In the Bible study I am priviledged to attend we usually end up talking about things we disagree on. One of those things is Divine Election, i.e. predestination. One of the guys has made the charge a few times that if predestination is true then salvation is just arbitrary. God is arbitrarily picking people to save and to leave others to their own devices.
Today while I was jogging this charge came to my mind and I had to sit down and think about it for a few minutes or it was just going to eat at me constantly. So I decided to do so and answer the question "Can God's choice in election be arbitrary?" Here's what I came up with, you can let me know what you think or ask questions if you like.
So we have enough that can meet to go ahead and do so. We'll
meet at the CCM office @ 6:00.
As far as a topic I am still working on the Will of Man
topic, but we might as well just go through the Scriptures together given the
rate at which I'm getting to them. I do actually have a list, but I haven't
vetted them all to see the level of relevance for all of them. So, we can do
that or you can wait for a proper presentation and do another subject.
It's Isom/Church choice. Looking forward to it.
BTW I was thinking about Divine election/predestination
today and Daniel's charge that if true it is arbitrary was just eating at me so
I had to sit down and think about it and here's the response I came up with.
Let me know what you think.
First two questions must be answered: 1) What is divine
election? 2) What does arbitrary mean?
1. Divine election is the doctrine that God chooses to save
some sinners based on His own will.
2. Arbitrary means existing or coming
about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act
of will.
*So, can the choice of an all wise, all
powerful, and eternal Being be random? Well since random means to be without
definite aim, direction, rule, or method then the answer is no.
*Can the choice of an all wise, all
powerful, and eternal Being be by chance? Well since chance means that
something happens without discernable intention or observable cause the answer
is likewise no. God tells us why He elects throughout the Bible.
*Can the choice of an all wise, all powerful, and eternal
Being be capricious? Well since capricious means to be governed or
characterized by impulsiveness or unpredictability we here again find the
answer to be no.
* Can the choice of an all wise, all powerful, and eternal
Being be unreasonable? Well since reason flows from the character of God it
would seem a contradiction for Him to be unreasonable.
Conclusion: Since the choice of an all wise, all powerful,
and eternal Being cannot fit any part of the definition of what arbitrary means
then any choice He makes by definition cannot be arbitrary. This not only
applies to His choice in election, but also to His choice in creation, His
choice of the moral law, His choice to create men with 2 legs instead of four,
His choice to make water be composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom,
et cetera, ad nauseum! Any choice that God makes, although it may appear or
seem arbitrary to us, i.e. from our perspective, cannot actually be arbitrary.
For as long as I can remember Jamey Bare has been my best friend. Jamey and I are very different and I don't get to spend as much time with him as I would like now that we both have young families and differing interests. Although things have changed in our lives thinking of Jamey as a brother is something that won't.
I remember one day Jamey and I were lifting weights and I was complaining about not wanting to be there. He was always having to drag me to the weight room because I was lazy, but I had the keys so he needed me! While I was complaining that day Jamey just looked at me and said, "If it was easy everybody would be doing it." and then he went back to lifting as if what he had just said was no big deal.
That "no big deal" has stuck with me now for some 20 years and I use it often. There are times when I am frustrated while thinking about things or trying to do something that I find myself saying, "If it was easy, everyone would do it." What was no big deal to Jamey has helped motivate and push me to do hard things now for 20+ years.
I thought I would start trying to post some of these challenges on my blog and maybe even have some fun with it every now and again. So now that you know the background to this I give to you
"If it was easy everyone would do it." #1
Sometimes when I'm studying a theological issue I think to myself, "No wonder so many people just take the preacher's word for it." and then I think to myself....
I finally have a few minutes to wrap this up. I have had someone say that they needed me to finish this so that they could use the tactics I've been presenting so I want to apologize for it taking a few days.
The last tool that I want to give you is very simple and it's another question. Actually it's two questions, but you generally will want to use them in tandem so I'll combine them. When you find yourself outmatched, with nowhere to run, and in a difficult situation the most powerful thing that you can do is ask the person a question. Even if you're not outmatched and you just want to strike up a conversation the most powerful thing you can do is ask the person a question.
