is also mentioned in the Hall of Faith), and his brothers basically ostracized him from the family, saying he was not one of the real brothers. After the people of Gilead (Jephthah's father) were attacked by the Ammonites, they called on Jephthah (referred to first as "a mighty warrior") to lead them.
After scorning them for their treatment of him and making sure he would be their leader if he helped, he sent a message to the leader of the Ammonites, asking why they were attacking and after a couple of back-and-forths, is basically ignored by the Ammonite king. So Jephthah leads his men and defeats the Ammonites.
Here's where it gets interesting, and may be the reason for his name in the Hall of Faith. Jephthah made a vow to God that if God would grant him the victory, He would sacrifice (as a burnt offering; Judges 11:31) the first thing that came out of his house when he returned in triumph. As luck would have it, the first thing out of the house was his only daughter. Jephthah, as any father would be, is distraught and tears his clothes. However, here's the test of the man--he informs his daughter of the vow, she understands and agrees and after two months to spend with her friends, he goes through with the sacrifice!!!
Wow. As a new father, I know that if I made such a vow, I would probably say, "Um, OK Lord, what else can I give you instead, because You're not getting my daughter." Even Abraham, when told to sacrifice Isaac, didn't actually have to go through with it. How strong a man of faith was Jephthah, not only in trusting the Lord to deliver the Ammonites into his hand but following through on a vow that cost him the life of his only daughter.
I'm sure Jephthah is rejoicing with his daughter in heaven now, but it is such faith that people today should strive to achieve. That no matter what happens, what we promise to the Lord is sacred, and we need to treat it as such, because He knows better than we do why He gives us the things he does, be it possessions, wealth, suffering or anything else.
Jephthah might not have been the smartest cookie in the jar, but he without a doubt was one of the most faithful and God-honoring, so I not only support but now understand why his name is mentioned in Hebrews. No doubt the recipients of the original letter of Hebrews did also. Hopefully modern-day recipients will observe and take note.
I recall recently talking about Samson and how he continually let Delilah and the Philistines attempt to take him down, and how he never learned. A friend made a comment in the vein of, "Yeah, and yet he's mentioned in the Hall of Faith. Strange, isn't it?" So I went back to the Hall of Faith chapter to see what exactly it was that earned Samson a place of recognition among the greats. Unfortunately, he is just listed in a series of names, so there is no exact specification for his inclusion, but it was the name after his that got me thinking. Jephthah?!
For starters, WIFE and I just finished the book of Judges in our attempt to read through the entire Bible in a year. After actually reading through the whole book, it's evident to me that Judges is a book filled with chaos. People attacking people and not listening to people and breaking promises and making promises they don't really intend to keep. Indeed, the common phrase running through many of the verses of Judges is, "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
Which brings me to Jephthah. We find this man in the midst of all of the chaos of Judges, yet like Samson he is included in the Hall of Faith. Why? A little background on Jephthah might help.
Jephthah was born the son of a prostitute (which isn't terrible; after all, Rahab --called out by the author of Hebrews as a prostitute-- is also mentioned in the Hall of Faith), and his brothers basically ostracized him from the family, saying he was not one of the real brothers. After the people of Gilead (Jephthah's father) were attacked by the Ammonites, they called on Jephthah (referred to first as "a mighty warrior") to lead them.
After scorning them for their treatment of him and making sure he would be their leader if he helped, he sent a message to the leader of the Ammonites, asking why they were attacking and after a couple of back-and-forths, is basically ignored by the Ammonite king. So Jephthah leads his men and defeats the Ammonites.
Here's where it gets interesting, and may be the reason for his name in the Hall of Faith. Jephthah made a vow to God that if God would grant him the victory, He would sacrifice (as a burnt offering; Judges 11:31) the first thing that came out of his house when he returned in triumph. As luck would have it, the first thing out of the house was his only daughter. Jephthah, as any father would be, is distraught and tears his clothes. However, here's the test of the man--he informs his daughter of the vow, she understands and agrees and after two months to spend with her friends, he goes through with the sacrifice!!!
Wow. As a new father, I know that if I made such a vow, I would probably say, "Um, OK Lord, what else can I give you instead, because You're not getting my daughter." Even Abraham, when told to sacrifice Isaac, didn't actually have to go through with it. How strong a man of faith was Jephthah, not only in trusting the Lord to deliver the Ammonites into his hand but following through on a vow that cost him the life of his only daughter.
I'm sure Jephthah is rejoicing with his daughter in heaven now, but it is such faith that people today should strive to achieve. That no matter what happens, what we promise to the Lord is sacred, and we need to treat it as such, because He knows better than we do why He gives us the things he does, be it possessions, wealth, suffering or anything else.
