"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes" (Matthew 11:21).
Back in Sunday school at Faith Baptist Church in Wauseon, Ohio, I learned that God was omnipotent (all powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere), and omniscient (having all knowledge). So I've known for a very long time that God possesses all knowledge, and I've believed that truth with all my heart. God knows everything--an easily communicated truth.
And somewhere along the line--probably in a writing class somewhere--I learned of a logical fallacy called the hypothesis contrary to fact. It is illogical to try to build an argument on a contingency, on what might have been. So we can't argue logically about what might have happened if the administration of Virginia Tech had a better system of alerting students that a killer was on the loose--we just don't know. And we're tempted to do that on a smaller scale in our own lives. Maybe that accident wouldn't have happened if... Maybe I'd be in a better place financially if... But we can never really know.
And you're thinking, She's talking about logic, but what do her first and second paragraphs--and that Scripture passage--have to do with anything? I was introduced to a fascinating concept at the Philadelphia Conference that I still find myself thinking about over a week later. It was raised during Donald Carson's address from Matthew 11 on The Revealed Word, and it was almost an aside as he discussed the verses in this chapter.
In Matthew 11:21, Jesus brings up something that never actually happened--a hypothesis contrary to fact. If Tyre and Sidon had seen the mighty works that had been performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida, the citizens of those cities would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. Jesus isn't just performing an interesting mental exercise here like we often play in history class: "If America hadn't joined the Allies in World War II, Germany would have conquered Europe and..." Jesus--because He is God, who is omniscient--could actually say with certainty what Tyre and Sidon would have, in fact, done. There is no contingent knowledge, no hypothesis contrary to fact, with God!
So while I've always believed that my God has all knowledge, I now have a broader understanding of what "all knowledge" means. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!(Romans 11:33).
4/30/07
4/29/07
Jesus Is the Christ (1 John 2:20-27)
I'm going to continue blogging about the 1 John sermons here for continuity's sake, and this afternoon's continuation of the series was excellent, but our pastor has started preaching through the Canons of Dort, and this morning's sermon on article 5 was nothing short of amazing. If you find yourself wanting to hear a sermon that will challenge your mind and heart, go to the Bethany Website and listen and be blessed.
1 John highlights the truths regarding the salvation of Jesus Christ that must be communicated as basics of the Christian faith. For this reason, it is a good book to turn to as an evangelistic tool or for the instruction of new Christians. The central theme of this particular passage is that Jesus is the Christ, and this declaration would be meaningless without an understanding of the Old Testament. We cannot truly be saved unless we understand that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.
"But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things" (v.20). The truths that we know have been revealed to us through an anointing. Those who have received this anointing are contrasted with the antichrists of v. 18, the ones who "went out from us" of v. 19. The "you" of v. 20 refers to all of those who are still with us, who have not left. This anointing that we have received results in knowledge (vv. 20b-21). This truth has been imparted to us, and this truth is that Jesus is the Christ.
The truth John has been talking about has been rejected by liars (v.22a), those who say that Jesus is not the Christ. As a Jew himself, John was aware that many Jews were rejecting Jesus but claiming to worship God. This was impossible; there is no separation between Old Testament and New Testament religion and faith. There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian ethic. John knew of no such distinctions. In v. 23a, John explains that the Son becomes as important, relationally, as the Father. You cannot have one without the other. If you know the Son, you know the Father, and if you know the Father, you know the Son. In v. 23b John talks about acknowledging the Son, and there is a public element to this idea of acknowledgment. The one who knows and loves the truth will acknowledge it. We do this today when we make a public profession of faith or when we come together for public worship.
This truth remains in us ("let that abide in you," v. 24), and results in a unity between a relationship with Christ and knowing the truth. We can't have a relationship with Christ without content.
And clearly with the themes of last weekend's Philadelphia Conference in his mind, our pastor concluded by reminding us of the Reformed understanding of the perspicuity of Scripture--that we ourselves, as individuals, can come to an understanding of the truth. God's people can understand the truth--we need not be Greek and Hebrew scholars to come to an understanding. We ought to be able, with confidence, to say "I believe." The Word of God and the Spirit of God are teaching us, and so we ought to go to His Word with confidence.
1 John highlights the truths regarding the salvation of Jesus Christ that must be communicated as basics of the Christian faith. For this reason, it is a good book to turn to as an evangelistic tool or for the instruction of new Christians. The central theme of this particular passage is that Jesus is the Christ, and this declaration would be meaningless without an understanding of the Old Testament. We cannot truly be saved unless we understand that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.
"But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things" (v.20). The truths that we know have been revealed to us through an anointing. Those who have received this anointing are contrasted with the antichrists of v. 18, the ones who "went out from us" of v. 19. The "you" of v. 20 refers to all of those who are still with us, who have not left. This anointing that we have received results in knowledge (vv. 20b-21). This truth has been imparted to us, and this truth is that Jesus is the Christ.
The truth John has been talking about has been rejected by liars (v.22a), those who say that Jesus is not the Christ. As a Jew himself, John was aware that many Jews were rejecting Jesus but claiming to worship God. This was impossible; there is no separation between Old Testament and New Testament religion and faith. There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian ethic. John knew of no such distinctions. In v. 23a, John explains that the Son becomes as important, relationally, as the Father. You cannot have one without the other. If you know the Son, you know the Father, and if you know the Father, you know the Son. In v. 23b John talks about acknowledging the Son, and there is a public element to this idea of acknowledgment. The one who knows and loves the truth will acknowledge it. We do this today when we make a public profession of faith or when we come together for public worship.
This truth remains in us ("let that abide in you," v. 24), and results in a unity between a relationship with Christ and knowing the truth. We can't have a relationship with Christ without content.
And clearly with the themes of last weekend's Philadelphia Conference in his mind, our pastor concluded by reminding us of the Reformed understanding of the perspicuity of Scripture--that we ourselves, as individuals, can come to an understanding of the truth. God's people can understand the truth--we need not be Greek and Hebrew scholars to come to an understanding. We ought to be able, with confidence, to say "I believe." The Word of God and the Spirit of God are teaching us, and so we ought to go to His Word with confidence.
4/26/07
Religion Is Good for Kids
"Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development." This is the conclusion reported in Fox News on April 24, 2007.
The study was conducted by a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues who asked the parents and teachers of more than sixteen thousand first graders to rate how much self-control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior, and how well they respected and worked with their peers. These scores were compared to how often the parents said they attend worship services and talk with their children about religion at home. And of course the kids with the higher scores were the ones whose parents (more so if both did) attended worship services regularly and talked about religion with their children.
The study didn't look at which kids were the best behaved: Protestant? Jewish? Catholic? And one naysayer thought that perhaps only parents with the best behaved children attend worship services--so by implication, those with ill-behaved children must stay home. I suggest that this person attend an actual worship service of just about any congregation (including the one I belong to) and observe for about five minutes to debunk this theory.
So why would religion be good for kids? The conductor of the study sees three reasons: religious networks provide social support for parents, which can improve their parenting skills; most religious institutions promote self-sacrifice and are pro-family; and religious institutions imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance. And I would say that those probably are contributing factors.
