come to think of it, i am not sure that the phrase 'justification by faith alone' is even in Scripture. in fact, it is clear from Scripture that 'a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone' (James 2:24, NIV). the phrase 'justification by faith alone' is not only not biblical, it is actually unbiblical.
for that matter, i am not sure that the phrase 'faith alone' is even in Scripture either. it appears to have gained currency as one of the five* sola constructs of the reformation. however, just because something is part of the reformation does not necessarily mean it is true.
ironically, luther - in defending 'justification by faith alone' - did not consider the book of James to be Scripture, thus undermining the very idea of 'Scripture alone'.
i am not saying that we should not have 'faith in Christ alone'. indeed, we should have 'faith in Christ alone'. i am saying that we should not have 'faith alone in Christ'. the point is that faith is never alone. it is always accompanied by works - that is, works of faith (the New Covenant), not works of law (the Old Covenant).
salvation, by grace, through faith, made complete by works
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works [of law] so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)
Ephesians 2:9 is not saying that we are not saved by works per se. indeed, we are saved by works (of faith). Ephesians 2:9 is saying that we are not saved by works (of law).
how do we know that we are saved by works (of faith)?
"For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works [of faith], which God prepared in advance for us to do." - Ephesians 2:10 (NIV)
*sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola Christus (Christ alone) and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone)
Tuesday 29 July 2008
Sunday 27 July 2008
new perspectives on paul
after spending some time at the unofficial n.t. wright page, i am seriously exploring new perspectives on paul.
i always thought that 'justification by faith alone' meant that 'all who BELIEVE are saved'. however, it might actually be that 'ALL who believe are saved'. this cuts right to the heart of the gospel. it makes a world of difference, literally.
all who BELIEVE are saved
saying that 'justification by faith alone' means that 'all who BELIEVE are saved' implies that we are saved simply by believing. however, it is clear from Scripture that 'a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone' (James 2:24, NIV).
in other words, we are not saved simply by believing and living happily ever after. rather, we are saved by believing and living according to the will of God.
ALL who believe are saved
saying that 'justification by faith alone' means that 'ALL who believe are saved' emphasises that whenever paul talks about 'justification by faith alone' vs 'justification by the law', it is always in the context of the gospel being for both Jews and Gentiles - not just the Jews.
"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." - Romans 3:21-24 (NIV)
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." - Galatians 3:26-29 (NIV)
to this end, 'justification by faith alone' vs 'justification by the law' is not so much 'faith' vs 'law', as it is 'faith + works of faith' vs 'law + works of law'. paul opposes the Jews not because they sought works per se, but because they sought works of law - thinking that the Old Covenant (which excluded the Gentiles*) was still in force.
*from service, not salvation
so what's the difference?
the heart of the gospel is not that 'all who BELIEVE are saved'. this cheapens faith, grace and ultimately the gospel itself.
the heart of the gospel is that 'ALL who believe are saved'. this resonates so much more deeply with unlimited atonement, global missions and unity in the body of Christ.
i always thought that 'justification by faith alone' meant that 'all who BELIEVE are saved'. however, it might actually be that 'ALL who believe are saved'. this cuts right to the heart of the gospel. it makes a world of difference, literally.
all who BELIEVE are saved
saying that 'justification by faith alone' means that 'all who BELIEVE are saved' implies that we are saved simply by believing. however, it is clear from Scripture that 'a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone' (James 2:24, NIV).
in other words, we are not saved simply by believing and living happily ever after. rather, we are saved by believing and living according to the will of God.
ALL who believe are saved
saying that 'justification by faith alone' means that 'ALL who believe are saved' emphasises that whenever paul talks about 'justification by faith alone' vs 'justification by the law', it is always in the context of the gospel being for both Jews and Gentiles - not just the Jews.