Jephthah might not have been the smartest cookie in the jar, but he without a doubt was one of the most faithful and God-honoring, so I not only support but now understand why his name is mentioned in Hebrews. No doubt the recipients of the original letter of Hebrews did also. Hopefully modern-day recipients will observe and take note.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Calvinism vs. Arminianism - A Response
Wow. My previous blog post generated the most response of any of the blog posts I've done up to this point. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that this is an extremely hot and controversial topic. I decided to a bit more research to make sure I feel a bit better about where I fall.
One friend encouraged me to read the book "Easy Chairs, Hard Words," and after previewing the first chapter on Amazon, looks pretty interesting and suggests that maybe I should use the term "reformed" instead of "Calvinist." WIFE (which, in case you're a new reader, stands for Woman I Find Exceptional) also suggested that maybe I hastily jumped too much into the argument without enough research.
I have to say, this post is probably where I draw the last line. I will probably read the above suggested book, but as far as expounding on my personal feelings, this is probably it.
That said, I went looking for some comparisons between the 5 points of Calvinism and the corresponding 5 points of Arminianism. This one was a pretty good one, in my opinion, and helped me draw the line on a couple of questionable ideas I had about some of the 5 points: http://www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm.
Without getting too deep into it, the points in my previous posts that I disagreed with the explanation (Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints) are a bit more clear cut here, and in reading the "strict" Arminianist counterpoints, I have to say I fall closer to the Calvinist view of these doctrines than the Arminianist view. So I guess this pushes me to a 4-point Calvinist, which apparently is a fairly common theological position.
So my issue still lies with Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement, which again according to research is possibly the most controversial of the 5 points. When looking at both viewpoints, they both seem to have compelling arguments. So my first question to myself was, "Haven't I heard somewhere about 'the hope of salvation,' which would extend to all men?"
I looked up the passage (1 Thessalonians 5:8, if anyone cares to reference it) and went to Strong's concordance to learn the actual Greek word and meaning for "hope" in this verse. The literal definition, plus various other references using the same Greek word, liken that "hope" more to an "expectation" or "faith in," which leans closer to the Reformed viewpoint. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1680 is the link for Strong's concordance to this word)
But I was still interested in the point about 1 Timothy 1:15 ("Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost {of all}."). It doesn't say SOME sinners, it just says sinners. The last prepositional phrase isn't in all translations of this verse, but the Greek word for "sinners" is hamartolos, which in its most literal sense means "not free from sin," but in a more specific sense is applied to "all wicked men." (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G268&t=NASB&page=2 is the reference for this one.). Other passages using the same Greek word seem to point to such an understanding of the original Greek.
This idea seems more concrete to me, so I think in the sliding scale I fall closer to the side of Unlimited Atonement, but the basis for both viewpoints is Scriptural, so who am I to decide one is solely right and one is solely wrong?
My last point goes back to my original statement in this post. This will be my last post on this subject. Why? Because I base my belief on what the Bible says. There are clearly enough mysterious passages in the Bible to make you fall on one side or another. I fell into that behavior earlier in life when determining that I was a "pre-tribulationist" believer in the Rapture. I think if God wanted us to know the answer outright, He would have just said specifically in His Word, "This is how it is." But I guess the underlying point is that both doctrinal viewpoints believe that we need Christ in our lives to be saved, and that is the most important doctrinal position of all!
One friend encouraged me to read the book "Easy Chairs, Hard Words," and after previewing the first chapter on Amazon, looks pretty interesting and suggests that maybe I should use the term "reformed" instead of "Calvinist." WIFE (which, in case you're a new reader, stands for Woman I Find Exceptional) also suggested that maybe I hastily jumped too much into the argument without enough research.
I have to say, this post is probably where I draw the last line. I will probably read the above suggested book, but as far as expounding on my personal feelings, this is probably it.
That said, I went looking for some comparisons between the 5 points of Calvinism and the corresponding 5 points of Arminianism. This one was a pretty good one, in my opinion, and helped me draw the line on a couple of questionable ideas I had about some of the 5 points: http://www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm.
Without getting too deep into it, the points in my previous posts that I disagreed with the explanation (Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints) are a bit more clear cut here, and in reading the "strict" Arminianist counterpoints, I have to say I fall closer to the Calvinist view of these doctrines than the Arminianist view. So I guess this pushes me to a 4-point Calvinist, which apparently is a fairly common theological position.