So why is religion good for kids, in the sense that it results in their behaving better? It starts with parents humbly recognizing that they are sinners saved by a merciful God, and their thankfulness to Him is demonstrated by obedience to His laws. As those who understand this about God and themselves, they also understand that this same saving mercy is necessary for their children, so they instruct them in His ways, and because these parents (in Reformed circles) made some "significant" vows "imbued with sacred meaning" at their children's baptisms, they require that their children obey those same laws as well--or there are consequences. It's a pretty simple formula, and it doesn't always result in good behavior (that sinner part!), but that theme of obedience or consequences would seem to be pretty basic. Unfortunately, that concept of consequences would seem to be lost on most of the general population. I haven't done any studies, but maybe that's a start at explaining it.
The study was conducted by a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues who asked the parents and teachers of more than sixteen thousand first graders to rate how much self-control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior, and how well they respected and worked with their peers. These scores were compared to how often the parents said they attend worship services and talk with their children about religion at home. And of course the kids with the higher scores were the ones whose parents (more so if both did) attended worship services regularly and talked about religion with their children.
The study didn't look at which kids were the best behaved: Protestant? Jewish? Catholic? And one naysayer thought that perhaps only parents with the best behaved children attend worship services--so by implication, those with ill-behaved children must stay home. I suggest that this person attend an actual worship service of just about any congregation (including the one I belong to) and observe for about five minutes to debunk this theory.
So why would religion be good for kids? The conductor of the study sees three reasons: religious networks provide social support for parents, which can improve their parenting skills; most religious institutions promote self-sacrifice and are pro-family; and religious institutions imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance. And I would say that those probably are contributing factors.
So why is religion good for kids, in the sense that it results in their behaving better? It starts with parents humbly recognizing that they are sinners saved by a merciful God, and their thankfulness to Him is demonstrated by obedience to His laws. As those who understand this about God and themselves, they also understand that this same saving mercy is necessary for their children, so they instruct them in His ways, and because these parents (in Reformed circles) made some "significant" vows "imbued with sacred meaning" at their children's baptisms, they require that their children obey those same laws as well--or there are consequences. It's a pretty simple formula, and it doesn't always result in good behavior (that sinner part!), but that theme of obedience or consequences would seem to be pretty basic. Unfortunately, that concept of consequences would seem to be lost on most of the general population. I haven't done any studies, but maybe that's a start at explaining it.
4/24/07
The Word: Above All Earthly Powers
This past weekend, I had the opportunity to attend the 2007 Philadelphia Conference of Reformed Theology at Byron Center First Christian Reformed Church, just southwest of Grand Rapids. I heard somewhere that there were about five hundred people in attendance, and it was amazing to be there just to join voices with about 499 others, accompanied by the Westminster Brass, singing such excellent hymns as "A Mighty Fortress" and "Holy, Holy, Holy." But the singing was only a small part of an exciting schedule of speakers all focusing on the sufficiency of the Scriptures.
The speakers addressed some of these questions: Can we still speak confidently of knowing the truth? Does the Bible really have the authority it used to be given? Are the challenges of Bible interpretation too great for us to speak in absolute terms?
The first speaker, Dr. Ligon Duncan, introduced the theme with "The True Word." He pointed out that there are two major sources assaulting the truth of Scripture today: Those who say they are Christians but who think that it doesn't matter what we believe; and those who claim doctrine matters but don't show it in their lives. He based his address on John 17:17, Jesus' High Priestly prayer, and concluded with the following ways we can keep the truth: 1. In our study of the truth, we should turn to prayer; 2. We should praise God, because this decentralizes self; 3. We should meditate on the truth; 4. We should practice the truth, because we do not know the truth if we are not "doing" the truth.
The second address on Saturday morning was on "The Revealed Word," and the speaker was Dr. Donald Carson. He pointed out that our God is a talking God who has revealed His word to His people. God communicates in a variety of ways--through events, nature, institutions, rituals, and through His Son--but His actual words are crucial to understanding these other means of revelation. God's words are not exclusively intellectual and linear--He has spoken in lament, outrage, poetry, fable, and apocalyptic literature. His words are crucial to the revelatory nature of preaching, but His words must be borne along by the Spirit to be effective. With rich, challenging, and fascinating insights, Carson discussed Matthew 11 in light of his explanation of the revealed word, concluding with verse 30, that the words of Jesus become the Christian's rest. (This was my favorite speaker, and his breakout session on the recent undermining of Scripture was excellent as well.)
Pastor Mark Dever spoke on "The Mighty Word," basing his address on the parable of the growing seed in Mark 4:26ff. Just as man does very little in the growth of a plant (the seed is the active agent), he likewise does nothing to bring about God's kingdom. The mighty Word of God accomplishes its purpose, apart from human effort. And just as the seed will grow, the kingdom of God is inevitable. There is no uncertainty about the coming harvest because our optimism is based on our future hope. The mighty word is wonderful.
Dr. Philip Ryken, senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church, spoke about "The Accessible Word," affirming the truth that the Bible is meant to be understood. This is the reason the Reformers (and Wycliffe was an example) were willing, in some cases, to die so that the people could have the Scriptures in their own language. Some would argue that God is a transcendent mystery, the Scriptures are unclear, there are a variety of interpretations (so how can we know which is true?), and the Bible itself admits to being unclear (as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch). And yet the Scriptures are able to make us wise, and if the Bible is not clear, then we would have to say that God is not an effective communicator. Of course this is not the case.
The conference closed with an amazing concert with the Westminster Brass and the South Christian Madrigals (Way to go, guys!) and a final address by Dr. Duncan on "The Sufficient Word."
With so many attacks on the doctrine of Scripture from postmodernism, the emergent church movement, and those promoting the New Perspective/Federal Vision theologies, this conference was an encouragement and a reminder of how amazing our God is to entrust us with the truth of His Word. We were reminded that God does not owe us His Word, and yet in His mercy He has given it to us so that we can know Him, know His truth. There have been those in history who have been willing to die so that God's Word could be known by His people, and we must always be on guard against the attacks that will come on this priceless gift. I'm so excited for next year's conference . . .
The speakers addressed some of these questions: Can we still speak confidently of knowing the truth? Does the Bible really have the authority it used to be given? Are the challenges of Bible interpretation too great for us to speak in absolute terms?
The first speaker, Dr. Ligon Duncan, introduced the theme with "The True Word." He pointed out that there are two major sources assaulting the truth of Scripture today: Those who say they are Christians but who think that it doesn't matter what we believe; and those who claim doctrine matters but don't show it in their lives. He based his address on John 17:17, Jesus' High Priestly prayer, and concluded with the following ways we can keep the truth: 1. In our study of the truth, we should turn to prayer; 2. We should praise God, because this decentralizes self; 3. We should meditate on the truth; 4. We should practice the truth, because we do not know the truth if we are not "doing" the truth.
The second address on Saturday morning was on "The Revealed Word," and the speaker was Dr. Donald Carson. He pointed out that our God is a talking God who has revealed His word to His people. God communicates in a variety of ways--through events, nature, institutions, rituals, and through His Son--but His actual words are crucial to understanding these other means of revelation. God's words are not exclusively intellectual and linear--He has spoken in lament, outrage, poetry, fable, and apocalyptic literature. His words are crucial to the revelatory nature of preaching, but His words must be borne along by the Spirit to be effective. With rich, challenging, and fascinating insights, Carson discussed Matthew 11 in light of his explanation of the revealed word, concluding with verse 30, that the words of Jesus become the Christian's rest. (This was my favorite speaker, and his breakout session on the recent undermining of Scripture was excellent as well.)