"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." - Romans 3:21-24 (NIV)
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." - Galatians 3:26-29 (NIV)
to this end, 'justification by faith alone' vs 'justification by the law' is not so much 'faith' vs 'law', as it is 'faith + works of faith' vs 'law + works of law'. paul opposes the Jews not because they sought works per se, but because they sought works of law - thinking that the Old Covenant (which excluded the Gentiles*) was still in force.
*from service, not salvation
so what's the difference?
the heart of the gospel is not that 'all who BELIEVE are saved'. this cheapens faith, grace and ultimately the gospel itself.
the heart of the gospel is that 'ALL who believe are saved'. this resonates so much more deeply with unlimited atonement, global missions and unity in the body of Christ.
busy but free
the christian life is full of puzzles and paradoxes.
"But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first." - Matthew 19:30 (NIV)
"For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." - Matthew 23:12 (NIV)
"For when I am weak, then I am strong." - 2 Corinthians 12:10b (NIV)
chosen but free
"If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." - John 7:17 (NIV)
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit - fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name." - John 15:16 (NIV)
do we choose God? or does God choose us? i would say that God chooses that those who choose Him are chosen for salvation. at the same time, God chooses that those who do not choose Him are not chosen for salvation.
just because those who choose God are chosen by God does not mean that those who do not choose God are not chosen by God. indeed, those who do not choose God are also chosen by God. it is just that those who do not choose God are chosen by God for service and not salvation, while those who choose God are chosen by God for service and salvation.
"You will certainly carry out God's purpose, however you act, but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John." - C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
busy but free
this coming week will be pretty packed. apart from work (at prison headquarters in changi), i will be going for guys fellowship at howard's house on mon, don carson at st. andrew's cathedral from tue to thu, prayer meeting at kprbc on fri and april's baptism at arpc on sat.
at the end of the day, being free to busy yourself with what you do not want to do is no freedom at all. being free to busy yourself with what you want to do is true freedom.
"But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first." - Matthew 19:30 (NIV)
"For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." - Matthew 23:12 (NIV)
"For when I am weak, then I am strong." - 2 Corinthians 12:10b (NIV)
chosen but free
"If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." - John 7:17 (NIV)
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit - fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name." - John 15:16 (NIV)
do we choose God? or does God choose us? i would say that God chooses that those who choose Him are chosen for salvation. at the same time, God chooses that those who do not choose Him are not chosen for salvation.
just because those who choose God are chosen by God does not mean that those who do not choose God are not chosen by God. indeed, those who do not choose God are also chosen by God. it is just that those who do not choose God are chosen by God for service and not salvation, while those who choose God are chosen by God for service and salvation.
"You will certainly carry out God's purpose, however you act, but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John." - C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
busy but free
this coming week will be pretty packed. apart from work (at prison headquarters in changi), i will be going for guys fellowship at howard's house on mon, don carson at st. andrew's cathedral from tue to thu, prayer meeting at kprbc on fri and april's baptism at arpc on sat.
at the end of the day, being free to busy yourself with what you do not want to do is no freedom at all. being free to busy yourself with what you want to do is true freedom.
Sunday 20 July 2008
new perspectives on prisons
in new perspectives on paul, n.t. wright holds that 'justification' is not about how someone gets in to God's people, but about God's declaration that someone is in. i agree.
'justification' and 'justification by faith' are two different things. 'justification' is the verdict which will be reaffirmed in the future (ie. God's declaration that someone is in), while 'justification by faith' is the anticipation in the present of the verdict which will be reaffirmed in the future ('faith' being the anticipation in the present).