So my issue still lies with Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement, which again according to research is possibly the most controversial of the 5 points. When looking at both viewpoints, they both seem to have compelling arguments. So my first question to myself was, "Haven't I heard somewhere about 'the hope of salvation,' which would extend to all men?"
I looked up the passage (1 Thessalonians 5:8, if anyone cares to reference it) and went to Strong's concordance to learn the actual Greek word and meaning for "hope" in this verse. The literal definition, plus various other references using the same Greek word, liken that "hope" more to an "expectation" or "faith in," which leans closer to the Reformed viewpoint. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1680 is the link for Strong's concordance to this word)
But I was still interested in the point about 1 Timothy 1:15 ("Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost {of all}."). It doesn't say SOME sinners, it just says sinners. The last prepositional phrase isn't in all translations of this verse, but the Greek word for "sinners" is hamartolos, which in its most literal sense means "not free from sin," but in a more specific sense is applied to "all wicked men." (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G268&t=NASB&page=2 is the reference for this one.). Other passages using the same Greek word seem to point to such an understanding of the original Greek.
This idea seems more concrete to me, so I think in the sliding scale I fall closer to the side of Unlimited Atonement, but the basis for both viewpoints is Scriptural, so who am I to decide one is solely right and one is solely wrong?
My last point goes back to my original statement in this post. This will be my last post on this subject. Why? Because I base my belief on what the Bible says. There are clearly enough mysterious passages in the Bible to make you fall on one side or another. I fell into that behavior earlier in life when determining that I was a "pre-tribulationist" believer in the Rapture. I think if God wanted us to know the answer outright, He would have just said specifically in His Word, "This is how it is." But I guess the underlying point is that both doctrinal viewpoints believe that we need Christ in our lives to be saved, and that is the most important doctrinal position of all!
Friday, March 26, 2010
My Take on Calvinism's 5 Points
So in reading back through some of blog posts I remembered that I said I wanted to tackle where I stand in terms of Calvinism versus Arminianism. While I haven't seriously studied Arminianism enough yet to see how I view that theology, I did do some research on the 5 points of Calvinism. While these points don't comprise totally the philosophy of Calvinism, they are tenets that strong Calvinists adhere to. I like that they form a pretty word acrostically, but as for the tenets themselves, some questions arise.
Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perserverance of the saints
TOTAL DEPRAVITY - due to the fall of Adam, everyone born into the world is enslaved into the service of sin (i.e. we are born with sin)
My take: I agree with this one completely. No objections.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - it is God's choice from eternity whom He will save, and it is not based on foreseen virtue, merit or faith in those people
My take: This idea is supported by Paul in both the book of Romans and 1 Corinthians, so I agree with this one too.
LIMITED ATONEMENT - since God predestined the elect, Jesus' death that atoned for sins was only meant to atone for the sins of the elect, and not all of the world
My take: Paul doesn't make the claim that "Christ came to the world to save SOME sinners, or whom I am the worst." I believe that Christ came to testify to the truth (as He states in John 18:37) to all of the world, otherwise Christ wouldn't have said, "God and make disciples of ALL NATIONS." The Word of God is readily available to anyone who wants to read it, not to an elect few who were destined to read it. The caveat comes in the form of free will. I believe God would give everyone the chance to accept the atonement; it's just that not everyone does, and He knew that from eternity
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - the Holy Spirit is able to overcome any obstacles put up in the way of saving those whom God had predestined to be with Him
My take: I like the idea of this one, but not the explanation. This explanation makes it sound like the Holy Spirit tries harder to reach some than others, because they are the elect. I think God tries with the same earnest to reach every individual, because as He tries to reach someone, another might come to Him in free will as a result.
PERSERVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - Those whom God has called into communion with Himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who fall away were either never really saved or will return.
My take: I don't like this explanation either. What happens to a person who is undeniably saved but dies in a sinful act? For example, what happens to the saved pastor who is killed while trying to murder a man who raped his daughter? No chance to return, but no one doubts the salvation. If you simplify the explanation of POTS to simply "You can't lose your salvation," then I agree.
So that's it. I guess I'm a 3 1/2 point Calvinist, which means I must agree with some of Arminius' beliefs too. Or perhaps not. I guess we'll find out eventually.
Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perserverance of the saints
TOTAL DEPRAVITY - due to the fall of Adam, everyone born into the world is enslaved into the service of sin (i.e. we are born with sin)
My take: I agree with this one completely. No objections.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - it is God's choice from eternity whom He will save, and it is not based on foreseen virtue, merit or faith in those people
My take: This idea is supported by Paul in both the book of Romans and 1 Corinthians, so I agree with this one too.