Pastor Mark Dever spoke on "The Mighty Word," basing his address on the parable of the growing seed in Mark 4:26ff. Just as man does very little in the growth of a plant (the seed is the active agent), he likewise does nothing to bring about God's kingdom. The mighty Word of God accomplishes its purpose, apart from human effort. And just as the seed will grow, the kingdom of God is inevitable. There is no uncertainty about the coming harvest because our optimism is based on our future hope. The mighty word is wonderful.
Dr. Philip Ryken, senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church, spoke about "The Accessible Word," affirming the truth that the Bible is meant to be understood. This is the reason the Reformers (and Wycliffe was an example) were willing, in some cases, to die so that the people could have the Scriptures in their own language. Some would argue that God is a transcendent mystery, the Scriptures are unclear, there are a variety of interpretations (so how can we know which is true?), and the Bible itself admits to being unclear (as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch). And yet the Scriptures are able to make us wise, and if the Bible is not clear, then we would have to say that God is not an effective communicator. Of course this is not the case.
The conference closed with an amazing concert with the Westminster Brass and the South Christian Madrigals (Way to go, guys!) and a final address by Dr. Duncan on "The Sufficient Word."
With so many attacks on the doctrine of Scripture from postmodernism, the emergent church movement, and those promoting the New Perspective/Federal Vision theologies, this conference was an encouragement and a reminder of how amazing our God is to entrust us with the truth of His Word. We were reminded that God does not owe us His Word, and yet in His mercy He has given it to us so that we can know Him, know His truth. There have been those in history who have been willing to die so that God's Word could be known by His people, and we must always be on guard against the attacks that will come on this priceless gift. I'm so excited for next year's conference . . .
4/22/07
Opposing Ways of Life: 1 John 2:15-17
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.
If we were to judge this passage by the headlines of this week (the Virginia Tech killings), we probably would have difficulty accepting the truth of verse 17, for it does not seem that the world and the lust of it are passing away. But in this passage, two opposing ways of life are set before us. The way of life and the way of death are contrasted.
The first contrast that John makes is in the opposite motivations behind these ways of life. Both ways are motivated by love, but of different things. The love of the world comes from our nature--it is basic to us. It is a love that everyone has. It is sinful rebellion against God. And those who are not children of God can only love the world. On the other hand, wherever there is a love for God, the love from the Father is there as well. The love of the Father stands in sharp contrast to the love of the world. The love of the Father is the same love that sent His Son, the love that saves and keeps us.
The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life also motivate those who are motivated by the love of the world. Lust is the love of the world. It is a perverted love. It is self-centered and will never satisfy. On the other hand, the love of the Father is a selfless love that satisfies. The lust of the flesh has to do with our desires, which are at enmity with God. Second Peter 2:9ff. describes this type of lust in terms of an animalistic desire that rises from the flesh. Just as an animal gorges itself, given the opportunity, so do those who love the world. The lust of the eyes is described in Genesis 3:5, where the serpent tells Eve that if she eats the forbidden fruit, her eyes will be opened and she will be like God, knowing good and evil. We see evil and we desire it, and this is opposed to Adam and Eve before sin, who had an innocence that didn't think of or desire evil. The pride of life is described in Psalm 10:2, which says that we are filled with arrogance.
It is sobering to realize that Romans 3 is a description of all of us, apart from Christ, and we must not exalt ourselves. All of us have this evil in us, and it is only by grace that we are not given over to it. Interestingly, in one discussion of the VA Tech shooter that our pastor heard this week, a commenter noted that in order for a person to become a mass murderer, he would have to dehumanize his victims and detach himself from them, becoming desensitized. Our pastor observed that one who would favor partial birth abortion (and abortion in general) does just that: he or she dehumanizes the victim, detaches him or herself from the victim and becomes desensitized to the fact that this is the destruction of a human being who (in the case of a partial birth abortion) is very nearly formed to live outside the womb.
These two groups have opposite objects of affection: the world and the Father. And finally, as verse 17 points out, they have opposite ends. Those whose object of love is the world will not stand. All that is of the world will pass away. But the person who loves the Lord and trusts in Him will stand--he or she will abide forever.
If we were to judge this passage by the headlines of this week (the Virginia Tech killings), we probably would have difficulty accepting the truth of verse 17, for it does not seem that the world and the lust of it are passing away. But in this passage, two opposing ways of life are set before us. The way of life and the way of death are contrasted.
The first contrast that John makes is in the opposite motivations behind these ways of life. Both ways are motivated by love, but of different things. The love of the world comes from our nature--it is basic to us. It is a love that everyone has. It is sinful rebellion against God. And those who are not children of God can only love the world. On the other hand, wherever there is a love for God, the love from the Father is there as well. The love of the Father stands in sharp contrast to the love of the world. The love of the Father is the same love that sent His Son, the love that saves and keeps us.
The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life also motivate those who are motivated by the love of the world. Lust is the love of the world. It is a perverted love. It is self-centered and will never satisfy. On the other hand, the love of the Father is a selfless love that satisfies. The lust of the flesh has to do with our desires, which are at enmity with God. Second Peter 2:9ff. describes this type of lust in terms of an animalistic desire that rises from the flesh. Just as an animal gorges itself, given the opportunity, so do those who love the world. The lust of the eyes is described in Genesis 3:5, where the serpent tells Eve that if she eats the forbidden fruit, her eyes will be opened and she will be like God, knowing good and evil. We see evil and we desire it, and this is opposed to Adam and Eve before sin, who had an innocence that didn't think of or desire evil. The pride of life is described in Psalm 10:2, which says that we are filled with arrogance.
It is sobering to realize that Romans 3 is a description of all of us, apart from Christ, and we must not exalt ourselves. All of us have this evil in us, and it is only by grace that we are not given over to it. Interestingly, in one discussion of the VA Tech shooter that our pastor heard this week, a commenter noted that in order for a person to become a mass murderer, he would have to dehumanize his victims and detach himself from them, becoming desensitized. Our pastor observed that one who would favor partial birth abortion (and abortion in general) does just that: he or she dehumanizes the victim, detaches him or herself from the victim and becomes desensitized to the fact that this is the destruction of a human being who (in the case of a partial birth abortion) is very nearly formed to live outside the womb.
These two groups have opposite objects of affection: the world and the Father. And finally, as verse 17 points out, they have opposite ends. Those whose object of love is the world will not stand. All that is of the world will pass away. But the person who loves the Lord and trusts in Him will stand--he or she will abide forever.
4/19/07
Some Insights
To say that it's been an interesting week in American history is a gross understatement. It's been a week that, ironically, we've seen life both valued and devalued in the most horrendous possible manner. Evil and brutality struck a college campus in Virginia, and in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Supreme Court banned what has been a legalized form of brutality--an interesting juxtaposition of events that could occur only in America. And it doesn't seem that there is much left to say about all of this, because so many have had so much to say, so I'll share with you some of the most interesting insights I've read and heard.
In his April 18 post, Al Mohler wrote about "The Dinner Party Test." He discussed a London newspaper report that indicates that there is a "crisis" in the availability of doctors willing to provide abortions in that country. A key factor contributing to this "problem" is "the dinner party test." Gynecologists who specialize in fertility treatments for childless couples have become heroes who are admired for their work--"but no one boasts of being an abortionist." Mohler points out that while everyone at a dinner party would want to talk with a doctor who helps people have babies, the reaction to someone who announces that he or she aborts babies for a living would be awkwardness and embarrassment. And those studying this situation have labeled it "the dinner party test." This is an example, Mohler explains, of "a common grace display of suppressed moral knowledge."