'justification by faith' does not mean that we are 'justified' for eternity ('justification' means that we are 'justified' for eternity). 'justification by faith' means that we are 'justified' for eternity insofar as we live 'by faith' in the present. of course, genuine faith is that which perseveres until the present gives way to eternity.
the point is that 'justification by faith' is not about going to heaven in the future. 'justification by faith' is about being in heaven in the present - insofar as we live by faith.
in the same vein, life on earth does not prevent us from storing up treasures in heaven. in fact, life on earth is the very means by which we store up treasures in heaven - insofar as we live by faith.
insofar as we live by faith, we live according to the will of God. insofar as we do not live by faith, we live in sin, for 'everything that does not come from faith is sin' (Romans 14:23b, NIV). insofar as we live in sin (by continuing to sin in the present and/or by harbouring unconfessed sin from the past), we have no assurance that we are saved. indeed, we may very well not be saved.
faith - 'being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see' (Hebrews 11:1, NIV) - is only as genuine as the last confession and repentance of sin.
new perspectives on prisons
a prisoner to sin is only 'justified' on the day of God's judgment. however, a prisoner to sin is 'justified by faith' from the moment he makes a conscious decision to live by faith, to live according to the will of God. to this end, the process of sanctification begins on earth (justification by faith-sanctification-justification).
a prisoner is only 'released' on the day of his release. however, a prisoner is 'released by faith' from the moment he makes a conscious decision to rehab, renew and restart. to this end, the process of rehabilitation begins in prison (release by faith-rehabilitation-release).
waiting for a prisoner to be released before beginning the process of rehabilitation is like waiting for a prisoner to sin to be judged before beginning the process of sanctification. there is no such thing.
'justification' and 'justification by faith' are two different things. 'justification' is the verdict which will be reaffirmed in the future (ie. God's declaration that someone is in), while 'justification by faith' is the anticipation in the present of the verdict which will be reaffirmed in the future ('faith' being the anticipation in the present).
'justification by faith' does not mean that we are 'justified' for eternity ('justification' means that we are 'justified' for eternity). 'justification by faith' means that we are 'justified' for eternity insofar as we live 'by faith' in the present. of course, genuine faith is that which perseveres until the present gives way to eternity.
the point is that 'justification by faith' is not about going to heaven in the future. 'justification by faith' is about being in heaven in the present - insofar as we live by faith.
in the same vein, life on earth does not prevent us from storing up treasures in heaven. in fact, life on earth is the very means by which we store up treasures in heaven - insofar as we live by faith.
insofar as we live by faith, we live according to the will of God. insofar as we do not live by faith, we live in sin, for 'everything that does not come from faith is sin' (Romans 14:23b, NIV). insofar as we live in sin (by continuing to sin in the present and/or by harbouring unconfessed sin from the past), we have no assurance that we are saved. indeed, we may very well not be saved.
faith - 'being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see' (Hebrews 11:1, NIV) - is only as genuine as the last confession and repentance of sin.
new perspectives on prisons
a prisoner to sin is only 'justified' on the day of God's judgment. however, a prisoner to sin is 'justified by faith' from the moment he makes a conscious decision to live by faith, to live according to the will of God. to this end, the process of sanctification begins on earth (justification by faith-sanctification-justification).
a prisoner is only 'released' on the day of his release. however, a prisoner is 'released by faith' from the moment he makes a conscious decision to rehab, renew and restart. to this end, the process of rehabilitation begins in prison (release by faith-rehabilitation-release).
waiting for a prisoner to be released before beginning the process of rehabilitation is like waiting for a prisoner to sin to be judged before beginning the process of sanctification. there is no such thing.
Saturday 12 July 2008
prison break
imagine a prison holding 100 prisoners in 100 pitch black cells (100 being an arbitrary number).
having grown accustomed to his own pitch black cell (indeed, having been born in his own pitch black cell), each prisoner does not realise that he is in prison.
the only way out for each prisoner is through his own locked cell door, which incidentally blocks off all light and keeps each prisoner from realising that he is in prison.
how is he going to escape? stay tuned to find out.
the greatest prison break in history
the prison represents sin, the prisoners represent sinful man and the prison officer represents God. the master key which unlocks all the cells is the death of Christ on the cross.
calvinism
the prison officer unlocks 50 out of the 100 cells (50 again being an arbitrary number). the prison officer then grabs the 50 prisoners and drags them out of their respective cells, into the light.
what about the other 50 prisoners?
arminianism
the prison officer knocks on the door of each cell and asks each prisoner whether he wants to escape. the prison officer then unlocks the cells of those who say they want to escape (not that prison officers help prisoners to escape in real life).
