Monday, November 14, 2005

Prophets? Where?

It seems that the issue concerning cessationism vs. continuationism of the gifts of the Spirit is really heating up at PyroManiac, since many people have misread what he has said so far concerning modern prophets and their false prophecies (see the comments to his recent posts on this issue). So far he has done a short series on false prophets, and many (it seems mostly the charismatics) have already either condemned him for being a cessationist or for some other reason.
 
To put the record straight: I am--for a better word--a continuationist. I believe that the gifts do continue today. However, before any cessationists blast me for saying that, they need to read my recent posts called Hearing God and Moving in the Prophetic: A critique and Personal Prophecies: A means by which we can fight the good fight?
 
I am not the usual continuationist. Although I believe that the gifts continue today, I am yet to meet a real life modern day prophet! The Old Testament makes it clear that a prophet must be 100% accurate and that he must not lead people away from the Lord. I know of no 100% accurate prophet, hence there are none today. I also do not believe that there are apostles today!
 
Then, much of what is called the gifts of the Spirit in action today seems to me to be the gifts of presumption and Christian crystal ball gazing! Also, much of what is called the gifts are conjured up through hype. Where I see the gifts as sovereignly orchestrated by God Himself, many charismatics "practise" the gifts to have them perfected! "Practising" the gifts? You read correctly! There are charismatic churches where they "practise" the gifts of prophecy and words of wisdom in order to get to learn to hear God's voice. Is that weird or what?
 
I do agree that it would probably be very difficult to find a church where these gifts are genuinely in use by the providential sovereignty of God!
 
On the other hand, I have learnt a lot from our cessationist brothers. John MacArthur, for instance, has written some invaluable books that cannot be put aside just because he is a cessationist!
 
Just thinking...

Apostles

Greek - APOSTOLOS
 
An APOSTOLOS is one who is sent. The word was used in classical Greek as a naval expedition and probably also its commander. In the NT it can also mean 'delegate,' 'envoy,' 'messenger,' especially of God's messengers. The NT uses APOSTOLOS predominantly for the 'apostles,' who were a group of highly honored believers with a special function in the church.[1]
 
Introduction
 
Several people are named as 'apostles' in the New Testament. How do they all relate to the office of apostle as specified in Eph. 4:11? Would it be correct to say that there are different levels of 'apostle-ship' (get the pun?), or should we look for a different translation or interpretation for APOSTOLOS where it does not directly fit into being a foundation of Christianity as in Eph. 2:20? There is great division on this matter in the church with some saying that the 5-fold ministry (offices) is still for today, and others who deny that apostles and prophets are valid for today.
 
Will this writing clarify the issue? Probably not! I have noticed, that no matter how exhaustive or accurate one writes on any topic, there are few people that will even consider changing what they believe on a certain issue. What prevents them from doing so? It is hard to say! Peer pressure (the church exerts a lot of that together with condemnation), longevity of beliefs, etc. Yet, this is not the point! I do not say that I have it right, but I am trying to clarify it for myself.
 
Who were apostles?
 
Those who propose that the office of apostle is for today to the same degree as in the New Testament will present a list of names from the Bible with an open-ended ellipsis(...) at the end, or an 'etc' noting the continuance of the office. Those who believe that the office of apostle finally closed when John left will obviously give a shorter, definitive list.
 
The obvious list must start with the 12 apostles (Mt. 10:2; Mk. 3:14f; Lk. 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; 22:14; Ac. 1:26; 5:29; Rev. 21:14), minus Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, plus Matthias (Ac. 1:12f). Then we add to this the apostle Paul (Rom. 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1f; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:1, 11; Tit. 1:1) for obvious reasons. Next we add Barnabas (Ac. 14:14). Those who do not want Barnabas on this list must literally jump through hoops not to have him added. No serious student of the Bible can exclude him. Acts 14:14 clearly says "when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it" they jumped into action to stop the sacrifices offered to them. So, that makes it 14 apostles.
 
Now we come to those who may or may not have been apostles in the sense that the 12, Paul and Barnabas were. Let's start with James, the Lord's brother. Paul writes in Galatians 1 that after his calling by the risen Christ Himself, he first went to Arabia, then Damascus, and three years later he went to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days.
 
"But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother." (Gal. 1:19 NASB)
 
The International Standard Version (ISV) says
 
"But I didn't see any other apostle except James."
 
The New King James Version (NKJV) has it
 
"But I saw none of the other apostles except James."
 
The New International Version (NIV) puts it
 
"I saw none of the other apostles - only James."
 