Another interesting comment comes from Dennis Miller, who appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, also on April 18. Miller stated that he was intrigued by Liviu Librescu, the 76-year-old aerodynamics professor who was murdered at Virginia Tech. Miller commented that Librescu, as a Holocaust survivor, had probably seen the face of evil, and he recognized it in the face of the killer that appeared at his classroom door. And he tried to stop it. But the most interesting insight from Miller is this: He believes that because young people have become numb to violence because of its prominence in video games and because of the nonjudgmental character of our society, students don't know real evil--even when "it springs up in a door at their college."
And in an ABC news special that I watched on April 17, a survival specialist observed that we are teaching our children to be too polite. We should be telling them that if they are faced with a life and death situation, they should do what they have to to survive. And in this violent society, they had better be prepared. He explained that the students who were barricading doors with their bodies would have been smarter to take their belts to form a wedge under the door. And we should tell them that anything can become a tool of survival. As an example, he picked up a computer and threw it through a window to shatter the glass, providing a means of escape.
So it would seem that in some cases, culture and civilization are factors that are working to protect life in some ways, but those same factors work against us at times when we're faced with protecting our own.
In his April 18 post, Al Mohler wrote about "The Dinner Party Test." He discussed a London newspaper report that indicates that there is a "crisis" in the availability of doctors willing to provide abortions in that country. A key factor contributing to this "problem" is "the dinner party test." Gynecologists who specialize in fertility treatments for childless couples have become heroes who are admired for their work--"but no one boasts of being an abortionist." Mohler points out that while everyone at a dinner party would want to talk with a doctor who helps people have babies, the reaction to someone who announces that he or she aborts babies for a living would be awkwardness and embarrassment. And those studying this situation have labeled it "the dinner party test." This is an example, Mohler explains, of "a common grace display of suppressed moral knowledge."
Another interesting comment comes from Dennis Miller, who appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, also on April 18. Miller stated that he was intrigued by Liviu Librescu, the 76-year-old aerodynamics professor who was murdered at Virginia Tech. Miller commented that Librescu, as a Holocaust survivor, had probably seen the face of evil, and he recognized it in the face of the killer that appeared at his classroom door. And he tried to stop it. But the most interesting insight from Miller is this: He believes that because young people have become numb to violence because of its prominence in video games and because of the nonjudgmental character of our society, students don't know real evil--even when "it springs up in a door at their college."
And in an ABC news special that I watched on April 17, a survival specialist observed that we are teaching our children to be too polite. We should be telling them that if they are faced with a life and death situation, they should do what they have to to survive. And in this violent society, they had better be prepared. He explained that the students who were barricading doors with their bodies would have been smarter to take their belts to form a wedge under the door. And we should tell them that anything can become a tool of survival. As an example, he picked up a computer and threw it through a window to shatter the glass, providing a means of escape.
So it would seem that in some cases, culture and civilization are factors that are working to protect life in some ways, but those same factors work against us at times when we're faced with protecting our own.
4/17/07
My Town
I grew up in Wauseon, Ohio, one of those all-American small towns; when people would ask where Wauseon was, we would say "about thirty-five miles west of Toledo," or it's Exit 3 on the Ohio Turnpike (now it has a different exit number). My dad grew up there, too. It was truly one of those towns where you couldn't go to the bank, grocery store, or anywhere, really, without seeing someone you knew. My sister and my paternal grandparents and other significant people from my childhood are buried in the cemetery that lies about a mile west of the downtown area. It was a great place to grow up, and even though 1980 was probably the last year I really lived there, in some ways it will always be home.
So it was sad for us to learn that in the early morning hours last Saturday, a fire began in a downtown restaurant that eventually took out most of a block in the small business district. Two dozen fire departments and about three hundred firefighters were called in to battle the blaze. At the end of the day Saturday, seven businesses were lost, and buildings that had been standing since the late nineteenth century were no more. What I knew as Waldeck's--the 5 and dime store on the corner of Main Street and Elm--was a pile of bricks and rubble.
So many wonderful memories from my past are attached to those buildings. Waldeck's was one of my favorite places; it had creaky wooden floors, toys, books, and--best of all--a glass case candy counter just inside the door where my grandma would take me for chocolate stars and jelly nougats (and the chocolate stars were for her as much as for us). Shaw's was a men's clothing store where I bought many gifts for my dad, Jon (even after I had grown up and moved away I shopped there), and probably my brother, too. The Coach Light Room was a women's clothes store where my mom and I would go and take advantage of sales; the ladies there would actually let us take clothes home "on approval" to try them on and decide if we wanted to make the purchase or not. And Hammontrees--that amazing mini-department store that had a bit of everything: print music, records, Precious Moments collectibles, housewares, and major appliances. I registered for wedding gifts there, and I still have dishes that were given to me as wedding gifts that I know were purchased there. And as recently as last fall, I spent one of those warm, memorable, "girlfriend" evenings at Doc Holliday's with my best-friend-from-high school, Julie; I hadn't been back to Wauseon in a long time, and I met Julie there with our families to spend some time together in our old stomping ground. I'm glad I did; it was the last time I would see the town I grew up in the way it looked when I was growing up.
I did shed tears--for my town, for my grandma, for Jon and my sister, for our old house, for loss in general.
And yet as news broke Monday of the massacre at Virginia Tech, I was reminded that buildings are just buildings that can be replaced by other buildings. Human life is a gift, and for those who are left behind when it is lost, there really is no replacement--only (hopefully, with time and healing) the patching of huge, gaping holes in an exercise of damage control. And the loss of a few old buildings in a small town in Ohio still was sad, but it didn't really seem as terrible anymore.
4/15/07
The Tests Passed: 1 John 2:12-14
By way of review today, our pastor reminded us what had been happening in 1 John to this point. John was writing to encourage those who were weak in their faith, those seeking assurance of their salvation. John has given his readers a series of tests that must be passed so that they may determine whether they truly know God, and these tests have made a clear distinction between a true and false confession. In this passage in chapter 2, it is as if John takes a break from the testing to address those who have passed all the tests.
He addresses several different groups in the church--little children, young men, and fathers--and commentators are at odds here about whether he is addressing specific groups or whether he is just indicating a spiritual progression. But he is writing to the church, and what he has to say here is for all of us, whether we are little children, young men, or fathers.
He addresses little children in vv. 12 and 13, but he uses two different Greek words for little children in each verse. The expression in v. 12 refers to one who is being nurtured and fed, from the womb through young adulthood. There is no specific age reference in view in v. 13. The comparison in English would be when you might ask someone who is eighty how many children he or she has. Their response, "I have four children," is not an indication of their age--no one would think this person is speaking of toddlers here--but rather the idea of progeny, one who is following another. These little children in 1 John are being discipled; they have been trained in the truth. They know the basic truth that they are forgiven, and they also know that they are loved by the Father. The knowing that is spoken of here is a deep knowing--to know with certainty, without a doubt. In verse 12 we are told that we have been forgiven for His name's sake, and this "His" refers to Jesus Christ. We are forgiven not because of anything we have done but for His name's sake.
The next group addressed is fathers. The fathers have known Him with a certain knowledge from the beginning. This "beginning" is not a time reference, eg., "I have known him since the beginning of this year." "From the beginning" is a description of Christ, the One who is from the beginning. Jesus Christ's nature is emphasized here, who He is. John has already spoken in these terms in John 1:1. There is a repeat of the phrase "you have known Him from the beginning" in v. 14, yet this is a different declaration from the statement in v. 13. This time, the antecedent of the pronoun "Him" is God the Father (cf. Isaiah 41:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13).