the problem with this is that even when the prison officer knocks on the door of each cell, each prisoner does not realise that he is in prison. in complete darkness (ie. being totally depraved), he simply cannot say whether he wants to escape, because he does not even know that he needs to escape.
geisler's 'chosen but free'
the prison officer unlocks all the cells and flings open all the doors, flooding all the cells with light - except for the shadows of the prisoners. having seen the light, each prisoner is then free to either step out into the light or remain in his own shadow.
as geisler puts it, election is 'unconditional for God and conditional for man' (the sole condition being faith in Christ alone).
Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature's night
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light
My chains fell off, my heart was free
I rose, went forth and followed Thee
My chains fell off, my heart was free
I rose, went forth and followed Thee
links: why i am not a (classical) calvinist (19 aug 08), ord loh! (3 mar 09)
having grown accustomed to his own pitch black cell (indeed, having been born in his own pitch black cell), each prisoner does not realise that he is in prison.
the only way out for each prisoner is through his own locked cell door, which incidentally blocks off all light and keeps each prisoner from realising that he is in prison.
how is he going to escape? stay tuned to find out.
the greatest prison break in history
the prison represents sin, the prisoners represent sinful man and the prison officer represents God. the master key which unlocks all the cells is the death of Christ on the cross.
calvinism
the prison officer unlocks 50 out of the 100 cells (50 again being an arbitrary number). the prison officer then grabs the 50 prisoners and drags them out of their respective cells, into the light.
what about the other 50 prisoners?
arminianism
the prison officer knocks on the door of each cell and asks each prisoner whether he wants to escape. the prison officer then unlocks the cells of those who say they want to escape (not that prison officers help prisoners to escape in real life).
the problem with this is that even when the prison officer knocks on the door of each cell, each prisoner does not realise that he is in prison. in complete darkness (ie. being totally depraved), he simply cannot say whether he wants to escape, because he does not even know that he needs to escape.
geisler's 'chosen but free'
the prison officer unlocks all the cells and flings open all the doors, flooding all the cells with light - except for the shadows of the prisoners. having seen the light, each prisoner is then free to either step out into the light or remain in his own shadow.
as geisler puts it, election is 'unconditional for God and conditional for man' (the sole condition being faith in Christ alone).
Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature's night
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light
My chains fell off, my heart was free
I rose, went forth and followed Thee
My chains fell off, my heart was free
I rose, went forth and followed Thee
links: why i am not a (classical) calvinist (19 aug 08), ord loh! (3 mar 09)
Friday 11 July 2008
the doctrine of election (revised)
unconditional election
according to wikipedia, 'unconditional election is the calvinist teaching that before God created the world, He chose to save some people according to His own purposes and apart from any conditions related to those persons'.
however, the calvinist view of unconditional election is not unconditional. if God loves all sinners in exactly the same way, He simply cannot choose to save some but not others. i am not appealing to our own merit (indeed, we have none), but God's unconditional love.
therefore, the calvinist view of unconditional election is false (and i am coming out of the calvinist closet).
conditional election
on the other hand, 'conditional election is the belief that God chooses, for eternal salvation, those who He foresees will have faith in Christ'.
the arminian view of conditional election
the arminian view of conditional election takes it to mean that God chooses, for eternal salvation, BASED ON those who He foresees will have faith in Christ.
in other words, God only loves those who He foresees will love Him. in other words, God's love is premised on those who He foresees will love Him. in other words, God's love is conditional.
this is patently unbiblical. it is clear from Scripture that 'we love because He first loved us' (1 John 4:19, NIV), not 'God loves because we first loved Him' (what?).
therefore, the arminian view of conditional election is false.
geisler's view of conditional election
geisler's view of conditional election (which he unpacks in 'chosen but free') takes it to mean that God chooses THAT those who He foresees will have faith in Christ will be eternally saved. at the same time, God also chooses THAT those who He foresees will not have faith in Christ will not be eternally saved.