Yes, it's that simple. Even if you cannot identify the Big Idea behind the person's argument you are still fine as long as you can ask a question. However, you probably will never get around to this is you don't have that "Reality" tool in it's proper location.
The two questions that you will want to ask are: #1. What do you mean by that? #2. How did you come to that conclusion.
You may not always ask those questions in the same way but you will be asking a variation of those questions and the point of asking them is threefold:
1. It shows the other person that you are interested in what they have to say.
2. It takes the pressure off of you and forces the person making the assertions to explain themselves.
3. It gives you a chance to think as well as the opportunity to ask more questions about what the person is getting ready to explain to you which again starts this threefold cycle.
So, in the case of the lady and the POTUS here is how it could practically work out.
When the POTUS asks the lady about her PhD she could have said something like, "Mr. President, I'm curious about why you're asking me about my PhD. Why are you asking me that?" Well in this case the POTUS answers that very question (see 0:54-1:29). He very quickly transitions into the list of Jewish Law, but if the lady would have had time she could have asked some more questions to expose the Big Idea such as: "Mr. President, if I had advanced degrees in all of those areas would that give me the right to call homosexuality an abomination in your eye? Why or why not? Don't you think there are people with advanced degrees who share my opinion, Mr. President?" or "Mr. President, do you have advanced degrees in those areas? If not does that make your opinion on the matter as valuable as you seem to be suggesting mine is?" or "Mr. President, why does a person have to have advanced degrees in subjects to know the truth? Are you saying that only people with advanced degrees can know what is good/evil, right/wrong, correct/incorrect?" You can come up with more if you think about it. These are all ways of asking those two questions and forcing the person to explain what they mean by what they are saying.
In the segment from 1:30-2:45 you could ask questions such as: "Mr President, do you think that the entire Jewish Law is bad? If so then is it ok to murder? If not, then how do you decide which ones still apply and which ones don't?" A question like this immediately disarms the rapid fire and snowball effect of all of the questions he is asking the lady and forces him to explain what he thinks about the Jewish law and if you were to ask some follow up questions he would have to tell you how he comes to those conclusions at which point you will..........wait for it.........ASK MORE QUESTIONS!!!
Now the POTUS may have well thought out answers for all of those questions, which would be wonderful because you are not trying to take advantage of the other person by asking these questions. We are actually trying to learn something. If they have well thought out answers then you can learn something and continue to ask more questions until you have a grasp on the situation and find yourself in a place where you are comfortable taking a more active role in the conversation, as opposed to the passive one you take on in asking questions.
However, you will probably find that if you ask these questions the vast majority of people you are talking to will contradict themselves or talk themselves into a corner or say, "I'm not sure, I've never really thought about it that way before." within a couple of minutes. At least this has been my experience so far. The reason for this is because most people (on both sides I might add) do not really think about what they are learning or saying, they only parrott what they have heard someone else say that seemed persuasive to them at the time it was said, but has never taken the time to think critically about.
We all have these areas in our lives (Christian and non-Christian) and if you are wise you will thank each and every person who points those areas out to you. After all, we should NOT be trying to guard our turf or prove OUR point, but we should be pursuing what is TRUE. If what you believe is true then no question or challenge is off limits.
Now, these 3 posts are a summation of a part of what I have learned from a man named Greg Koukl. The tactic that I have spent 3 blogposts sharing with you is called the "Columbo Tactic". If you would like to listen to the expert on the subject it explain it more thorougly and understandably than I just have feel free to watch these videos or buy his book.
This first video is the short 4 minute version for those who don't have the time.
This second video is 60 minutes for those who want a more in depth discussion. I have also provided a link to his book below this 2nd video.
In part 2 of this post my goal is to give you some tools to put in your toolshed so that when you find yourself near or immediately involved in a conversation that you have interest in and/or deeply care about you will be able to get involved instead of standing on the sideline or in the middle of the road frozen like a deer in headlights, if you are the center of attention in the conversation.