LIMITED ATONEMENT - since God predestined the elect, Jesus' death that atoned for sins was only meant to atone for the sins of the elect, and not all of the world
My take: Paul doesn't make the claim that "Christ came to the world to save SOME sinners, or whom I am the worst." I believe that Christ came to testify to the truth (as He states in John 18:37) to all of the world, otherwise Christ wouldn't have said, "God and make disciples of ALL NATIONS." The Word of God is readily available to anyone who wants to read it, not to an elect few who were destined to read it. The caveat comes in the form of free will. I believe God would give everyone the chance to accept the atonement; it's just that not everyone does, and He knew that from eternity
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - the Holy Spirit is able to overcome any obstacles put up in the way of saving those whom God had predestined to be with Him
My take: I like the idea of this one, but not the explanation. This explanation makes it sound like the Holy Spirit tries harder to reach some than others, because they are the elect. I think God tries with the same earnest to reach every individual, because as He tries to reach someone, another might come to Him in free will as a result.
PERSERVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - Those whom God has called into communion with Himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who fall away were either never really saved or will return.
My take: I don't like this explanation either. What happens to a person who is undeniably saved but dies in a sinful act? For example, what happens to the saved pastor who is killed while trying to murder a man who raped his daughter? No chance to return, but no one doubts the salvation. If you simplify the explanation of POTS to simply "You can't lose your salvation," then I agree.
So that's it. I guess I'm a 3 1/2 point Calvinist, which means I must agree with some of Arminius' beliefs too. Or perhaps not. I guess we'll find out eventually.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Bracket - 1st Weekend Carnage
Wow what a first weekend in the tournament. Lots of upsets, including my beloved Lobos going down on Saturday to a better (at least on this day) Washington team. My bracket, as well as about half of the nation, could be on its way to a sinking ship as Kansas fell to Northern Iowa in the upset of the tournament. However, I do still have 7 of 8 Elite Eight teams in, so I might end up being OK. I'm 2nd in the pools I'm participating in, so I have it set up pretty good if things fall my way. I'll be rooting hard against Syracuse and Kentucky, though. Here's how my bracket looks after the carnage.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Gift of Sin?
I am so thankful for God leading me to the Bible study I am in currently. Without this study, I might never have heard of Voddie Baucham. What a passionate believer in the Word of God is this man! He puts on the hat of both apologist and family man, and the stuff that God speaks through this man is so powerful.
Here was an interesting case he made in a sermon on brokenness I just watched on YouTube (you can watch it too; just go to YouTube and search "Voddie Baucham brokenness"). Voddie made the case that God gives us a gift in allowing us to not forget our sins.
What?!?!?!
I know the verses that you might use to combat this. Psalm 103:12 would be a good one: "As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us." Jeremiah 31:34 would also seem to give some argument to this: "'No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the Lord. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'"
Ah, but these two verses speak to how God treats sin. He wipes the slate clean (Psalm 103:12) and He has promised that He would forget our sins (Jeremiah 31:34), but obviously we still remember times when we've messed up. This is a gift directly from God. Why? Three reasons:
1) If you could forget your sin, you could never testify to the goodness of God. Our sins allow us to be broken before God so that when we understand the fullness of what His grace means, we can testify to how good He is to do this.
2) If you could forget your sin, you couldn't be warned against doing them again. Voddie uses the example of what would happen if we forgot what the effect of touching fire was. God allows these memories to scar us in hopes that we would learn from our sin and not be doomed to repeat it constantly.
3) If you could forget your sin, you couldn't rejoice in your victories. How awesome does it feel to realize that you were about to do something wrong and were able to avoid it by the grace of God? Those are some of the best moments in the Christian life, I think. The memory of sin allows us to remember who we once were, and how God has enabled us to overcome such things to not be that same person.
It's amazing the hidden beauties of God, that He would choose to make Himself known even in giving us a remembrance of our sins. I pray that He would continue to find ways to break me in my sin, because only under the brokenness of sin can man understand what it means to rightly worship God for His presence and His grace.
Monday, March 15, 2010
My Bracket Picks
So after all my bracket predictions were done and the actual brackets announced, I calculated my Paymon score. For those of you not familiar with this, the Paymon score is a calculation of bracket efficiency. Here's how they score it:
3 points for every team you correctly place in the field
2 points for every team you correctly seed
1 point for every team you seed within +/- 1 of their actual seed.
