Abraham was called by God to leave his country and go to where the Lord would direct him. When the Lord promised him an heir, although he was already between 75 and 85 years old, he believed him. Because he believed, God declared him righteous (Gen 15:6). He became God's friend (James 2:23).
Samson and John the Baptist are typical of people called by God before they were born (Judges 13:3-5 & Luke 1:13-17). Each of them was chosen for a specific assignment. Samson achieved some success in saving Israel from the oppressing Philistines despite the fact he did not cooperate with God. John the Baptist succeeded completely in achieving his mission of introducing the Messiah. For every believer God has "prepared good works" as he did for both of them (Ephesians 2:10).
Samson's mother knew that her son was called to begin delivering Israel from the Philistines (Judges 13:5) and must have told him so. He was specially gifted by God with supernatural strength for this task. But all his life he acted like a spoilt brat. He "obeyed" his his human desires, especially in the area of sex (Judges 14:1; 16:1; 16:4). In the end it cost him his freedom and his sight.
In the case of Samuel, his mother volunteered the service of her child and God seemed to have gladly accepted it (1 Samuel 1:10-11). Samuel was God's man at a time when Israel was on the brink of complete heathendom. By his example and words he helped to stop the rot and negotiated their transition into a kingdom. Like John the Baptist, he was dedicated to God and did not follow his own agenda (1 Samuel 17:15).
Jeremiah was also called by God before he was born. He was instructed not to marry. He obeyed and he and his friend Baruch stayed true to God when all others disregarded the Lord's counsel.
Esther was at the right place at the right time to be instrumental in saving Israel from genocide when they were living in exile in Persia. She accepted the challenge although she risked her life in doing so.
God called Gideon while he was hiding (Judges 6:11-12), Amos while he was farming (Amos 7:14) and Saul (Paul) while he was persecuting Christians (Acts 9:1-6). Saul also got his commission at the time of his conversion (Acts 9:15-16).
Jesus left his disciples (the church) with one commission, commonly known as the great commission (Matthew 29:19-20). It contains several categories:
1. Go
2. Make disciples
3. of all nations
4. Baptise them
5. Teach them
6. to obey
7. all that I commanded you.
Every Christian must expect to receive a spiritual gift or gifts from God. Such gifts define the "good works" God prepared for us to walk in. They will be useful in at least one of the categories of the great commission.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Darkness of the soul
Since Christians are still "under construction", there are occasions when we sin and affect people negatively. They often respond by saying: "If that is how Christians behave, I want nothing to do with Christianity". Note that Jesus does not get mentioned. I have yet to meet someone who blames Jesus for the pain his followers inflict.
According to 1 John 2:11 a person with a grudge against someone "walks in darkness". When one has been hurt, it can be difficult to "get over it". However, if you don't, your perspective will be warped. John said that someone in such a condition "does not know where he is going because darkness has blinded his eyes". In the language of the Arbinger Institute he is "in the box". To get "out of the box" one has to forgive the person, forget the incident and move on. If not, the saying "cutting off your nose to spite your face" is applicable.
Many a marriage could be saved, relationships could be restored and even wars averted if people avoided "walking in darkness". It is scary to think that many decisions, which affect the lives of millions, get made by people who cannot see where they are going.
According to 1 John 2:11 a person with a grudge against someone "walks in darkness". When one has been hurt, it can be difficult to "get over it". However, if you don't, your perspective will be warped. John said that someone in such a condition "does not know where he is going because darkness has blinded his eyes". In the language of the Arbinger Institute he is "in the box". To get "out of the box" one has to forgive the person, forget the incident and move on. If not, the saying "cutting off your nose to spite your face" is applicable.
Many a marriage could be saved, relationships could be restored and even wars averted if people avoided "walking in darkness". It is scary to think that many decisions, which affect the lives of millions, get made by people who cannot see where they are going.
Sunday, 20 June 2010
The image of God
I have often wondered why God chose to save human beings by sacrificing his son. Could he not have found a way that involved less suffering?
Imagining myself to be God, I realised that if I was all powerful and able do anything, I would quickly get bored playing with toys which did exactly as I programmed them. Stars, planets and all inanimate objects could keep my interest just so long. Plants would be more of a challenge because they could indefinitely procreate after their kind. Animals are even more interesting since they can have a "mind of their own". They are guided by the instinct built into them and by knowledge passed on from parents to their offspring.