Remember that we are going to put ourselves in the shoes of the lady on the West Wing video. We are going to assume that we have some convictions about the subject at hand, in this case homosexuality, and that we have just been challenged in a way that we have no idea what to do. We are also going to assume that we have the ability to ask questions and that we care about what the other person has to say.
So, the first tool that I want to give you to put in your toolshed is "Reality". That's right, every toolbox needs a good measure of reality and they need to know exactly where it is in your toolshed. It is usually going to be hanging on the hook labeled Humility which is hung on the board known as shut your mouth and open your ears. What I mean by "Reality" is that you must have an accurate picture of what you know and don't know in your toolshed. The lady in this video thought she knew some things about the Bible and about homosexuality, but as soon as she was challenged by someone smarter than herself she quickly found out that she didn't have as firm a grasp on it as she thought. Now if you're like I use to be, and can still be sometimes, then your "Reality" tool isn't hung on the "Humility" hook and your first reaction to what happened to this lady isn't going to be thoughtful. This is a consequence of your Reality tool being hung on the Pride hook which isn't nailed in your toolshed but instead is nailed in THIS place where all ideas are thought up as quickly as possible and almost always stink!
So the first thing I want to tell you is to know yourself. If you thought you knew something, but now you know that you did so only on a surface level then don't try to pretend and be that guy from the last post. Take out your reality tool and say to yourself, "Ok, this guy just walked all over top of what I believe. He brought up some valid questions that I haven't thought of before and have no clue how to answer. If I'm going to have a conversation with this person about this subject that I care about then I am going to have to think of something other than my standard responses because he just blew them all up."
The second thing that I want to give you to put in your toolshed isn't a tool, but instead is a sign. This sign should be hanging above the doors on your toolshed and it reads, "WHAT'S THE BIG IDEA?" When you are engaging someone in a conversation and they are saying things like the POTUS in this video they are expressing ideas. If you can learn to identify the ideas then you will be able to take all of the pressure off of yourself and place it where it belongs, and that is on the person expressing the ideas.
For instance even though the POTUS said a lot of things in this short video you can break down everything he said into a handful of very managable ideas and here they are:
#1. If you watch the video from 0:54 through 1:29 you will find the POTUS asking the lady a series of questions about her PhD and casts a shadow on her expertise on the subject she talks about on her show, i.e. homosexuality in this case. So what's the big idea here? The big idea that the POTUS is pushing is that unless you have advanced degrees in the subject you are expressing an opinion on then your opinon is worthless.
The key to this idea is seeing that it does not deal with the substance, or lack thereof, of what the woman was saying and the arguments she was presenting on her talk show. Her ideas may be terrible, but it is not attacking the validity of her ideas and arguments, but instead saying that she has no buisness expressing her ideas or arguments because she's not an "expert" in the areas the POTUS thinks you need to be an "expert" in in order to give thoughts. It's much like saying that a man cannot have a say or even an opinion on abortion because he's a man and it's the woman who has to have the baby. The men aren't the experts in having babies, women are! This of course is true, but the BIG IDEA isn't having babies, but whether or not ending the life of an innocent human being is justified and you don't have to be a woman to have an opinion on that subject.
#2. 1:30-2:45 shows the POTUS rattling off parts of the Old Testament Law that are not followed by the lady or anyone else that she communicates with on her talkshow. So what's the BIG IDEA? The big idea is that if you are not going to follow ALL of the OT Law then you are not obligated to consider homosexuality an abomination or follow ANY of the OT Law. The key to understanding this idea is that only parts of the OT Law were quoted. What about "you shall not lie with an animal...neither shall a woman give herself to an animal to lie with it, it is a perversion"(Lev. 18:23) or what about "you shall not steal"..."you shall not oppress or rob your neighbor"..."you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Lev. 19:11-18) or what about "do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute"..."you shall treat a stranger who sojourns with you as a native, you shall love him as yourself"..."you shall have just balances, just weights..." (Lev. 19:29-36). I could go on, and on, and on, with Laws like "no murder", "no adultery", "honor your parents", et cetera. Do you think the POTUS would want to ignore these laws as well or think that these laws were unjust and ridiculous the same way he did the others?