The Bracket Matrix (http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm) computes these Paymon scores for many of the reputable bracket sites across the web. This year, the leading bracket had a Paymon score of 322 (65 teams, 33 correctly seeded, 61 within +/- 1 of their seed). My Paymon score this year was a mighty fine 316 (63 teams, 36 correctly seeded, 55 within +/- 1 of their seed), which would be good for 8th on the Bracket Matrix out of 83 brackets! This means I would've beaten the likes of ESPN's Joe Lunardi, CBS College Sports and CollegeRPI.com's Jerry Palm, Yahoo! Rivals.com's Mike Hugenin, Bracketology 101 (considered widely to be one of the best bracket sites out there), and even The Bracket Project, who creates the matrix.
Anyway, guess I should submit for next year to be included in the matrix. We'll see how that goes. Anyway, now comes selecting the actual bracket, and picking the winner. I've spent the morning calculating, and below is how my bracket looks this year. What do you all think? If you have a comment, or just want to trash-talk, leave a comment!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Lessons From the Torah
WIFE (stands for Woman I Find Exceptional, and how I will refer to my wife from now on) and I are reading through the entire Bible this year, and our daily plan has caused us to just now finish the book of Deuteronomy. Wow, there's a lot of information in there, including some verses I wish I hadn't found. But hey, they're there for a reason. Here are a few of the things I learned from the first five books of the Bible:
1) The Israelites were some messed up people! Every time God would do an amazing miracle for them, they would complain about something else and usually reference it with "Did God lead us here to die in the desert?" Plus, some of the rules that God laid out for them I couldn't imagine, but obviously He had to set them straight because these issues came up (if you're wondering what issues I mean, see Deuteronomy 23; I really don't want to list them here).
2) Moses was an amazing leader. The last few verses of Deuteronomy (I suspect written by Joshua) claim him as so, but just think about it. Can you imagine leading a group of middle-schoolers on a camping trip for 5 days? Now try doing it with an millions of people for 40 years.
3) The old covenant in no way compares to the new covenant. While both made by God, I for one am thankful that I don't have to give an animal to the High Priest to be sacrificed every time I sin, because the world probably doesn't have enough sheep or pigeons. Plus, I like being able to have a personal individual relationship with God, rather than having to go through the priests.
4) What happened to Simeon? In Moses' blessings of the tribes of Israel at the end of Deuteronomy, he mentions every son of Jacob except Simeon. What did he or his people do to get left out of the blessing, and did they ever get back into God's good graces?
5) Participate in the census. Apparently they're important. God basically devoted a whole book of His Word to one.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Why Believe In the Bible?
I saw the video on this last week, but for some reason I've put off posting about it. At our Bible study last Thursday we watched a sermon by Voddie Baucham about why the Bible should be believable. He gave a long statement explaining why (and supported by 2 Peter 1:16-21) and broke it down. Here is the statement, followed by some broken down explanations about why the Bible is believable.
The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitness during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that there are writings are divine, instead of human, in origin.
The Bible is a reliable collection: It's a collection of 66 books written by over 40 authors. It's reliable because it was written over a period of roughly 1,600 years; it was written down in 3 languages (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) on 3 continents (Asia, Africa, Europe) by men who mostly never met each other, yet they tell one single, unified story.
of historical documents: The Bible gives specific names, dates and locations as recorded in human history. There have been over 23,000 archaeological digs directly related to historical events in the Bible, and not one historical event has had to be changed in the text of Scripture based on their findings.
Written down by eyewitnesses: Most of the men who wrote in the New Testament were alive at the time life of Jesus. 2 Peter 1:16 supports this, as does 1 John 1:1-3.
During the lifetime of other eyewitnesses: These things were written down during the time that people who were eyewitnesses to the life of Christ were still alive. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 says this: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. Verse six says that he appeared to more than 500 people, most of whom are still living. That means at the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians, at least 250 people who were witnesses to Christ's life and death were still alive. Wouldn't there be at least one manuscript that would have mentioned something about these writings of Paul being false if he wasn't speaking the truth?
They report supernatural events: I.e. Jesus healed paralytics, the writers themselves heard the voice of God (2 Peter 1:18), they saw Jesus walk on the water, etc. Again, wouldn't these stories have been refuted in other manuscripts if they didn't tell truth?
In fulfillment of specific prophecies: When Jesus was on the cross, he cried out "Eli, Eli lama sabbacthani" which translates "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is the beginning of Psalm 22; in those days they didn't have chapters and verses--the way you named a psalm (song) is by it's first line. If Jesus started the song, those Jews who knew this psalm and were at the cross were probably finishing the rest of it in their heads. What else does this psalm say? "But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads...I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me.My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." This is exactly what was happening to Jesus; he was pointing out the specific prophecies that were being fulfilled, prophecies that were written over 1,000 years before Jesus was born by a man who had never once in his life heard of crucifixion, because it hadn't even been invented yet!