God's love is unconditional. God loves all sinners in exactly the same way, 'that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life' (John 3:16, NIV). of course, whether we choose to accept or reject God's unconditional love is a different story.
the question is not why God only loves some (God does not only love some). the question is why only some love God. as geisler puts it, election is 'unconditional for God and conditional for man' (the sole condition being faith in Christ alone).
therefore, geisler's view of conditional election is true (not that it is about geisler).
*****
God is love, and even when we choose to reject Him, His unconditional love for us remains faithful (not because of who we are, but because of who He is). it is just that when we choose to reject Him, His unconditional love for us is expressed as divine justice.
according to wikipedia, 'unconditional election is the calvinist teaching that before God created the world, He chose to save some people according to His own purposes and apart from any conditions related to those persons'.
however, the calvinist view of unconditional election is not unconditional. if God loves all sinners in exactly the same way, He simply cannot choose to save some but not others. i am not appealing to our own merit (indeed, we have none), but God's unconditional love.
therefore, the calvinist view of unconditional election is false (and i am coming out of the calvinist closet).
conditional election
on the other hand, 'conditional election is the belief that God chooses, for eternal salvation, those who He foresees will have faith in Christ'.
the arminian view of conditional election
the arminian view of conditional election takes it to mean that God chooses, for eternal salvation, BASED ON those who He foresees will have faith in Christ.
in other words, God only loves those who He foresees will love Him. in other words, God's love is premised on those who He foresees will love Him. in other words, God's love is conditional.
this is patently unbiblical. it is clear from Scripture that 'we love because He first loved us' (1 John 4:19, NIV), not 'God loves because we first loved Him' (what?).
therefore, the arminian view of conditional election is false.
geisler's view of conditional election
geisler's view of conditional election (which he unpacks in 'chosen but free') takes it to mean that God chooses THAT those who He foresees will have faith in Christ will be eternally saved. at the same time, God also chooses THAT those who He foresees will not have faith in Christ will not be eternally saved.
God's love is unconditional. God loves all sinners in exactly the same way, 'that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life' (John 3:16, NIV). of course, whether we choose to accept or reject God's unconditional love is a different story.
the question is not why God only loves some (God does not only love some). the question is why only some love God. as geisler puts it, election is 'unconditional for God and conditional for man' (the sole condition being faith in Christ alone).
therefore, geisler's view of conditional election is true (not that it is about geisler).
*****
God is love, and even when we choose to reject Him, His unconditional love for us remains faithful (not because of who we are, but because of who He is). it is just that when we choose to reject Him, His unconditional love for us is expressed as divine justice.
Thursday 10 July 2008
desiring God
Consider this question: In view of God's infinite power and wisdom and beauty, what would His love for a human being involve? Or to put it another way: What could God give us to enjoy that would prove Him most loving? There is only one possible answer: Himself! If He withholds Himself from our contemplation and companionship, no matter what else He gives us, He is not loving.
- John Piper, Desiring God
amen!
*****
however, this is not what classical calvinism believes. according to classical calvinism, only some are unconditionally elected. only some have their sins atoned for. only some are shown irresistible grace. in other words, God withholds Himself from the contemplation and companionship of some.
what?
- John Piper, Desiring God
amen!
*****
however, this is not what classical calvinism believes. according to classical calvinism, only some are unconditionally elected. only some have their sins atoned for. only some are shown irresistible grace. in other words, God withholds Himself from the contemplation and companionship of some.
what?
Wednesday 9 July 2008
the grand weaver
each of our free choices gives rise to a possible world. for example, if i can choose between A and B and you can choose between A and B, then we have four possible worlds (i choose A, you choose A; i choose A, you choose B; i choose B, you choose A; i choose B, you choose B).
in theory, there are an infinite number of possible worlds.