#3. 2:46-3:01 shows the POTUS rubbing in his victory and saying that you shouldn't sit when the President stands. So what's the BIG IDEA? The big idea is that you should show respect regardless of whether you agree or disagree with an individuals ideas and although the POTUS didn't show respect to the lady in making that point I give a hearty "Amen" to the idea that the lady should have been respectful to the POTUS instead of sitting to make a point.
So now you have a tool, "Reality", and a sign on your toolshed. If you can learn to use the Reality tool and find the BIG IDEAs then you almost have it licked. There's one more thing that I want to give you to put in your toolshed. This last thing is the most important of the 3, because it will allow you to be confident in your Reality tool and be able to see and appropriately use the BIG IDEA sign on your toolshed.
Unfortunately it's 1am and I've got to get up in a few hours so you're going to have to wait until part 3 to find it out. You're going to want to find it out though because when you use this 3rd tool you will find that you will have the ability to be in control of any conversation at anytime that you want to be in control. You will find that there is no longer any need to be nervous about getting into a conversation. You will find that you will have confidence and the ability to have a good Reality tool. You will find that you will more easily identify BIG IDEAs. Lastly, you will find that you are able to give answers when you want to give answers and listen when you want to listen in any conversation. It is by far the most powerful of the three things that I will be sharing with you so I look forward to doing so in the near future.
Sometimes you will find yourself in situations where you are speechless. You express your ideas, thoughts, or convictions but the person you are talking to challenges you in a way that just runs all over top of those ideas, thoughts, or convictions. You were so confident about those things just 5 minutes earlier, but now you're not sure. They may have even talked about your ideas from an angle you never thought of before. Your mind is spinning and you just freeze because you have no idea what to say. You're still processing what the other person just said and are trying to figure out whether you even believe what you were arguing for 5 minutes ago.
THAT is a bad feeling. Trust me, that is a very bad feeling and I have experienced that feeling a few times in my life. I imagine the lady in this video had the same feeling.
Now I know this is a story from a fictional show, but if watch CNN or MSNBC when the topic is homosexuality I can almost guarentee you that you will witness this story playing out in real life because I've seen it many times. It's good to watch it though because you can learn from seeing the train wreck that occurs.
I posted this video on Facebook the other day and after being inundated with pleas to answer the challenges offered by President Bartlet I decided to blog about it. (By inundated I mean Heather Pack asked me to. :)
First you have to know how much you know about the topic. If you are ignorant the worst thing you can do is to try and fake a response by making it up or parroting ideas that have sounded good to you, but that you have never thought critically about. Doing that is like being this guy when playing basketball.
Everyone knows he's no good as soon as he walks in the door and if they think he may be sandbagging it they know that he's not good by the time he takes two dribbles. If it's not basketball then just think about whatever it is that you are good at. When someone is pretending to be good at it or trying to pretend to know about it then you will know almost immediately that this person doesn't have a clue.
Also, you need to understand that it's not necessarily a bad thing to be ignorant. We are all ignorant, just in different subjects. It may just be that the issue has never been on your radar in a way that has challenged you as it is now and that's ok. What isn't ok is to be that guy! Don't pretend like you know it all because so and so told you such and such back in the day. When you do that you go from being ignorant to dishonest and dumb, which is much worse. Trust me on this because I've taken this route before as well.
Not only this but you cast a shadow on your believability when you talk about other subjects that you may be more knowledgable about and may even care more about. If that isn't enough to get you to not take this approach then let me throw one more reason on the pile. If you take this approach you will cast the shadow of you bad arguments and reasoning abilities on people who are not ignorant of the subject and may have the best ideas and answers for the challenges. If you don't think that happens then watch THIS VIDEO and understand that if you do this on video then the people who will be called in to clean up your mess will probably not be advocates for your position.
If you are not ignorant on the given topic then feel free to exchange ideas, but for the sake of this post I am going to imagine that you find yourself in the same shoes as the lady in the video. You have convictions and you've even publically expressed them, but you aren't skilled at defending them or at being persuasive in presenting them in a challenging environment.