The third group John addresses are young men. He reminds them that they are overcomers, a theme he will revisit in 1 John 5. The child of God does not have to fear Satan overcoming him. We are, by definition, those who have overcome the evil one, and we need not live in fear or dread, as some of those claiming to be Christians fear demon possession or being defeated by Satan. We are strong: the gates of hell shall not prevail against us. The Word of God abides in us, and this means the child of God has an eternal, unbreakable relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ.
This passage is a description of the test passers, those who have professed their faith and who know Christ as their Savior.
He addresses several different groups in the church--little children, young men, and fathers--and commentators are at odds here about whether he is addressing specific groups or whether he is just indicating a spiritual progression. But he is writing to the church, and what he has to say here is for all of us, whether we are little children, young men, or fathers.
He addresses little children in vv. 12 and 13, but he uses two different Greek words for little children in each verse. The expression in v. 12 refers to one who is being nurtured and fed, from the womb through young adulthood. There is no specific age reference in view in v. 13. The comparison in English would be when you might ask someone who is eighty how many children he or she has. Their response, "I have four children," is not an indication of their age--no one would think this person is speaking of toddlers here--but rather the idea of progeny, one who is following another. These little children in 1 John are being discipled; they have been trained in the truth. They know the basic truth that they are forgiven, and they also know that they are loved by the Father. The knowing that is spoken of here is a deep knowing--to know with certainty, without a doubt. In verse 12 we are told that we have been forgiven for His name's sake, and this "His" refers to Jesus Christ. We are forgiven not because of anything we have done but for His name's sake.
The next group addressed is fathers. The fathers have known Him with a certain knowledge from the beginning. This "beginning" is not a time reference, eg., "I have known him since the beginning of this year." "From the beginning" is a description of Christ, the One who is from the beginning. Jesus Christ's nature is emphasized here, who He is. John has already spoken in these terms in John 1:1. There is a repeat of the phrase "you have known Him from the beginning" in v. 14, yet this is a different declaration from the statement in v. 13. This time, the antecedent of the pronoun "Him" is God the Father (cf. Isaiah 41:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13).
The third group John addresses are young men. He reminds them that they are overcomers, a theme he will revisit in 1 John 5. The child of God does not have to fear Satan overcoming him. We are, by definition, those who have overcome the evil one, and we need not live in fear or dread, as some of those claiming to be Christians fear demon possession or being defeated by Satan. We are strong: the gates of hell shall not prevail against us. The Word of God abides in us, and this means the child of God has an eternal, unbreakable relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ.
This passage is a description of the test passers, those who have professed their faith and who know Christ as their Savior.
4/14/07
Irony in the News
As someone who has studied literature at the collegiate level, I enjoy a good irony. This week our family has been reading the book of Esther, and we've been observing the interesting ironies that occur throughout that biblical plot. So I've noted that this week's news stories reveal some interesting ironies as well.
-->of course in one of the biggest news stories of the week, radio personality Don Imus's stupidly uttered racial slurs resulted in national furor, which resulted in advertisers pulling their ads, which resulted in CBS's firing him. I read the account of all of this on the CBS Website, and the theme of it all was, of course, moral outrage--and there should have been, I suppose. But on the same day that I was reading about all of the moral outrage over racial slurs directed at a women's basketball team, CBS also had a news story about the growing number of women who are pregnant when they get married. Most wedding dress makers now have a maternity wedding dress line. And not only was there no moral outrage expressed at this trend, the pregnant brides were being applauded in this story for not trying to hide their condition (as they once did, back in the morally "dark ages" of the early to mid-twentieth century), but rather being proud of the shapes of their pregnant bodies. The story noted that no one thinks anything anymore about a woman who has established her career in her twenties and realizes that in her thirties she needs to play "catch-up" and combines becoming a bride with becoming a mother. This means that now we can have one shower for both wedding and baby gifts! How efficient of modern women! And how twisted our culture for becoming so incensed over racial slurs but not over this cultural phenomenon that is an attack on God's clearly established laws for marriage and family.
-->Another irony for CBS: News anchor Katie Couric apparently read an essay on her daily Web journal about when she got her first library card, and within a short time was accused of plagiarizing from a New York Times columnist. While the producer who provided the material for Couric was fired, no one seems to be too upset with Couric herself. But here's my question: Didn't this experienced journalist, who has the responsibility of reporting news (truthfully?) to the American people, feel a little funny about reading an essay that started out, "I remember when I got my first library card" when, one would think, she must have been aware that the story she was reading wasn't an account of when she got her first library card?
-->This from a USA Today report:
A recent study on global warming has resulted in "a report by hundreds of scientists that [tries] to explain how global warming is changing life on Earth. The scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of their findings on global warming last Friday and outlined details of the report focusing on various regions on Tuesday." Of course there is a great deal of gloom and doom ahead for those unfortunate ones still living on the North American continent from the middle of this century on.
It's springtime here in Michigan, and this past week (in fact the past couple of weeks) it has been like Christmas, weatherwise. In fact, people at church last week were saying, "Merry Easter!" And we had a horrible snowstorm Wednesday, resulting in many churches and schools cancelling activities, and at least one local car accident with a fatality related to weather conditions. What's more, I gather that this bizarre winter weather is affecting much of the United States. Need I say more about this irony?
-->And last for today (because I probably could go on all day with news ironies), USA Today's book editors and critics have chosen the twenty-five books from the past quarter century that have made the biggest impact on readers and the book publishing world. While The Purpose Driven Life and the first book in the Left Behind series made the top twenty-five, the one Book upon which these two are in some ways based, did not make the list.
-->of course in one of the biggest news stories of the week, radio personality Don Imus's stupidly uttered racial slurs resulted in national furor, which resulted in advertisers pulling their ads, which resulted in CBS's firing him. I read the account of all of this on the CBS Website, and the theme of it all was, of course, moral outrage--and there should have been, I suppose. But on the same day that I was reading about all of the moral outrage over racial slurs directed at a women's basketball team, CBS also had a news story about the growing number of women who are pregnant when they get married. Most wedding dress makers now have a maternity wedding dress line. And not only was there no moral outrage expressed at this trend, the pregnant brides were being applauded in this story for not trying to hide their condition (as they once did, back in the morally "dark ages" of the early to mid-twentieth century), but rather being proud of the shapes of their pregnant bodies. The story noted that no one thinks anything anymore about a woman who has established her career in her twenties and realizes that in her thirties she needs to play "catch-up" and combines becoming a bride with becoming a mother. This means that now we can have one shower for both wedding and baby gifts! How efficient of modern women! And how twisted our culture for becoming so incensed over racial slurs but not over this cultural phenomenon that is an attack on God's clearly established laws for marriage and family.
-->Another irony for CBS: News anchor Katie Couric apparently read an essay on her daily Web journal about when she got her first library card, and within a short time was accused of plagiarizing from a New York Times columnist. While the producer who provided the material for Couric was fired, no one seems to be too upset with Couric herself. But here's my question: Didn't this experienced journalist, who has the responsibility of reporting news (truthfully?) to the American people, feel a little funny about reading an essay that started out, "I remember when I got my first library card" when, one would think, she must have been aware that the story she was reading wasn't an account of when she got her first library card?