And claim that they are divine, rather than human, in origin: The Bible claims God is the author, not men. It says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. How many times in the Bible does it say, "And God spoke to..." "God told..."? This should dispel the notion that the Bible can't be believed because men wrote it. By the way, if you believe that the Bible is not believable because it was written down by men, then burn your library! Also, burn any other religious text because they were all DEFINITELY written down by men. But rather, the Bible only claims that the Word of God was written by GOD through man.
Whew! Some pretty heavy stuff. If you got through all of that, good for you! In case you want to see this for yourself, here's the link to the first part of the message, and you can find the rest on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm-rtE5P9E8
In Christ Alone
What a great worship song! Each line is so powerful and gives due praise to the one who deserves it! This is Travis Cottrell's version, with some good imagery.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Smoothie Song on Bongos/Congas
This guy's pretty awesome. Takes some interesting songs and puts his own twist on them. Since I play bouzouki and love Nickel Creek's Smoothie Song, you can imagine why I enjoy this so much. Hope you do too!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Ark of the Covenant
I haven't always been the most insightful (or most observant) person in the world, and up until recently haven't been serious about Bible study or interpretation, but this struck me as interesting. This week at church our pastor was continuing our study in Hebrews and he got to the part where it was talking about the design of the Most Holy Place, including how the ark of the covenant was designed, to point out the differences between the old and new covenants that Christians have with God.
It also briefly mentioned what was in the ark of the covenant - a jar of manna, Aaron's staff that blossomed with leaves and almonds, and the Ten Commandments. I hadn't really thought hard about why these three things specifically were placed in the ark, other than that they were important parts of the story for the Israelites in Exodus and Numbers. It's clear to me now that what's important is that they symbolize three very important natures of God in how He related to the Israelites, and more importantly today us as Christians. Here's what I mean:
Jar of Manna - symbolizes God's provision for the Israelites. God takes care of His own, even when we grumble and complain and aren't really worthy of this.
Aaron's staff - symbolizes God's power and placement. God needed to show the Israelites just who was boss -- and this doesn't mean just Aaron. He did this as a demonstration of who He had chosen to lead the people into communion with God, but also to show that He is capable of doing anything.
Ten Commandments - symbolizes God's precedent for His law. There are obviously things that God holds in the highest importance for us in the way we live our lives, and to make sure we understand them He wrote them with His very hand.
It's awesome that these things are so symbolic of our relationship with God today. Anyone who reads the Old Testament (particularly the "hard" books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) and doesn't understand why they are in the Bible should look at things like this and marvel at how awesome God has been through the ages, and how applicable things like this still are!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
A Simplified Explanation of 3 Big Bible Words
Are you one of those people that likes to throw out big words to make yourself seem smarter? I definitely am, but I still get frustrated if someone throws one out that I don't completely understand. Sometimes this happens to pastors, too. Often there are views on doctrine that require certain belief systems, and often those systems get big words. So here I'm going to attempt to give a simple explanation of three key Bible buzzwords.
1) Sanctification - There are many different ways to describe this, but the simplest way I can think to describe it is the process of being set apart by God through His grace. It is the way by which God has cleansed us of sin, so that we are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). It seems evident that among Evangelical Christians that there is nothing we can do (i.e. works) that can make us sanctified. That power resides with God alone. However, among many people this is deemed as a process, as sanctification is seen as making us more and more holy over time.
2) Justification - According to Wikipedia, justification is God's act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God. I heard a John Piper sermon on this topic, and at a root level it made sense to me. When Adam sinned (remember from my earlier post that sin was the fault of the man, not the woman), the only way we could be made righteous and worthy of heaven was to have someone pay the price for that sin we are born with. So Jesus' death and resurrection justified us in the eyes of God, so when we have faith (Ephesians 2:8) and believe in Jesus as God, we are justified. This is different from sanctification in that we have to act on faith (or more commonly, give your heart to Christ) in order to receive justification.
3) Glorification - Again referencing Wikipedia, glorification is the completion, consummation, perfection, the full realization of salvation. This one seems to me to mean that before we actually enter heaven, God makes us perfect, for only can a perfect being be fit for heaven. It does seem that Romans 8:30 allows for glorification to be placed on us while we are still here on the earth, so there is probably some kind of a placement of His glory on us, so as we go about our lives others can see His glory as part of that. (Interesting aside: maybe this is why even if some Christians aren't living an "on-fire" life for God, they can still cause non-believers to seek God - that's my own personal thought and there is no factual basis for it).