Finally God decided to make someone like himself, in his own image. This creature was not to be directed by instinct like the animals, but by his own Spirit which he blew into Adam. One of the characteristics of Adam, due to his having "the image of God", was that he had a free will. Without it he would have been but a sophisticated robot, a clever animal. Such a creature would not be capable of giving or receiving love. Since God is love, his image had to be able to love freely. This would only be realistic if it was possible for the man to choose the opposite. Choosing to love God and his fellow man was to be the chief aim of man.
How was God going to get man to love him? I believe he made it clear to Adam that an innocent animal had to die because of his sin. How else could he have made clothes for them? (Genesis 3:21) Abel seems to have got the message and God approved of his sacrifice. (Hebrews 11:4) But Cain did not appreciate this. His attitude was something in the line of "This is who I am and why should I change?" He was the first man to be born of a woman, which was the way God had designed it. But having God's image did not entitle him to give in to every emotion he experienced, in this case anger. (Genesis 4:5) By allowing his anger to guide his deeds he acted in direct contradiction to what God had intended. In stead of loving his brother he murdered him in cold blood. (Genesis 4:8) If he had thought about it clearly he would have realised that he could not ignore his Creator forever. Also, since he carried God's image, his conscience would not allow him to forget about his sin. If his pride was to determine his behaviour, he would not receive forgiveness. Judas faced this same dilemma.
The Lord gave the nation of Israel his commandments which can be summed up in "love the Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:5) and "love your neighbour" (Leviticus 19:18). The more expanded version (the ten commandments) starts of with the reason why they should love him, namely because he delivered them. (Exodus 20:2) Loving God is not something which is natural to fallen man. To nations other than Israel this was a foreign concept. One could dread God or the gods for what they could do, but to my knowledge, the idea of loving God is exclusive to the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he had to do to inherit eternal life, the Lord recited the "second tablet" of the ten commandments to him. These are the commands which can be summed up in "love your neighbour as yourself". Jesus also commented on how the man had greeted him since he had addressed the Lord with the words "Good teacher". By accepting this compliment and stating that no one was good but God, Jesus was subtly revealing his identity. (Luke 18:18-20) A more direct answer to the ruler's question would have been: "Look, I am God, and if you really loved me and money was not an idol to you, you would get rid of your earthly possessions and follow me".
By pretending to keep 613 laws the Pharisees wanted to be seen as lovers of God. Like Cain, they missed the point. They meticulously kept to the letter of the law since in their heart of hearts they did not trust the Lawgiver and regarded him as unfair. (Luke 19:20-21) They never understood the spirit behind the law. (Matthew 23:23) When they met the one who had given it and kept the law perfectly, they did not recognise him and handed him over to be crucified. (John 5:39-40)
The old covenant required the Jews to love God because he delivered them from slavery. Jesus inaugurated a better covenant which was intended to deliver them, and the whole world, from sin. (Hebrews 8:7-8; 8:13) That is more than enough reason for anyone to love him, since the invitation is extended to all mankind. (John 1:12) God's offer is so outrageously generous that most people find it too good to be true. (John 3:16)
Imagining myself to be God, I realised that if I was all powerful and able do anything, I would quickly get bored playing with toys which did exactly as I programmed them. Stars, planets and all inanimate objects could keep my interest just so long. Plants would be more of a challenge because they could indefinitely procreate after their kind. Animals are even more interesting since they can have a "mind of their own". They are guided by the instinct built into them and by knowledge passed on from parents to their offspring.
Finally God decided to make someone like himself, in his own image. This creature was not to be directed by instinct like the animals, but by his own Spirit which he blew into Adam. One of the characteristics of Adam, due to his having "the image of God", was that he had a free will. Without it he would have been but a sophisticated robot, a clever animal. Such a creature would not be capable of giving or receiving love. Since God is love, his image had to be able to love freely. This would only be realistic if it was possible for the man to choose the opposite. Choosing to love God and his fellow man was to be the chief aim of man.
How was God going to get man to love him? I believe he made it clear to Adam that an innocent animal had to die because of his sin. How else could he have made clothes for them? (Genesis 3:21) Abel seems to have got the message and God approved of his sacrifice. (Hebrews 11:4) But Cain did not appreciate this. His attitude was something in the line of "This is who I am and why should I change?" He was the first man to be born of a woman, which was the way God had designed it. But having God's image did not entitle him to give in to every emotion he experienced, in this case anger. (Genesis 4:5) By allowing his anger to guide his deeds he acted in direct contradiction to what God had intended. In stead of loving his brother he murdered him in cold blood. (Genesis 4:8) If he had thought about it clearly he would have realised that he could not ignore his Creator forever. Also, since he carried God's image, his conscience would not allow him to forget about his sin. If his pride was to determine his behaviour, he would not receive forgiveness. Judas faced this same dilemma.