The first three translations are probably more likely than the New International Version. Grudem writes that the New International Version here is not unlikely, yet "the translation 'except James the Lord's brother' seems clearly preferable, because (1) the Greek phrase is EI MH, which ordinarily means 'except' (BAGD, p. 22, 8a), and in the great majority of New Testament uses designates something, that is part of the previous group but is 'excepted' from it; and (2) in the context of Gal. 1:18, it would not make much sense for Paul to say that when he went to Jerusalem he saw Peter, and no other people except James..."[2]
 
Paul also recognized James with Peter and John as pillars of the church in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). Also, after Paul and Barnabas related the signs and wonders among the Gentiles, it was James who answered and suggested regulations for the situation. He exercised considerable leadership in the Jerusalem Council which would be appropriate to the office of apostle. Paul also lists James on the list of post-resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15:7-9). Notice that Paul lists him ahead of all the apostles, concluding the apostles with himself "the least of all the apostles."
 
"Finally, the fact that James could write the New Testament epistle which bears his name would also be entirely consistent with his having the authority which belonged to the office of an apostle."[3]
 
This would bring the number of those in the office of apostle to fifteen (the Twelve, Paul, Barnabas, and James). The next verse is touted by many (some charismatics and most of the liberals) that even women could hold to the office of apostle. They cling to Rom. 16:7
 
"Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles" as such a lifeline. The International Standard Version here calls them "prominent among the apostles." The New King James Version has it as "who are of note among the apostles." There are two ways to interpret this verse: 1) they were outstanding, prominent and of note as apostles, or 2) they were recognized as outstanding, prominent and of note by the apostles. Now, I would say that this verse should not be something you lose your head over. Even BAGD, the most noted New Testament Greek lexicon, has it "either apostles or honored by the apostles."[4] Grudem has a note which says volumes:
 
"Some have claimed that Junia was a common woman's name in ancient Greece, but this is incorrect, at least in written Greek literature: A computer search of 2,889 ancient Greek authors over thirteen centuries (ninth century B.C. - fifth century A.D.) turned up only two examples of Junia as a woman's name, one in Plutarch (c. A.D. 50 - c. 120) and one in the church father Chrysostom (A.D. 347-403), who referred to Junia as a woman in a sermon on Rom. 16:7. It is not common as a man's name either, since the search found only one example of Junias as a man's name, in Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), bishop of Salimus in Cyprus, who refers to Junias in Rom. 16:7 and says he became bishop of Apameia in Syria (Indeex of Disciples 125.19-20; this quotation is the most significant, since Epiphanius knows more information about Junias). The Latin text of the church father Origen (d. A.D. 252) also refers to Junias in Rom. 16:7 as a man (J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 14 col. 1289). Therefore the available data give support to the view that Junias was a man, but the information is too sparse to be conclusive."[5]
 
Here we have, then, two points to make about Andronicus and Junias in Rom. 16:7 -> 1) We cannot be sure if they were apostles or just honoured by the apostles; and 2) Junias could be a woman or a man, but this is inconclusive too. So, we cannot add these two to those who belonged to the office of apostle.
 
Dr. Bill Hamon, of CI International represents the other side of the coin. He lists those "recognized as apostles by being called apostles by name or identified by association, implication or root meaning of words."[6]
 
He starts with the original twelve and then moves on to what he calls "The Expanded Circle of Other Apostles of the Lord."[7] In this list he includes all those mentioned above (including the ones we excluded), and adds Silas, Apollos, Epaphroditus, Timothy and the two unnamed apostles (2 Cor. 8:18b, 22b).
 
Does Paul include Silas and Timothy as apostles in 1 Thes. 2:6, "as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority," since the letter begins "Paul and Silvanus and Timothy" in 1 Thes. 1:1? It is unlikely that Timothy is included as an apostle: 1) Four verses earlier (2:2) Paul writes "we had already suffered...in Philippi, as you know." This refers to the beating and imprisonment of Paul and Silas, and not Timothy. Paul knows that his recipients will understand the "we" statements when he does not mean to include all three of them. 2) The "we" cannot include Timothy in 1 Thes. 3:1-2, since the "we" sent Timothy to the Thessalonians. Here the "we" could be Paul and Silas or just Paul (Ac. 17:14-15; 18:"5). It seems Silas and Timothy came to Paul at Athens (Ac. 17:15) although their arrival is not mentioned by Luke. Paul later sent them back to Thessalonica to help there (Ac. 18:5).
 