I hope these explanations helped to make sense of these big words. I hope one day to lay out the arguments for Calvinism and Armenianism here, simply because I don't know what they are. I was told once that I'm a 4-point Calvinist, so I'm curious to see where I fall in that sliding scale.
Anyway, have a blessed day everyone, and may God either justify you through new faith or sanctify you by the grace you have already received!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
2010 NCAA Prediction Bracket - Feb. 24
Had some time, so I did another version of the bracket this morning. What do you all think?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
God's Amazing - Especially When You're Faithful
So my wife and I have been struggling with a decision recently. She has been feeling like God has told her that she needs to quit her job. The obvious reason we've been holding back from doing it is the financial one. We've been afraid that with our new mortgage and a new baby that we couldn't survive on one income.
However, it seems like recently there have been more and more circumstances recently have been re-affirming God's position. We bought a new computer and new software so that my wife could do her job from home once the baby was born, and in order to do that she needed to be able to use Windows and connect to a VPN. Well, the Windows has been slow and the VPN is broken, so it seems like God has been putting obstacles in the way.
This past week we prayed about it and made the decision that with her pending meeting with her boss, that she should tell him that she wanted to quit. I mentioned that I felt that if he said something specifically, then that meant that God was right and it was time for her to get out of the job.
Doing a proposed new budget was scary. We have to cut out a lot of things, such as spending money, a lot of the dining out we've been doing, and my personal demon, cable TV. Eliminating all of these things, we're pretty sure we can do just fine, but still it's been sort of a compromising process with God, trying to hang on to things and realizing that they need to go.
Well, in short, my wife's boss said the thing that I referenced specifically, and we typed up a formal resignation letter and she submitted that last week. They, of course, tried to get her to stay, but we stood firm and she's completing her two weeks and then shifting her energies to taking care of our daughter and trying to be more active in getting involved in Bible studies, both individual and (possibly) church-led.
All of that information brings me to this. I've been worried all week about the money, and when we actually need to put these budget cuts into effect. Besides the mortgage, we still owe on some credit cards, and we both feel like it's imperative for us to get out of debt as soon as we can. We have a tax refund coming, but we've started to speak for a lot of that money in terms of paying off debt. Not a whole lot left to pad the account if we slip up.
This is where God stepped in. I'm positive it was because we were faithful to His command to leave the job behind. I got an E-mail from my dad yesterday saying that he was going through his safety-deposit box and he had a bunch of savings bonds for me that I had gotten as gifts from grandparents for years as a kid. He said the face value totals up to over $3,000! I just know that God is taking care of us, and I've never been more sure of being obedient to God.
My prayer for myself is that I won't forget this special thing He's done for us, and that it will teach me that obedience to God yields fruit, not necessarily financially but in some type of provision for us as His children. My prayer for any of you reading this is that this will cause you to call into question your own obedience to God and make a decision today to start doing your due diligence in following God's will to every dotted I and crossed T.
However, it seems like recently there have been more and more circumstances recently have been re-affirming God's position. We bought a new computer and new software so that my wife could do her job from home once the baby was born, and in order to do that she needed to be able to use Windows and connect to a VPN. Well, the Windows has been slow and the VPN is broken, so it seems like God has been putting obstacles in the way.
This past week we prayed about it and made the decision that with her pending meeting with her boss, that she should tell him that she wanted to quit. I mentioned that I felt that if he said something specifically, then that meant that God was right and it was time for her to get out of the job.
Doing a proposed new budget was scary. We have to cut out a lot of things, such as spending money, a lot of the dining out we've been doing, and my personal demon, cable TV. Eliminating all of these things, we're pretty sure we can do just fine, but still it's been sort of a compromising process with God, trying to hang on to things and realizing that they need to go.
Well, in short, my wife's boss said the thing that I referenced specifically, and we typed up a formal resignation letter and she submitted that last week. They, of course, tried to get her to stay, but we stood firm and she's completing her two weeks and then shifting her energies to taking care of our daughter and trying to be more active in getting involved in Bible studies, both individual and (possibly) church-led.
All of that information brings me to this. I've been worried all week about the money, and when we actually need to put these budget cuts into effect. Besides the mortgage, we still owe on some credit cards, and we both feel like it's imperative for us to get out of debt as soon as we can. We have a tax refund coming, but we've started to speak for a lot of that money in terms of paying off debt. Not a whole lot left to pad the account if we slip up.
This is where God stepped in. I'm positive it was because we were faithful to His command to leave the job behind. I got an E-mail from my dad yesterday saying that he was going through his safety-deposit box and he had a bunch of savings bonds for me that I had gotten as gifts from grandparents for years as a kid. He said the face value totals up to over $3,000! I just know that God is taking care of us, and I've never been more sure of being obedient to God.