The Lord gave the nation of Israel his commandments which can be summed up in "love the Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:5) and "love your neighbour" (Leviticus 19:18). The more expanded version (the ten commandments) starts of with the reason why they should love him, namely because he delivered them. (Exodus 20:2) Loving God is not something which is natural to fallen man. To nations other than Israel this was a foreign concept. One could dread God or the gods for what they could do, but to my knowledge, the idea of loving God is exclusive to the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he had to do to inherit eternal life, the Lord recited the "second tablet" of the ten commandments to him. These are the commands which can be summed up in "love your neighbour as yourself". Jesus also commented on how the man had greeted him since he had addressed the Lord with the words "Good teacher". By accepting this compliment and stating that no one was good but God, Jesus was subtly revealing his identity. (Luke 18:18-20) A more direct answer to the ruler's question would have been: "Look, I am God, and if you really loved me and money was not an idol to you, you would get rid of your earthly possessions and follow me".
By pretending to keep 613 laws the Pharisees wanted to be seen as lovers of God. Like Cain, they missed the point. They meticulously kept to the letter of the law since in their heart of hearts they did not trust the Lawgiver and regarded him as unfair. (Luke 19:20-21) They never understood the spirit behind the law. (Matthew 23:23) When they met the one who had given it and kept the law perfectly, they did not recognise him and handed him over to be crucified. (John 5:39-40)
The old covenant required the Jews to love God because he delivered them from slavery. Jesus inaugurated a better covenant which was intended to deliver them, and the whole world, from sin. (Hebrews 8:7-8; 8:13) That is more than enough reason for anyone to love him, since the invitation is extended to all mankind. (John 1:12) God's offer is so outrageously generous that most people find it too good to be true. (John 3:16)
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Science and insanity
Albert Einstein is purported to have said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". This statement makes perfect sense from a purely scientific point of view. The laws of natural science (except for aspects of Geology and Biology) are based on repeatable experiments.
There would be no science if the same experiment, done repeatedly, yielded different results. However, to apply this principle to all areas of life, is fallacious. Some examples from the Bible suggest the opposite to be true. Moses tended sheep day after day for 40 years. Then one day he saw a burning bush and his life was never the same. Day after day a lame man begged at the Gate Beautiful until one day he encountered Peter and John. His healing had all of Jerusalem stirred up. Another man, who had been lame for 38 years, spent his days at the pool of Bethesda until the day he was healed by Jesus. There are many examples of people who faithfully did their duties until one day something extraordinary happened to them.
To illustrate the narrow mindedness of a purely scientific world view, consider the following. Someone claims to have walked on water. From an exclusively scientific point of view the person cannot be believed, unless he could repeat the "experiment". By this paradigm the virgin birth and resurrection of the dead are impossibilities.
The absurdity of adopting a solely scientific world view as sufficient for all branches of knowledge becomes glaringly obvious in a subject like History. That Jesus rose from the dead is one of the best proven facts of history. However, since this fact is not based on a repeatable experiment, its veracity is denied by those who refuse to accept a world view wider than the scientific.
The irrationality of this approach is often compounded when its promoters regard themselves as "open minded". According to their logic those who deny the possibility of miracles are more open minded than those who permit miracles in their world view. Their logic is similar to that of atheists who claim to be more open minded than those who accept the possibility of the existence of a God. This logic compels them to believe in the theory of evolution which they then disseminate as fact.
As far as Einstein's quotations are concerned, hardly any law of Physics has suffered as much abuse at the hands of philosophers and social scientists as the Principle of Relativity. In the first place they have applied it to Ethics and Morality, areas in which its validity has no foundation. Secondly they have made it to mean exactly the opposite of what it means in Relativity Theory. The latter is based on the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers, whereas relativistic ethics propounds that right and wrong depends on the person and the situation.