*****
God created the world to reflect His glory. more precisely, God chose to create this particular world - the world in which we are living in right now - out of the infinite number of possible worlds which He could have chosen to create, because this particular world reflects His glory more than any other possible world.
if any other possible world could reflect God's glory more than this particular world, then God would have chosen to create that other possible world instead. indeed, if not creating a world at all could reflect God's glory more than creating this particular world, then God would have chosen not to create a world at all instead.
*****
each of our free choices gives rise to a possible world.
God chose to create this particular world - the world we are living in right now - out of the infinite number of possible worlds which He could have chosen to create.
therefore, we are chosen but free.
in theory, there are an infinite number of possible worlds.
*****
God created the world to reflect His glory. more precisely, God chose to create this particular world - the world in which we are living in right now - out of the infinite number of possible worlds which He could have chosen to create, because this particular world reflects His glory more than any other possible world.
if any other possible world could reflect God's glory more than this particular world, then God would have chosen to create that other possible world instead. indeed, if not creating a world at all could reflect God's glory more than creating this particular world, then God would have chosen not to create a world at all instead.
*****
each of our free choices gives rise to a possible world.
God chose to create this particular world - the world we are living in right now - out of the infinite number of possible worlds which He could have chosen to create.
therefore, we are chosen but free.
Monday 7 July 2008
tripartism in real life
tripartism is more than the relationship between employers, workers and the government (as we learn in social studies). it is the essence of our existence.
God
as the opening statement of the uccf doctrinal basis affirms, 'there is one God in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit'. this is pretty straightforward stuff. to deny the trinity would be to deny the 'central dogma of christian theology' (the oxford dictionary of the christian church, 2005).
man
one of the debates in the philosophy of mind is between substance monism and substance dualism. substance monists would argue that man is merely a body, while substance dualists would contend that man is both a body and a soul.
however, it is clear from Scripture that man is not merely a body, or even both a body and a soul. rather, man exists in body, soul and spirit; in the image of a triune God.
"May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." - 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NIV)
the earthly tabernacle
as roy reinhold explains in his article, new vs old covenant, the earthly tabernacle represents tripartite mankind. the Most Holy Place (Exodus 26:33) represents the spirit, the Holy Place (Exodus 26:33) represents the soul and the courtyard (Exodus 27:9) represents the body.
the greater and more perfect tabernacle
within the Godhead, the Father is the spirit, the Spirit is the soul and the Son is the body (the Word become flesh). this is why we pray to the Father, by the Spirit and through the Son.
"When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" - Hebrews 9:11-14 (NIV)
relationships
"Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple." - 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (NIV)
"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body." - 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (NIV)
not only are we created in the image of God; our bodies are the very temples (earthly tabernacles) of God. how now shall we live?
relationship with God
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." - Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (NIV)
just as the spirit (the Father), soul (the Spirit) and body (the Son) of God are one, so we ought to love God as one in spirit (heart), soul (soul) and body (strength). Jesus Himself calls this 'the first and greatest commandment' (Matthew 22:38, NIV).
we simply cannot love God in either spirit, soul or body without loving Him in all three. it is logically impossible to worship God in spirit without also worshipping Him in truth.
"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." - James 2:26 (NIV)
relationship between a couple
in his excellent book, choosing God's best, dr don raunikar describes the phases in the courtship process. over time, a couple proceeds from spiritual oneness (the courtship period), to emotional oneness (the engagement period) and finally to physical oneness (becoming one in marriage).
there must be spiritual oneness before there can be emotional oneness, and there must be emotional oneness before there can be physical oneness. in other words, there must be unity in spirit before there can be unity in soul, and there must be unity in soul before there can be unity in body.
we simply cannot be married to someone in either spirit, soul or body without being married to someone in all three. to this end, marriage without sex is like faith without works. it is unconsummated, incomplete and dead. at the same time, sex outside of marriage is like works outside of faith. just as works only make sense within the context of faith, so does sex only make sense within the context of marriage.
philosophy, politics and economics
in studying philosophy, politics and economics, it is interesting to read that '[political] ideology, in short, brings about two kinds of synthesis: between understanding and commitment, and between thought and action' (heywood, 2003).
politics is the bridge between philosophy and economics, economics is the bridge between philosophy and politics, and philosophy is the bridge between politics and economics. going back to something i wrote exactly 52 weeks ago, it is even clearer to me now that philosophy, politics and economics have a lot in common.
tripartism in real life indeed.