So, with that being said, and since this post is getting a little long winded, I am going to leave you to watch the videos and think about your own level of confidence, or lack thereof, if you were to find yourself in a similar situation.
In part two of this I will try to give you a couple of tools that I have acquired, from experience and men much smarter than myself, that will allow you to move through such conversations confidently, respectfully, and winsomely regardless of your level of expertise with the topic at hand. There are only two requirements for being able to use these techniques: 1) You know how to ask questions. 2) You are willing to listen and care about what the other person has to say.
If you have those two skills then you are set. Looking forward to getting into the details with you next time.
I have a question that I have had running through my mind today and so I thought I'd ask to see if I could get a good answer.
Is unbelief a sin? In other words is refusing to believe the Gospel and accept salvation through Jesus Christ a sin?
Seems like the only answer to the question is "yes" and I would agree. However I think this creates a problem for most believers that I know.
Most believers that I know would say that Jesus died for every sin that has ever been, is being, or will be committed. If that is so then it seems to me that the only logical outcome is for everyone to go to Heaven, i.e. universalism, because Jesus has paid the price for every sin that everyone ever committed.
I have challenged a few people with that line of reasoning before and every single one responds with the same answer, "Yes, Jesus died for their sins, but they refused to believe and accept His offer of salvation." I have never asked the following question because I never thought of it until now.
Is refusing to believe and accept Jesus' offer of salvation a sin? If the answer is yes then Jesus died for that sin and God has no grounds for punishing you for it since He already punished Jesus for it.
You might respond, "Yes, there is punishment for it because Jesus' payment for it was never accepted." To which I will respond, "Was that a sin for a person to never accept that payment?" If the answer is yes then Jesus paid the price for anyone's refusal to accept the payment of their sin. And now we start over.
If Jesus died for all sin at all times and unbelief and refusing to accept salvation through Christ is a sin I do not see how universalism is not true.
Doesn't theology matter? Isn't it important to understand who God has revealed Himself to be instead of erecting an idol in our minds of a god that we are comfortable with and imagine how we think he ought to be?
I have been thinking the past few days about a monthly Bible study group that I attend.
The thing that I appreciate most about these men that I have the privilege of meeting with is that they will not "go along to get along". They refuse to smile and nod when they disagree with me and they refuse to accept "that's just what I believe" as a satisfactory answer to any topic of discussion. While this may seem an odd thing to appreciate I do and my appreciation for this is made possible by the spirit in which we disagree. We disagree in a pursuit of truth and not in the pursuit of being right and it is this dynamic, when shared among a group, that allows men to bond and grow closer as they passionately disagree about things they hold dear.
We all seem to believe that theology matters and rightly dividing God's Word as too important a task to be satisfied with a superficial unity. We all seek to persuade each other by appealing our cases to the arbiter of truth, the Bible. While I haven't had any major theological shifts I have refined many of my ideas and convictions. As I consider this group in relation to my traditions, beliefs, and ideas that I have taken for granted for so long Proverbs 18:17 comes to mind. "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
Thanks for examining me men and for refusing to agree when you don't.
I know everyone cannot handle being challenged in this way, but if you desire to have your theological ideas and traditions questioned by men who only want you to rightly understand God and His Word you should consider joining us. If you'd like to join us email me at caisonj@yahoo.com
It's hard to describe the dynamics of our group but I can assure you that we are not like this...although after going through our gauntlet you may wish to join a group like this! :)
The next time we find God speaking is in Genesis 2 only this time He is not describing Himself, but instead is speaking concerning the man He had created.
I struggled with whether or not to put these types of instances of God speaking into this study because I don't want to get into the inference game, see 1st post for why that is. I finally decided to do so because this study is about knowing who God is and in order to know something you need a "knower"....that's us if you didn't follow that last sentence. Since we are the ones learning what God has said about Himself I have decided that it would be wise and good to know what He has said about us as well. If we can understand ourselves accurately perhaps we can more accurately understand God as well.