So, concerning Silas, it is just possible that he was an apostle and 1 Thes. 2:6 hints at that. He was also known as a leader in the Jerusalem church (Ac. 15:22). He certainly could have seen Jesus after His resurrection and then been appointed as an apostle by Him. Although, of this we cannot be absolutely certain.
 
We now have a list of fifteen, maybe sixteen men who were called to the office of apostle.
 
Attributes of apostles
 
An apostle received his calling by none other than the Lord Himself. He does not have his calling by virtue of any calling of a body of elders, or by recognition of any church. Paul even had to defend his ministry as apostle to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 10). It is only by the will and call of God that a man could be an apostle (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1). Paul makes it clear that his calling is from the Lord alone
 
"not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father." (Gal. 1:1).
 
Paul stresses this point again in 1 Tim. 1:1, "an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our hope."
 
He makes it clear that his calling was a direct command from heaven.
 
In 1 Cor. 4:8-10 Paul uses sarcasm to show the Corinthians how full of themselves they have become. In the middle of the point Paul is making, he writes that as apostles, they are exhibited as men condemned to death, "because we have become a spectacle to the world" (v9). He knew that as apostles the likelihood was great for the apostles to have to die for what they believe in as leaders of this "sect."
 
People are really gullible! They will believe almost anything they are told. Especially if it arrives in the "Inbox" of their emailing system. We have all received "virus warnings" and "urban legends" via e-mail, and it is shocking just how many people believe all that garbage. Especially, since they have a wonderful research tool right at their finger tips. The Internet! Of the uncountable amounts of virus warnings and stories of 4-year old Billy-Bob who has cancer, how many times did you just pass it on to your 400 e-mailing buddies (congesting the Internet with garbage) and how many times did you actually try to use the Internet as a research tool to find out the validity of the latest hoax? Now, just imagine how difficult it had to have been for the Corinthians when someone came to Corinth questioning Paul's apostlehood. They could not research Paul the way we can do today using the Internet. So, they simply accepted that Paul obviously was not a real apostle. Paul had to defend his calling as an apostle and the circumstances under which he was allowed to deploy his calling (1 Cor. 9:1-7). Paul then makes the point that he has the right to marry just like the rest of the apostles and Peter. Celibacy was never a prerequisite for a pastor, bishop or "Pope!!" (The word here is "celibrate" and not "celibate.")
 
Another attribute of an apostle was that he performed signs and wonders. In Ac. 5:12 we find that the apostles performed many signs and wonders. Paul writes "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles." (2 Cor. 12:12)
 
An apostle has the gift that is first among gifts.
 
"And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28)
 
When Paul enumerated the "offices" in the church he again put apostles first (Eph. 4:11). The reasons why apostles are first should become clear when we next look at The Purpose of Apostles.
 
The Purpose of Apostles
 
The first purpose of the apostles was to carry out the orders of Christ (Ac. 1:2). Jesus gave orders to the apostles before He was taken up into heaven. This probably was not much different to what He told them in Mt. 28:19-20. He then told them to make disciples, baptize them and teach these disciples "to observe all that I commanded you." Meaning, that it would become a repetitive action. Disciple, baptize, teach disciples who must disciple, baptize, teach disciples, who...
 
Next, we read from Paul's epistle to Titus that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ "for... the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness" (Tit. 1:1).
 
The International Standard Version has "the full knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness."
 
The apostles, who brought us the New Testament had to ensure that the gospel was preached by others in complete accuracy and that the gospel preached by others was the truth as delivered to them by the remembrance of the Holy Spirit. We find that Paul, especially, was very conscious of the fact that truth was very essential in the preaching of the gospel and that correct doctrine was unmistakably part of the gospel. Paul writes in Tit. 1:9 that an overseer must be "devoted to the trustworthy message that is in agreement with our teaching. Then he will be able to encourage others with healthy doctrine and refute those who oppose it." (International Standard Version) Soon after Pentecost we already find that the church adhered to the teaching of the apostles (Ac. 2:42). Even Peter, in his second epistle, stirs up the readers to "remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." (2 Pet. 3:2)
 
This was also reiterated by Jude in verse 17, "remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ."
 
Thirdly, the mystery of Christ ("that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" - Eph. 3:6), had to be revealed to someone, and Jesus chose His apostles and prophets to reveal it to. This mystery, which was now revealed, was then taken out and preached by the apostles.
 
Fourthly, there was nothing more important to an apostle than the preaching of the gospel. Paul knew it well, for he writes that he was "set apart for the gospel of God" (Rom. 1:1).
 