God
as the opening statement of the uccf doctrinal basis affirms, 'there is one God in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit'. this is pretty straightforward stuff. to deny the trinity would be to deny the 'central dogma of christian theology' (the oxford dictionary of the christian church, 2005).
man
one of the debates in the philosophy of mind is between substance monism and substance dualism. substance monists would argue that man is merely a body, while substance dualists would contend that man is both a body and a soul.
however, it is clear from Scripture that man is not merely a body, or even both a body and a soul. rather, man exists in body, soul and spirit; in the image of a triune God.
"May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." - 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NIV)
the earthly tabernacle
as roy reinhold explains in his article, new vs old covenant, the earthly tabernacle represents tripartite mankind. the Most Holy Place (Exodus 26:33) represents the spirit, the Holy Place (Exodus 26:33) represents the soul and the courtyard (Exodus 27:9) represents the body.
the greater and more perfect tabernacle
within the Godhead, the Father is the spirit, the Spirit is the soul and the Son is the body (the Word become flesh). this is why we pray to the Father, by the Spirit and through the Son.
"When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" - Hebrews 9:11-14 (NIV)
relationships
"Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple." - 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (NIV)
"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body." - 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (NIV)
not only are we created in the image of God; our bodies are the very temples (earthly tabernacles) of God. how now shall we live?
relationship with God
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." - Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (NIV)
just as the spirit (the Father), soul (the Spirit) and body (the Son) of God are one, so we ought to love God as one in spirit (heart), soul (soul) and body (strength). Jesus Himself calls this 'the first and greatest commandment' (Matthew 22:38, NIV).
we simply cannot love God in either spirit, soul or body without loving Him in all three. it is logically impossible to worship God in spirit without also worshipping Him in truth.
"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." - James 2:26 (NIV)
relationship between a couple
in his excellent book, choosing God's best, dr don raunikar describes the phases in the courtship process. over time, a couple proceeds from spiritual oneness (the courtship period), to emotional oneness (the engagement period) and finally to physical oneness (becoming one in marriage).
there must be spiritual oneness before there can be emotional oneness, and there must be emotional oneness before there can be physical oneness. in other words, there must be unity in spirit before there can be unity in soul, and there must be unity in soul before there can be unity in body.
we simply cannot be married to someone in either spirit, soul or body without being married to someone in all three. to this end, marriage without sex is like faith without works. it is unconsummated, incomplete and dead. at the same time, sex outside of marriage is like works outside of faith. just as works only make sense within the context of faith, so does sex only make sense within the context of marriage.
philosophy, politics and economics
in studying philosophy, politics and economics, it is interesting to read that '[political] ideology, in short, brings about two kinds of synthesis: between understanding and commitment, and between thought and action' (heywood, 2003).
politics is the bridge between philosophy and economics, economics is the bridge between philosophy and politics, and philosophy is the bridge between politics and economics. going back to something i wrote exactly 52 weeks ago, it is even clearer to me now that philosophy, politics and economics have a lot in common.
tripartism in real life indeed.
Thursday 3 July 2008
history and the will of God
history and the will of God are not about "what ifs", but about "what is".
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28 (NIV)
the question is not whether in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose. we already know that He does. the question is whether we love Him, whether we have been called according to His purpose.
God is too wise to be mistaken
God is too good to be unkind
So when you don't understand
When you don't see His plan
When you can't trace His hand
Trust His heart
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28 (NIV)
the question is not whether in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose. we already know that He does. the question is whether we love Him, whether we have been called according to His purpose.