In Genesis 2:15-17 we find God putting the man He had created in the Garden of Eden and giving him a command. We can see at least one reason why God put him there, to work and keep the garden. We also see what the consequence shall be if the man disobeys the command that God has given him.
In the next verse we see that God says that it is not good for the man He created to be alone and so God creates a helper that was suitable for him, a woman.
So what do we learn? We learn that God put the man He had created in the place where He wanted him to be in order to do what God wanted him to do. We also learn that God places a restriction on what the man can do and gives a clear consequence if the man disobeys.
We also learn that God has said that it is not good for a man to be alone and that God's solution to this problem was to take part of the man and create another human being, specifically a woman.
So what do we know about God so far?
1. God is the Creator of all things.
2. God is an "us".
3. God put the man He created where He desired for him to be.
4. God resticts what the man can do and promises a consequence for disobeying.
What do we know about man so far? (I would say what do we know about us, but it will be a while before we can 100% link us to this first man. I know that may seem like straining a little bit, but remember that we do not want to assume things just because we have always believed them.)
1. The man was created by God and in His image.
2. The man was put in a place where God wanted him to be.
3. The man was subject to the command of God.
4. The man was to die if he disobeyed the command of God.
5. It was not good for the man to be alone so a suitable helper was made for him.
6. The man's suitable helper was a woman.
I have
the opportunity to be apart of amending my state’s constitution in such a
way as to reflect what the One who created marriage defined it to be.
If the
state is going to bestow benefits on people who get married because it is
observed as being a stabilizing influence on society and is beneficial to
the perpetuation of said society through the children that are conceived
and born in those marriages then there is no reason for the state to offer
the same privileges to same sex couples because they can not produce
these affects.
The
question of heterosexual couples who can’t have children or choose not to
has no bearing on this argument because governments make laws for the
masses and not for exceptions to the general rule. Governments are trying
to macro manage when they make laws.
Because
I do not view government sanctioned marriage as a human right. If
government sanctioned marriage were a human right then arguments
concerning discrimination would be valid and correct.
If
the government of the US and/or state of NC did not recognize or provide
benefits for heterosexual marriage I for one would not be prevented from
going before God with Amy and entering into a covenant relationship. That’s
the marriage recognition I care about. I would only complain about the
government if they arrested me and incarcerated me because I married a
woman
I will NOT be Voting
FOR Amendment One…
Because
not doing so will legalize same sex marriage in NC. There is already a law
on the books for that purpose and so those who are trying to scare people
into voting for Amendment One for that reason should be ashamed of their
dishonesty. Likewise those who use that fact as an argument for not needing
a constitutional amendment should not ignore the fact that if North
Carolinians want to keep that law in place it is necessary to
have redundancy in the state’s constitution. The judicial activism you
have applauded in other states has rightly taught North
Carolinians who are for marriage being kept as a legal privileged
status for one man and one woman that a law on the books is not enough.
In
order to define marriage for North Carolinians. People
can only define what they create and if they did not create it then they
can only discover, recognize, and accurately describe what has already
been created. Since North Carolinians did not
create marriage then we cannot define it, we can only recognize and
describe it. The question is whether or not we will describe it
accurately.
Because
Christians believe marriage is sacred. Although individual Christians may
believe marriage to be sacred we do not as a group. If Christians, as a
group, believed that marriage was sacred for the reasons we claim it be so
then the divorce rate among our people would not be the same as the rate
of those we are trying to convert. If Christians, as a group, believed
marriage was sacred “no fault divorce” couples, individuals engaging in sex
before marriage, and adulterers would be biblically dealt with in the
Church instead of ignored. We are rightly labeled as hypocrites when we
focus on homosexuality but ignore heterosexual sins. I dare say I will not
be seeing Christians rallying for state laws that would make “no fault
divorce”, adultery, and fornication illegal.
Because
I believe the Church needs the State in order to prevent homosexual or
polygamist unions. Marriage is a contract between a man, a woman, and God.