There would be no science if the same experiment, done repeatedly, yielded different results. However, to apply this principle to all areas of life, is fallacious. Some examples from the Bible suggest the opposite to be true. Moses tended sheep day after day for 40 years. Then one day he saw a burning bush and his life was never the same. Day after day a lame man begged at the Gate Beautiful until one day he encountered Peter and John. His healing had all of Jerusalem stirred up. Another man, who had been lame for 38 years, spent his days at the pool of Bethesda until the day he was healed by Jesus. There are many examples of people who faithfully did their duties until one day something extraordinary happened to them.
To illustrate the narrow mindedness of a purely scientific world view, consider the following. Someone claims to have walked on water. From an exclusively scientific point of view the person cannot be believed, unless he could repeat the "experiment". By this paradigm the virgin birth and resurrection of the dead are impossibilities.
The absurdity of adopting a solely scientific world view as sufficient for all branches of knowledge becomes glaringly obvious in a subject like History. That Jesus rose from the dead is one of the best proven facts of history. However, since this fact is not based on a repeatable experiment, its veracity is denied by those who refuse to accept a world view wider than the scientific.
The irrationality of this approach is often compounded when its promoters regard themselves as "open minded". According to their logic those who deny the possibility of miracles are more open minded than those who permit miracles in their world view. Their logic is similar to that of atheists who claim to be more open minded than those who accept the possibility of the existence of a God. This logic compels them to believe in the theory of evolution which they then disseminate as fact.
As far as Einstein's quotations are concerned, hardly any law of Physics has suffered as much abuse at the hands of philosophers and social scientists as the Principle of Relativity. In the first place they have applied it to Ethics and Morality, areas in which its validity has no foundation. Secondly they have made it to mean exactly the opposite of what it means in Relativity Theory. The latter is based on the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers, whereas relativistic ethics propounds that right and wrong depends on the person and the situation.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Praying with faith
There is a difference between thinking about a desired outcome and praying for it. Praying involves faith. Jesus spoke about the Pharisee who prayed to himself (Luke 18:11). What is that but thinking out loud?
In modern English pray can mean to ask, meditate or hope. When Jesus spoke about prayer he meant the first. This kind of prayer has an object. No-one (except an unstable person) would request anything from someone out of earshot.
Most Christians believe that God knows everything. That makes prayer easier and more difficult. More difficult because we wonder why he requires us to ask since he already knows what we need or want. Easier because we can talk to him at any time and don't have to articulate our requests perfectly. He is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think (Ephesians 3:20). But will he? Having the power to do something is not the same as actually doing it. He wants us to ask.
The difference between prayers which are always answered and those which are not, is in the faith of the asker. Am I merely talking to myself and others who hear me or do I really believe that I am talking to God? There have been times when I have screamed at him to convince myself that he heard. On other occasions I have known him to hear even if my words were not audible. Somehow talking to him out loud can help one to move from thinking to praying.
Many times I have felt that he was not particularly interested in my prayers. As a rule God does not grant requests motivated by selfishness (James 4:3). However, Jesus taught us to pray for our daily bread. What we may include in that prayer is not always clear, for instance shelter, health, safety etc. Paul went to Jerusalem knowing that it would not be safe (Acts 21:12-14). Yet, on a previous occasion, he had requested prayer for safety (Romans 15:30-31).
It is comforting to know that some prayers offered with little faith are answered nevertheless. There was the man who asked Jesus to help his unbelief (Mark 9:24). Zachariah's request for a son was granted despite his lack of faith (Luke 1:13&20). The church prayed for Peter when he was imprisoned but thought it too good to be true when he was set free by an angel (Acts 12:5&14-15).
In modern English pray can mean to ask, meditate or hope. When Jesus spoke about prayer he meant the first. This kind of prayer has an object. No-one (except an unstable person) would request anything from someone out of earshot.
Most Christians believe that God knows everything. That makes prayer easier and more difficult. More difficult because we wonder why he requires us to ask since he already knows what we need or want. Easier because we can talk to him at any time and don't have to articulate our requests perfectly. He is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think (Ephesians 3:20). But will he? Having the power to do something is not the same as actually doing it. He wants us to ask.
The difference between prayers which are always answered and those which are not, is in the faith of the asker. Am I merely talking to myself and others who hear me or do I really believe that I am talking to God? There have been times when I have screamed at him to convince myself that he heard. On other occasions I have known him to hear even if my words were not audible. Somehow talking to him out loud can help one to move from thinking to praying.