-->This from a USA Today report:
A recent study on global warming has resulted in "a report by hundreds of scientists that [tries] to explain how global warming is changing life on Earth. The scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of their findings on global warming last Friday and outlined details of the report focusing on various regions on Tuesday." Of course there is a great deal of gloom and doom ahead for those unfortunate ones still living on the North American continent from the middle of this century on.
It's springtime here in Michigan, and this past week (in fact the past couple of weeks) it has been like Christmas, weatherwise. In fact, people at church last week were saying, "Merry Easter!" And we had a horrible snowstorm Wednesday, resulting in many churches and schools cancelling activities, and at least one local car accident with a fatality related to weather conditions. What's more, I gather that this bizarre winter weather is affecting much of the United States. Need I say more about this irony?
-->And last for today (because I probably could go on all day with news ironies), USA Today's book editors and critics have chosen the twenty-five books from the past quarter century that have made the biggest impact on readers and the book publishing world. While The Purpose Driven Life and the first book in the Left Behind series made the top twenty-five, the one Book upon which these two are in some ways based, did not make the list.
4/12/07
Wicked (Warning: Spoiler!)
Our spring break travels last week took us to Chicago, one of our family's favorite destinations. Katie and I had been wanting to see the musical Wicked for some time, but we hadn't been successful in convincing Jonathan that he wanted to see it. So we worked out a deal: We would take Amtrak to Chicago rather than drive if Jonathan would come with us to see the musical. And it worked out well for all involved.
Those of you out there unfamiliar with the musical theater world are probably raising your eyebrows, wondering what kind of mom would take her children to see a musical entitled Wicked. But I would recommend that anyone who enjoys theater and is looking for a good family theater experience see this musical. Wicked is in some ways a prequel to The Wizard of Oz, the untold story of the witches of Oz: Glinda the Good Witch, the Wicked Witch of the West (named Elphaba in the musical), and the Wicked Witch of the East, whose unfortunate ruby-slippered feet are sticking out from under Dorothy's house when she lands in Oz in the movie.
In the first scene, Glinda arrives in the Emerald City to restore order to the citizens, who are celebrating the death of the Wicked Witch of the West and wondering what will be next with the departure of the Wizard. The citizens begin to ask Glinda questions about Elphaba, and the audience learns that the two of them have known each other in the past, and it has been reported that Glinda and Elphaba have been friends. As Glinda begins to tell Elphaba's story, she asks, "Are people born wicked? Or do they have Wickedness thrust upon them?" And my thought was that the rest of the musical would be structured to teach us that people aren't really bad; in fact, we're all good inside. But that would be oversimplifying the clever plot that develops, with many themes woven throughout. And that isn't really the question the musical then explores, at least in the sense of whether we are innately good or evil.
The themes that are so craftily woven throughout the rest of the play touch on some of the issues plaguing society today. What qualities do we value that make us put our leaders in places of power? Why are we willing to believe whatever "spin" is put out there? And what harm comes to our culture when we do believe the spin that we read and hear? And the writers of this musical use word plays throughout: the word "good" frequently recurs in songs like "No Good Deed" and my favorite,"For Good." Interestingly, Elphaba at one point questions whether she has truly sought to do good or if she was just trying to get attention. At the end of the play, Glinda comments that she desires to rule Oz truly as Glinda the Good. And after we observe her development through the course of the musical, we believe her.
Other fun language plays have to do with the definitions we come up for words like "happy": Glinda says in song, "Happy is what happens when all your dreams come true" and then adds quietly in an aside, "Isn't it?" The Wizard tells Elphaba that "where I'm from, we believe all sorts of things that aren't true. We call it-- history." And he also tells us that truth is what we all agree upon. And that brings us back to the issue of whether Elphaba is truly wicked, or is that just the side of the story we've all been told in The Wizard of Oz?
Besides all of this fun, the musical explains things like where the flying monkeys came from; how the Tin Woodman, the Cowardly Lion, and the Scarecrow became who they are in the more familiar story; and why it was so important for the Wicked Witch of the West to get those ruby slippers back. And there are some interesting relationships between the characters that the traditional story doesn't tell us about.
Anyway, it is now my favorite musical of all time, and my fantasy role on Broadway would be to play Glinda, a soprano who is blonde, popular, spoiled, and calls her parents "Momsie and Popsicle." And that works out well, because Katie's fantasy role is now to play Elphaba. And when the touring company of Wicked comes to Lansing this summer, we hope to be there.
But that was not the end of our Windy City fun. We also had the opportunity to meet David, who frequently comments on this blog, a fellow URC member whom I met on Sovereign Grace Singles who lives in Lansing, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. It was nice to be able to put a face with a name and get to know him a little better.
We also visited the planetarium (because the lines to the aquarium and the Field Museum were way too long), went to some Michigan Avenue shops, rode the subway, and enjoyed the superior Chicago-style pizza at Giordano's. And there was yet another element this time, since we had the opportunity to visit New York last summer: the debate over which city is better, Chicago or New York. And my response: I love them both!
Those of you out there unfamiliar with the musical theater world are probably raising your eyebrows, wondering what kind of mom would take her children to see a musical entitled Wicked. But I would recommend that anyone who enjoys theater and is looking for a good family theater experience see this musical. Wicked is in some ways a prequel to The Wizard of Oz, the untold story of the witches of Oz: Glinda the Good Witch, the Wicked Witch of the West (named Elphaba in the musical), and the Wicked Witch of the East, whose unfortunate ruby-slippered feet are sticking out from under Dorothy's house when she lands in Oz in the movie.
In the first scene, Glinda arrives in the Emerald City to restore order to the citizens, who are celebrating the death of the Wicked Witch of the West and wondering what will be next with the departure of the Wizard. The citizens begin to ask Glinda questions about Elphaba, and the audience learns that the two of them have known each other in the past, and it has been reported that Glinda and Elphaba have been friends. As Glinda begins to tell Elphaba's story, she asks, "Are people born wicked? Or do they have Wickedness thrust upon them?" And my thought was that the rest of the musical would be structured to teach us that people aren't really bad; in fact, we're all good inside. But that would be oversimplifying the clever plot that develops, with many themes woven throughout. And that isn't really the question the musical then explores, at least in the sense of whether we are innately good or evil.
The themes that are so craftily woven throughout the rest of the play touch on some of the issues plaguing society today. What qualities do we value that make us put our leaders in places of power? Why are we willing to believe whatever "spin" is put out there? And what harm comes to our culture when we do believe the spin that we read and hear? And the writers of this musical use word plays throughout: the word "good" frequently recurs in songs like "No Good Deed" and my favorite,"For Good." Interestingly, Elphaba at one point questions whether she has truly sought to do good or if she was just trying to get attention. At the end of the play, Glinda comments that she desires to rule Oz truly as Glinda the Good. And after we observe her development through the course of the musical, we believe her.
Other fun language plays have to do with the definitions we come up for words like "happy": Glinda says in song, "Happy is what happens when all your dreams come true" and then adds quietly in an aside, "Isn't it?" The Wizard tells Elphaba that "where I'm from, we believe all sorts of things that aren't true. We call it-- history." And he also tells us that truth is what we all agree upon. And that brings us back to the issue of whether Elphaba is truly wicked, or is that just the side of the story we've all been told in The Wizard of Oz?