The State is not necessary for this equation. If I’m not mistaken on my
history this was the view of people in western cultures until the state run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in who
could and couldn’t get married in order to have control over the
institution and help raise revenue through issuance of licenses. This
evolved over the centuries and was continued after church and state was
separated in the US
in order to prevent slaves from marrying. It was continued to be used in
order to prevent interracial marriages until it was deemed
unconstitutional in 1967 by the US Supreme Court. If we are honest the
Church was pleased over these centuries to give the institution of
marriage to the state in order to legalize marital racism.
I have more reasons, but I do not have time to write them all out. I am happy to discuss any/all of my reasons with anyone who
agrees/disagrees with my reasons. If you have a question or counter argument
your comments are welcome. If you have a rant then your comment will be
deleted.
Here we go...2nd part of a 586 part series! :) Makes me think about this video.
I know it's hard to be serious after watching that video, but alas we shall try. In Genesis chapter one we see God beginning time as we know and understand it. We see God creating the heavens, the earth, and every physical thing that exists in them. We learn that God is the Creator of all things and that without Him and His decision to create the heavens, earth, and everything we experience would not be. We also learn that God commands and blesses the things He creates.
We learn some things about what God is creating, but since our focus is on knowing who God is, those things lay outside the periphery of our vision. We could also infer some things about God through what we learn concerning the nature of the things He is creating here in Genesis 1, but that also is counter productive to what I hope to gain here because it complicates the process. What I mean by this is that I want to focus in on what God is saying about Himself and not what I can infer about what He is doing and how He is doing it. Although that is a legitimate way of gaining knowledge about God I don't want to have to worry about constantly backtracking on my inferences to make sure they are consistent with each new piece of information I learn along the way. I could be wrong about an inference I make, but it becomes much more difficult for me to be wrong if I stick to understanding God by understanding what He directly says about Himself.
With that in mind we learn a very profound thing about God here in chapter one, namely that God is an "us". God says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." in verse 26. Verse 27 goes on to restate that God creates man in His own image.
So God is an "us". How confusing this fact must have been for the Israelites. I know I'm jumping way ahead here, but I just can't help but to wonder what would have gone through my mind if I were an Israelite and all I had were the books of Moses. Learning daily as a child the Great Shema, "Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." and then learning that God is an "us". God is one, God is an "us", God is one, God is an "us", God is one, God is an "us". I imagine that I would have had one thought pulsating through my mind at all times, "This is a contradiction, God cannot be one and an "us" at the same time!" But as an Israelite, at this time, my life and many generations of Israelite lives after me would have come and gone without any resolution to this conflict. More revealtion from God is required to solve this problem but many of God's people never had that revelation.
In my life I have found a couple of those types of issues in the Scriptures as well. It seems impossible for me to understand how two pieces of information that are opposed to each other can be reconciled. Is there a contradiction here? Can I be intellectually honest and continue to believe? I've struggled with these things and still have some that I have not reconciled in my mind and so I too, like the Israelites, wait for further revelation from God. Will I ever get an answer to my questions? Probably not, I'm not expecting God to send someone to write more Scripture and so unless the problems are solved by further study then I too will die without answers to my questions.
When I think about the plight of my questions and the plight of the Israelite wondering how God can be an "us" and one at the same time I remember and am heartened by God's word. "without faith it is impossible to please Him..." -Heb. 11:6.
Much more could be said about intellectual honesty and faith and what it means for our lives but that is another conversation and not the focus of this study.
I've learned a lot of things about God in my lifetime from a lot of different people. Lately though I've been thinking about this video.
So I've been asking myself the question of how much what I know about God comes from what He has revealed about Himself and how much is from what I've heard other people proclaim about Him. What I hope to do is study through the Bible and see what God says about Himself and believe in, worship, and serve Him as my King.
I imagine that some of the things I've learned in the past will be confirmed, some will be challenged, and some will be destroyed, but I want to worship and serve God as He is and not as I would like or imagine Him to be.
So you're welcome to join me, comment, challenge me along the way in understanding what God has said about Himself.
If Romney gets the GOP nomination look for President Obama to pander to evangelicals in some way shortly before the election.