My prayer for myself is that I won't forget this special thing He's done for us, and that it will teach me that obedience to God yields fruit, not necessarily financially but in some type of provision for us as His children. My prayer for any of you reading this is that this will cause you to call into question your own obedience to God and make a decision today to start doing your due diligence in following God's will to every dotted I and crossed T.
Monday, February 22, 2010
2010 NCAA Prediction Bracket - Feb. 22
So this blog is supposed to be my place for pretty much anything and everything I'm thinking, feeling or doing at the time. I'm a member of The Lobo Lair, being a huge UNM basketball fan now, and something I've done for my own fun as well as to try to spread the love on that forum is to create an NCAA prediction bracket. This is round 2. I apologize for the small font, but if you click on the picture, you can see a blown-up version. Enjoy!
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Hate To Say It, Guys, But It's the Man's Fault
I was doing my study yesterday morning when I came across something that both discouraged and encouraged me. For reference sake, I am currently reading through "Four Pillars of a Man's Heart" by Stu Weber, and I'm really enjoying it without even having gotten to the first pillar. I'm sure I'm being set up for some rewarding and convicting stuff, if the first few introductory chapters are any indication.
In his third chapter, titled "The Four Pillars in Eden," he outlines that God gave commands to Adam before He even created Eve, and that these commands could be construed as part of each of the pillars in the book. These pillars are: 1) Servant-King, 2) Tender Warrior, 3) Wise Mentor and 4) Faithful Friend. The book further illustrates that though Eve may have committed the first sin, the responsibility for this fell on Adam, for when Adam and Eve were hiding to due to their shame, the Bible says "God said to the man (emphasis mine), 'Where are you?'" This can easily be thought of as God saying "Where were you?"
Adam was either not around or not strong enough to step between Eve and the serpent, failing as Tender Warrior, he did not give her enough counsel on God's command regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thus failing as Wise Mentor, and was aloof enough to not stop Eve from eating of the tree, thus failing as Faithful Friend. These were the responsibilities of Adam as the man in the relationship, and this failure is why in both the Old and New Testaments, the authors of the Bible refer to sin entering the world as "the sin of Adam," for he was charged with these commands and failed to live up to the task.
For all male readers, pretty convicting stuff, no? Isn't it wild to think that the sins of your spouse, girlfriend, etc. can be attributed to you as well, because it is your responsibility to care for her? This is why it says in Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, (exactly) as Christ loved the church," because if we wholly devote ourselves to loving and caring for the women in our lives, we can help to fulfill and uphold God's commands for us and our families.
Whew! I'm excited to learn more, and as I do, I'll post it on here for any readers, so hopefully you can glean something from this too.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tight Trite Night - Don Ross & Andy McKee
This is one of my favorite songs currently. Both of these guys play so effortlessly, what's not to like? Enjoy!
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Introductory Statements
Hello to anyone who might be reading this!
It seems like in the ever-present Internet world, pretty much everyone has some sort of a blog with which they can share feelings, messages or even recipes. I figure it's time to jump on the bandwagon. Putting your heart on a sleeve can be therapeutic, and yes, even necessary at times for redemption.
So during the life of this blog I may share things about my Christian walk, my stumbling blocks, music, sports, pretty much anything that might be going on in my life. I hope that nothing I talk about comes across as mindless or shallow, but I have been accused of being both at times.
That said, I start off on a rough note. Today I got hit hard in the face by past sins of mine. There was a time in my life that I am not proud of at all, and while I know God can use even our biggest sins for His glory, it's a period that I would rather not keep re-living over and over again. Yet the skeletons in my closet keep deciding to pop up at the most inopportune (or perhaps most opportune) moments.
The Bible verse of the day (which I get in my work E-mail from votd.org) is Psalm 100:2-3, which reads "Know that the Lord, He is God; it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves. We are His people and the sheep of His pasture." This verse hit me square in the gut, because it forced me to look at my own lack of humility recently. When life seems to be going well, it's easy for me to take all of the credit. I've never been short on confidence, even when I don't have anything to be confident about. But I always straddle that fine line between confident/optimistic and prideful/arrogant.
So I guess my prayer for today is that God would grant me humility however He deems necessary, so that I would realize that He gives me all the wonderful things I have and to not take them for granted. The skeletons in my closet take for granted all of the joys and wonderful things I have in my open world, and I pray that those are the desires of my heart. In seeking God, I think I will find those things as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)