Besides all of this fun, the musical explains things like where the flying monkeys came from; how the Tin Woodman, the Cowardly Lion, and the Scarecrow became who they are in the more familiar story; and why it was so important for the Wicked Witch of the West to get those ruby slippers back. And there are some interesting relationships between the characters that the traditional story doesn't tell us about.
Anyway, it is now my favorite musical of all time, and my fantasy role on Broadway would be to play Glinda, a soprano who is blonde, popular, spoiled, and calls her parents "Momsie and Popsicle." And that works out well, because Katie's fantasy role is now to play Elphaba. And when the touring company of Wicked comes to Lansing this summer, we hope to be there.
But that was not the end of our Windy City fun. We also had the opportunity to meet David, who frequently comments on this blog, a fellow URC member whom I met on Sovereign Grace Singles who lives in Lansing, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. It was nice to be able to put a face with a name and get to know him a little better.
We also visited the planetarium (because the lines to the aquarium and the Field Museum were way too long), went to some Michigan Avenue shops, rode the subway, and enjoyed the superior Chicago-style pizza at Giordano's. And there was yet another element this time, since we had the opportunity to visit New York last summer: the debate over which city is better, Chicago or New York. And my response: I love them both!
4/10/07
In Memory
Today is the eleventh anniversary of the death of Jonathan Selden, my late husband and Katie and Jonathan's dad. He died after a year-and-a-half battle with leukemia at the age of thirty-five. The following is an excerpt from a journal that he kept during his illness, and he wrote these words on December 17, 1994, just four days after learning of his diagnosis:
After [the doctor who had informed me of my illness] left my thoughts returned to Annette and our children. I think of the covenant promises, I think of the promise to Israel of living long in the land. I think of the Psalmist, in Psalm 127 for example, describing many children as a blessing from the Lord. I think of the many references to "your children's children." I also remember the verse from the book of Hebrews, one that captured my attention since my college days, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." The doctor said that my singular goal was remission. Thankfully, through the shedding of Christ's blood I have already, before the foundations of the world were laid, received remission for my sin. "I will praise the Lord with my mouth, with all that is within me I will praise His wonderful name."
Before ever this problem of leukemia began, God had already prepared for me a solution. Nevertheless, I must get through this problem, this leukemia, this cancer. I must cling to the promises of my solution, my Redeemer, of the remission of all my sins.
Not having been brought up in the study of the Reformed catechism my memory cannot easily serve me with large portions of its comforting content. Yet there is one section of this catechism which is both part and parcel, theme and content, form and function for the entire Heidelberg Catechism, question and answer of Lord's Day One, that I freely recall at this moment. And it is truly a comfort to me in my time of need.
Q. What is your only comfort in life and death?
A. That I am not my own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.
He has fully paid for all my sins with His precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil.
He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed all things must work together for my salvation.
Therefore, by His Holy Spirit He also assures me of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for Him.
After [the doctor who had informed me of my illness] left my thoughts returned to Annette and our children. I think of the covenant promises, I think of the promise to Israel of living long in the land. I think of the Psalmist, in Psalm 127 for example, describing many children as a blessing from the Lord. I think of the many references to "your children's children." I also remember the verse from the book of Hebrews, one that captured my attention since my college days, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." The doctor said that my singular goal was remission. Thankfully, through the shedding of Christ's blood I have already, before the foundations of the world were laid, received remission for my sin. "I will praise the Lord with my mouth, with all that is within me I will praise His wonderful name."
Before ever this problem of leukemia began, God had already prepared for me a solution. Nevertheless, I must get through this problem, this leukemia, this cancer. I must cling to the promises of my solution, my Redeemer, of the remission of all my sins.
Not having been brought up in the study of the Reformed catechism my memory cannot easily serve me with large portions of its comforting content. Yet there is one section of this catechism which is both part and parcel, theme and content, form and function for the entire Heidelberg Catechism, question and answer of Lord's Day One, that I freely recall at this moment. And it is truly a comfort to me in my time of need.
Q. What is your only comfort in life and death?
A. That I am not my own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.
He has fully paid for all my sins with His precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil.
He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed all things must work together for my salvation.
Therefore, by His Holy Spirit He also assures me of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for Him.
4/8/07
Resurrection Power: Acts 2:22-32
This week's sermon was actually the third preached in a series on Peter's Pentecost sermon in Acts 2. The first one was preached on Palm Sunday, the second on Good Friday, and the third today: Resurrection Sunday.
In introductory comments, our pastor reminded us that the final word in Peter's sermon is not death--it is the saving of man by God, which is tied to the resurrection. Peter points out that Christ's resurrection has overcome death; God raised Christ up because He overcame the power of death. The pain of death was loosed, which could also be translated dissolved, not binding, null and void. In Christ's resurrection, death was reversed, undone. Because of who Christ is and what He did, it was not possible for Him to be held by death. For three days there was the sleep of death but not the curse of death.
Peter quotes from Psalm 16, where David talks about Christ, the Holy One of Israel. Verse 27 says, "For You will not leave My soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption." This is not a reference to the resurrection; rather, it is in reference to the time after Christ says from the cross, "It is finished." This is a further statement that death can't hold Christ. Through the resurrection, Christ's body/soul relation was restored, and this verse in particular tells us that Christ's body did not see corruption. As part of the curse, when we die, our bodies turn to dust and decay. But even in the grave, Christ's body is called the Holy One of Israel; His personhood is identified with both His body and soul. Had Christ's body seen corruption, death would not have been defeated, and there would be no forgiveness of sins. Jesus rose from the dead--body and soul. And despite those who speculate about the nature of Christ's resurrection, we must believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ in order to be a Christian.
Resurrection power comes from God; everything happened according to God's preordained plan (v. 23), and God was the active agent of Christ's resurrection (v. 24a).
This resurrection power now gives us confidence. What has been accomplished by Christ will be experienced by His people. We can face life and death differently, because in Jesus Christ, our death has been loosed from the pains of death. We are not under the curse of God, and we have joy in the presence of God, both in life and death. Both present protection and future deliverance are ours in God.
In introductory comments, our pastor reminded us that the final word in Peter's sermon is not death--it is the saving of man by God, which is tied to the resurrection. Peter points out that Christ's resurrection has overcome death; God raised Christ up because He overcame the power of death. The pain of death was loosed, which could also be translated dissolved, not binding, null and void. In Christ's resurrection, death was reversed, undone. Because of who Christ is and what He did, it was not possible for Him to be held by death. For three days there was the sleep of death but not the curse of death.
Peter quotes from Psalm 16, where David talks about Christ, the Holy One of Israel. Verse 27 says, "For You will not leave My soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption." This is not a reference to the resurrection; rather, it is in reference to the time after Christ says from the cross, "It is finished." This is a further statement that death can't hold Christ. Through the resurrection, Christ's body/soul relation was restored, and this verse in particular tells us that Christ's body did not see corruption. As part of the curse, when we die, our bodies turn to dust and decay. But even in the grave, Christ's body is called the Holy One of Israel; His personhood is identified with both His body and soul. Had Christ's body seen corruption, death would not have been defeated, and there would be no forgiveness of sins. Jesus rose from the dead--body and soul. And despite those who speculate about the nature of Christ's resurrection, we must believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ in order to be a Christian.
Resurrection power comes from God; everything happened according to God's preordained plan (v. 23), and God was the active agent of Christ's resurrection (v. 24a).