God is too wise to be mistaken
God is too good to be unkind
So when you don't understand
When you don't see His plan
When you can't trace His hand
Trust His heart
Wednesday 2 July 2008
the problem with sin
1. the cost of sin
2. the opportunity cost of sin
3. the effect of sin
4. the butterfly effect of sin
the cost of sin
even if the cost of sin alone is the whole of the problem with sin (which it is not), this in itself should be enough to stop us from sinning. objectively speaking, why should we ever choose to sin when we can always choose not to sin?
separation from God
"Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear." - Isaiah 59:1-2 (NIV)
above all, sin gets in the way of our relationship with God. it hinders our prayers and prevents us from being blessed by God.
lack of assurance
"No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God." - 1 John 3:9 (NIV)
it may be that we have "merely" fallen away (Matthew 13:20-21), or it may be that we were never saved to begin with (Matthew 13:19). either way, as long as we remain in sin, we have no assurance (ie. faith) that we are saved. indeed, 'everything that does not come from faith is sin' (Romans 14:23b, NIV).
the opportunity cost of sin
if there is an "opportunity cost" for doing the right thing, how much more will there be an opportunity cost for doing the wrong thing! sin is not only doing the bad that we should not do. at the same time, it is also not doing the good that we should do.
when we yield to temptation, we forfeit the opportunity to strengthen our faith by overcoming temptation. oscar wilde once remarked that 'the only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it'. however, yielding to temptation does not actually get rid of it. it simply replaces a particular form of temptation with another more resistant form of temptation. the only way to get rid of temptation is to overcome it by taking the way out which God has provided for us.
the effect of sin
even as sin gets in the way of our relationship with God, it also affects our relationship with others. for example, lying affects how others view us, to say nothing of how others view God.
the butterfly effect of sin
every action leads to something else, which in turn leads to something else - both positively and negatively. just as edward kimball mentored dwight moody, who mentored frederick meyer (whom i recently discovered was the pastor of york baptist church from 1872 to 1874), who mentored wilbur chapman, who mentored billy sunday, who mentored mordecai ham, who mentored billy graham, so does sin have far-reaching consequences which extend way beyond the act itself.
2. the opportunity cost of sin
3. the effect of sin
4. the butterfly effect of sin
the cost of sin
even if the cost of sin alone is the whole of the problem with sin (which it is not), this in itself should be enough to stop us from sinning. objectively speaking, why should we ever choose to sin when we can always choose not to sin?
separation from God
"Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear." - Isaiah 59:1-2 (NIV)
above all, sin gets in the way of our relationship with God. it hinders our prayers and prevents us from being blessed by God.
lack of assurance
"No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God." - 1 John 3:9 (NIV)
it may be that we have "merely" fallen away (Matthew 13:20-21), or it may be that we were never saved to begin with (Matthew 13:19). either way, as long as we remain in sin, we have no assurance (ie. faith) that we are saved. indeed, 'everything that does not come from faith is sin' (Romans 14:23b, NIV).
the opportunity cost of sin
if there is an "opportunity cost" for doing the right thing, how much more will there be an opportunity cost for doing the wrong thing! sin is not only doing the bad that we should not do. at the same time, it is also not doing the good that we should do.
when we yield to temptation, we forfeit the opportunity to strengthen our faith by overcoming temptation. oscar wilde once remarked that 'the only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it'. however, yielding to temptation does not actually get rid of it. it simply replaces a particular form of temptation with another more resistant form of temptation. the only way to get rid of temptation is to overcome it by taking the way out which God has provided for us.
the effect of sin
even as sin gets in the way of our relationship with God, it also affects our relationship with others. for example, lying affects how others view us, to say nothing of how others view God.
the butterfly effect of sin
every action leads to something else, which in turn leads to something else - both positively and negatively. just as edward kimball mentored dwight moody, who mentored frederick meyer (whom i recently discovered was the pastor of york baptist church from 1872 to 1874), who mentored wilbur chapman, who mentored billy sunday, who mentored mordecai ham, who mentored billy graham, so does sin have far-reaching consequences which extend way beyond the act itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)