Many times I have felt that he was not particularly interested in my prayers. As a rule God does not grant requests motivated by selfishness (James 4:3). However, Jesus taught us to pray for our daily bread. What we may include in that prayer is not always clear, for instance shelter, health, safety etc. Paul went to Jerusalem knowing that it would not be safe (Acts 21:12-14). Yet, on a previous occasion, he had requested prayer for safety (Romans 15:30-31).
It is comforting to know that some prayers offered with little faith are answered nevertheless. There was the man who asked Jesus to help his unbelief (Mark 9:24). Zachariah's request for a son was granted despite his lack of faith (Luke 1:13&20). The church prayed for Peter when he was imprisoned but thought it too good to be true when he was set free by an angel (Acts 12:5&14-15).
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Are atheists fools?
Someone put up a billboard which quoted the first verse of Psalm 14: "The fool says in his heart: 'There is no God'."
A passer-by found the message on the board so offensive that he submitted a complaint, saying that the board implied that atheists were stupid. He did not believe in the existence of God but he did not consider himself to be "foolish" or "stupid".
The fact that he was a pilot proves that the passer-by was not dumb. However, a few classes in logic could have helped him interpret the sentence properly. The quoted sentence does not imply that atheists are fools, but the converse, namely that fools are atheists. Therefore only someone claiming to be a fool but not an atheist would have a valid reason to complain about the billboard.
Actually the sentence on the billboard does not do justice to Psalm 14:1 as it was written in Hebrew. Directly translated into English it reads "the fool says in his heart no god". The original language had no upper case letters or punctuation marks. It could therefore also be translated: "The fool says in his heart 'God, I say no to you'."
Whichever translation is accepted as correct, the verse describes character traits of a fool, not an atheist. The Bible ignores atheists, treating them as if they did not exist.
A passer-by found the message on the board so offensive that he submitted a complaint, saying that the board implied that atheists were stupid. He did not believe in the existence of God but he did not consider himself to be "foolish" or "stupid".
The fact that he was a pilot proves that the passer-by was not dumb. However, a few classes in logic could have helped him interpret the sentence properly. The quoted sentence does not imply that atheists are fools, but the converse, namely that fools are atheists. Therefore only someone claiming to be a fool but not an atheist would have a valid reason to complain about the billboard.
Actually the sentence on the billboard does not do justice to Psalm 14:1 as it was written in Hebrew. Directly translated into English it reads "the fool says in his heart no god". The original language had no upper case letters or punctuation marks. It could therefore also be translated: "The fool says in his heart 'God, I say no to you'."
Whichever translation is accepted as correct, the verse describes character traits of a fool, not an atheist. The Bible ignores atheists, treating them as if they did not exist.
Friday, 5 March 2010
The kingdom of heaven suffers violence
Which is the better translation of Matthew 11:12? Whereas the title above corresponds to the King James version most newer translations have "the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing."
When read in context, it does not really matter which interpretation is accepted. That is another one of those wonderful properties of the Bible as it has come down to us. In so many places where the original is in doubt, it is not really important.
I have often wondered whether Jesus was for or against the way in which the kingdom was advancing but that was not the point he was making. He was berating the general public for their tardiness in accepting the new dispensation inaugurated by John and him. He was as it were saying: "Which millenium are you living in? Don't you know a new millenium began at my birth? The time of the Law and the Prophets is over and the Kingdom of Heaven is passing you by and being grabbed by violent men."
Jesus used similar language on another occasion (Luke 16:16). He was rebuking the Pharisees for their lack of insight into the values propounded in the Law and the Prophets. They were comfortable in their religious club and snickering at the interpretaion Jesus gave to their Bible, oblivious of the fact that he was the One who authored it.
When read in context, it does not really matter which interpretation is accepted. That is another one of those wonderful properties of the Bible as it has come down to us. In so many places where the original is in doubt, it is not really important.
I have often wondered whether Jesus was for or against the way in which the kingdom was advancing but that was not the point he was making. He was berating the general public for their tardiness in accepting the new dispensation inaugurated by John and him. He was as it were saying: "Which millenium are you living in? Don't you know a new millenium began at my birth? The time of the Law and the Prophets is over and the Kingdom of Heaven is passing you by and being grabbed by violent men."
Jesus used similar language on another occasion (Luke 16:16). He was rebuking the Pharisees for their lack of insight into the values propounded in the Law and the Prophets. They were comfortable in their religious club and snickering at the interpretaion Jesus gave to their Bible, oblivious of the fact that he was the One who authored it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