This resurrection power now gives us confidence. What has been accomplished by Christ will be experienced by His people. We can face life and death differently, because in Jesus Christ, our death has been loosed from the pains of death. We are not under the curse of God, and we have joy in the presence of God, both in life and death. Both present protection and future deliverance are ours in God.
4/4/07
By His Suffering and Resurrection
Here is a beautiful explanation of Christ's sufferings:
From the beginning of [Christ's] incarnation to the end of His life on earth, He bore for us the wrath of God, under which we should have perished eternally. By His perfect obedience He has fulfilled for us all the righteousness of God's law. He did so especially when the weight of our sins and the wrath of God pressed out of Him the bloody sweat in the garden of Gethsemane. There He was bound that He might free us from our sins. He suffered countless insults that we might never be put to shame. He was innocently condemned to death that we might be acquitted at the judgment seat of God. He even let His blessed body be nailed to the cross that we might cancel the bond which stood against us because of our sins. By all this He has taken our curse upon Himself that He might fill us with His blessing. On the cross He humbled Himself, in body and soul, to the very deepest shame and agony of hell. Then He called out with a loud voice, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' that we might be accepted by God and never more be forsaken by Him. Finally, by His death and the shedding of His blood, He confirmed the new and eternal testament, the covenant of grace, when He said, 'It is finished.'
~Form for the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, Book of Praise, Anglo-Genevan Psalter
Q. How does Christ's resurrection benefit us?
A. First, by His resurrection He has overcome death, so that He could make us share in the righteousness which He had obtained for us by His death.
Second, by His power we too are raised up to a new life.
Third, Christ's resurrection is to us a sure pledge of our glorious resurrection.
~Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 17
And for some excellent instruction on the celebration of church holidays, click on this link:
http://www.oceansideurc.org/journal
From the beginning of [Christ's] incarnation to the end of His life on earth, He bore for us the wrath of God, under which we should have perished eternally. By His perfect obedience He has fulfilled for us all the righteousness of God's law. He did so especially when the weight of our sins and the wrath of God pressed out of Him the bloody sweat in the garden of Gethsemane. There He was bound that He might free us from our sins. He suffered countless insults that we might never be put to shame. He was innocently condemned to death that we might be acquitted at the judgment seat of God. He even let His blessed body be nailed to the cross that we might cancel the bond which stood against us because of our sins. By all this He has taken our curse upon Himself that He might fill us with His blessing. On the cross He humbled Himself, in body and soul, to the very deepest shame and agony of hell. Then He called out with a loud voice, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' that we might be accepted by God and never more be forsaken by Him. Finally, by His death and the shedding of His blood, He confirmed the new and eternal testament, the covenant of grace, when He said, 'It is finished.'
~Form for the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, Book of Praise, Anglo-Genevan Psalter
Q. How does Christ's resurrection benefit us?
A. First, by His resurrection He has overcome death, so that He could make us share in the righteousness which He had obtained for us by His death.
Second, by His power we too are raised up to a new life.
Third, Christ's resurrection is to us a sure pledge of our glorious resurrection.
~Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 17
And for some excellent instruction on the celebration of church holidays, click on this link:
http://www.oceansideurc.org/journal
4/1/07
The Fellowship of the Saints: 1 John 2:7-11
We did have a Palm Sunday message this morning from Acts 2:14-28, where Peter is preaching that great Pentecost gospel sermon. And if you want to know more about that one (an excellent sermon), you can check it out on the Bethany URC Website.
This afternoon's sermon took us back to 1 John 2, where the focus is on the life that is given to the child of God who is living in obedience. Again, John states no specific command here; rather, he tells us how we will live when we know God and walk in the light. This passage follows the passages on knowing and loving God, and this follows the pattern of the Ten Commandments: the first four commandments have to do with our relationship to God, and the last six deal with our relationships with others. When we abide in Him, this will affect our relationships with our brothers and sisters.
People talk about love all the time in our culture today, but usually they are speaking of a perversion of what is genuine, biblical love. One example of this type of perversion occurs when we speak of being in love in terms of the freedom to commit sexual immorality. If we truly love, if we are abiding in Him, we will keep His commandments, and His commandments tell us adultery is sinful. So there can be no genuine love in a sexually immoral relationship. True love is restored in Christ, and this is no emotional response. A description of true love is given in 1 Corinthians 13.
John tells us he is not writing a new command, but rather a command that has been with us from the beginning. The command to love one another is not a brand new command. We see the command to love being disobeyed as early as with Cain and Abel, where Cain hated his brother, with the end result being murder. In Leviticus 19:17-18 we are told not to hate our brothers in our hearts. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves. This command to love is continued in the New Testament in John 13:34, where we are told to love one another as Christ has loved us. This is a sacrificial type of love.
If we are abiding in Him, we cannot abandon the love Christ has placed in our hearts. Those who have been transformed by Christ cannot hate their brother and sister and be in the light at the same time. Again, John gives us the test, and this can be summed up with the five D's from last week: 1. Can we discern the difference between love and hate? 2. Do we genuinely desire to love? 3. Are we developing and growing in love? 4. Do we delight in loving others? 5. Do we have a deep dissatisfaction with ourselves when we do not love as we ought?
If we hate, we cannot be in the light; we cannot seek the destruction of another and be a Christian. However, the one who loves his brother abides in the light. He experiences no stumbling. Because he is in the light, he is able to avoid all obstacles that might cause him to stumble. For the Christian, the love that God has poured out on us is His blessing, enabling us to walk in confidence, avoiding all obstacles.
This afternoon's sermon took us back to 1 John 2, where the focus is on the life that is given to the child of God who is living in obedience. Again, John states no specific command here; rather, he tells us how we will live when we know God and walk in the light. This passage follows the passages on knowing and loving God, and this follows the pattern of the Ten Commandments: the first four commandments have to do with our relationship to God, and the last six deal with our relationships with others. When we abide in Him, this will affect our relationships with our brothers and sisters.
People talk about love all the time in our culture today, but usually they are speaking of a perversion of what is genuine, biblical love. One example of this type of perversion occurs when we speak of being in love in terms of the freedom to commit sexual immorality. If we truly love, if we are abiding in Him, we will keep His commandments, and His commandments tell us adultery is sinful. So there can be no genuine love in a sexually immoral relationship. True love is restored in Christ, and this is no emotional response. A description of true love is given in 1 Corinthians 13.
John tells us he is not writing a new command, but rather a command that has been with us from the beginning. The command to love one another is not a brand new command. We see the command to love being disobeyed as early as with Cain and Abel, where Cain hated his brother, with the end result being murder. In Leviticus 19:17-18 we are told not to hate our brothers in our hearts. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves. This command to love is continued in the New Testament in John 13:34, where we are told to love one another as Christ has loved us. This is a sacrificial type of love.
If we are abiding in Him, we cannot abandon the love Christ has placed in our hearts. Those who have been transformed by Christ cannot hate their brother and sister and be in the light at the same time. Again, John gives us the test, and this can be summed up with the five D's from last week: 1. Can we discern the difference between love and hate? 2. Do we genuinely desire to love? 3. Are we developing and growing in love? 4. Do we delight in loving others? 5. Do we have a deep dissatisfaction with ourselves when we do not love as we ought?
If we hate, we cannot be in the light; we cannot seek the destruction of another and be a Christian. However, the one who loves his brother abides in the light. He experiences no stumbling. Because he is in the light, he is able to avoid all obstacles that might cause him to stumble. For the Christian, the love that God has poured out on us is His blessing, enabling us to walk in confidence, avoiding all obstacles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)