There's a wide gap in this voting block that is not favorable towards Romney. I suspect the President will try to take advantage of that discontentment. I don't imagine it will be the same type of strategy as Gingrich or Santorum are taking, but I do imagine it will be done in such a way as to make sure everyone knows the President is protestant and Romney is Mormon.
We will have to wait and see, but it should be interesting.
This past Sunday we were thankful to get to worship with a church plant in Ashe County called The Gathering Church. We were blessed to worship our Creator by singing songs that were about Him and His work and not about us. We were blessed to listen to some good expository preaching from 1 Corinthians and learn some of the implications of divisions within the Body of Christ and our responsibilities towards one another. Good times!
We also enjoyed spending the day with one of the elders and his wife and children who are quickly becoming dear friends. Thanks Scott, Bonnie, Joel, Evan, Alyssa, Josiah, and... We love you in the Lord!
I began with what I thought was going to be a fairly straightforward task of studying baptism and its role in salvation. As I was finishing up studying baptism in the gospels and was preparing to move on to Acts and the epistles I realized that I was going to have to expand on what I was studying.
Isolating NT texgts about baptism was going to give me a clear picture of a piece of the soteriological puzzle, but it was going to be isolated from the larger picture displayed in the puzzle. As I realized this I began to realize that if I am going to have a robust understanding of soteriology then I am also going to have to study all of the New Testament passages that deal with the subject. Otherwise I am going to miss the forest for the trees.
1. Catch up on my daily reading in Job.
2. Study the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith to determine whether or not to adopt it for Articles of Faith in the church plant.
3. Finish working on the church plant's constitution.
4. Finish studying and organizing my introduction to the Gospel of John.
5. Finish studying baptisms place in soteriology for my conversation with a brother in the Lord.
6. Start & finish studying the warning passages in Hebrews for my conversation with same brother.
7. Paint kitchen.
8. Replace knobs on bathroom sink.
9. Move entertainment center & drill new hole in the floor for its new location.
10. Read Biblical Eldership.
11. Work on a trivium structured catechism for our family.
...that's all I can think of for now...
Our family had the privilege of worshipping today with our brothers and sisters at Twin City Bible Church in Winston Salem, NC. As we prepare to plant a church here in Wilkes we are visiting some other churches who share some of our distinctives to see how those distinctives flesh themselves out in these various churches. Today we were blessed to worship in Scripture, preaching, song, and communion in a reformed, elder-led church. Something I've heard many times became more real today as I witnessed it....Theology Matters. What a blessing it was to hear and sing about God's sovereign grace, the reason that grace is necessary, and to culminate the renewing of mind by singing praises to our Savior and God. Hallelujah! What a Savior!
Got a new laptop today with an eye to the future. Amy, my wife, needs our current laptop to do various and sundry things and I'm going to be needing one to work on serving my brothers and sisters in the Lord as we plant a church in the next few months.
So here's to laptops, microsoft word, biblegateway.com, esvonline.org, net.bible.org, and other online resources.
Recently I spent 5 hours with a brother in the Lord who was explaining to me a view he holds with which I disagree. He had some good points so I decided to study it for myself and find out exactly what I think about it. While studying I have constantly had to beat back the things I have learned my entire life in order to not push my traditions on the Scriptures, i.e. eisegesis, and instead allow the text to speak for itself, i.e. exegesis. It has been a tough process but the fear of the Lord has made me do it. I only want to believe my traditions inasmuch as they are reflective of the teaching of the Scriptures. Where the two part is the same place where I want to part with my traditions and this is a hard thing.
The truth of the matter is though that I'm not dealing with history or math problems, but with what the Creator has said about Himself and the nature of salvation and I tremble to think of the One who can kill the body and then throw the soul into Hell. God have mercy on me and help me to believe what You have said.
I was surprised to learn that over 90% of the Gospel of John is unique. Here's a chart I made detailing the material that is included in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), but is not included in John's Gospel and vice versa. Thanks to Bible.org for all of the articles that allowed me to compile this information.
Material Exclusive to either John’s Gospel Or the Synoptic Gospels