Without the gospel, the apostles would not have had anything to do, because it was their bread and butter. They gave powerful testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Ac. 4:33).
 
Another purpose of the apostles was "for the faith of God's elect" (Tit. 1:1 ISV). Those that God had chosen to partake in salvation are very important to God, and the apostles had to keep on building their faith, and as a result we have the New Testament that was written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, mostly by the apostles.
 
Sixthly, the apostles, together with the elders had to decide on church matters. Some Judaizers went down to Antioch from Judea, and preached that salvation was impossible without circumcision. This was the old "Law" debate! Paul answered this well in his epistle to the Galatians. This problem had to be decided on and so the apostles and the elders came together to do so in Ac. 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4.
 
Lastly, the apostle and prophets became the foundation of the church. Paul wrote to the Ephesians, telling them that they are now of God's household "having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone" (Eph. 2:20).
 
The apostles were the initial carriers of the gospel. They were the ones who were told "Therefore, as you go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you every day until the end of the age" (Mt 28:19-20 ISV).
 
They were to lay the foundation of the church by preaching and teaching the gospel, establishing the church. It was their duty to ensure that the gospel was preached, and that the content of the gospel was pure. They also brought us the New Testament. It "is not surprising that no further Scripture would be written until this next and greatest event in the history of redemption occurred [coming of Jesus and His redemptive work]. This is why the New Testament consists of the writings of the apostles. It is primarily the apostles who are given the ability from the Holy Spirit to recall accurately the words and deeds of Jesus and to interpret them rightly for subsequent generations."[8]
 
Jesus promised the disciples that when He was gone the Holy Spirit would remind them of all He said. This would then assist them in writing the New Testament.
 
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you... But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you" (Jn. 14:26; 16:13-14).
 
Qualifications of Apostles
 
According to the New Testament there are basically two qualifications that someone had to fulfill to be counted as an apostle. Now, I admit that nowhere in the pages of the New Testament do we find something like "These are the qualifications of an apostle, and they are..." On the other hand, neither do we find the word "trinity" in the Bible, but we do believe it, because the concept is unmistakably taught in the pages of the Bible.
 
The first qualification of an apostle is that he had to have seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes. He had to have been an "eyewitness." This is indicated to us by Acts 1:21-22, "Therefore, one of the men who have associated with us all the time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning with the baptism of John until the day he was taken up from us, must become a witness with us to his resurrection." (ISV)
 
Again, after "he had suffered, he had shown himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them through a period of forty days and telling them about the kingdom of God." (Ac. 1:3 ISV)
 
In Paul's writings, he is adamant that he indeed did meet this qualification, even though it was in a very unusual way (Ac. 9:5-6; 26:15-18). Paul, in defense of his apostleship wrote, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1 NIV).
 
He also said "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles" (1 Cor. 15:7-9 NASB).
 
The second qualification of an apostle is that he received specific appointment by Christ Himself. The term "apostle" is not common in the gospels, yet the disciples are called "apostles" in a context where Jesus commissioned them by "sending" them: "JESUS summoned His twelve disciples ... Now the names of the twelve apostles ... These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them..." (Mt. 10:1-7).
 
Jesus reminds them that they will be His witnesses in Ac. 1:8. When the need arose to replace Judas Iscariot, the eleven apostles went straight to the Lord to reveal His choice of replacement: "And they prayed and said, You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles" (Ac. 1:24-26).
 
Even Paul insists that his appointment as apostle was by Jesus Himself on the Damascus road: "But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you;" (Ac. 26:16).
 
Paul also starts most of his epistles with the fact that he is an apostle by the will of God.
 
Do Apostles exist today?
 
Firstly, based on the above section Qualifications of Apostles, I have to conclude that there are no apostles today. Naturally, there may be objections that Christ could appear to someone today similarly as to Paul, to appoint him as an apostle.
 
The second point, which is also in answer to the above objection, comes from Paul in 1 Cor. 15 when he writes of all those whom the Lord appeared to after His resurrection (first qualification of an apostle), "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also." (1 Cor. 15:7-8).
 
Paul was the last person that the resurrected Christ appeared to. The Greek term for "last" is ESCHATOS from which we get our word eschatology, which is the study of last days or end times. Its meaning is "with reference to a situation in which there is nothing to follow the ESCHATOS."[9]
 
Thirdly, we find Paul writing in Eph 2:20, "having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone."
 
The foundation for the church has been laid. There is no need to "move to new premises" with a new foundation. If new apostles can be appointed today, are we to believe that new christs are to arise too? False ones, perhaps! In the context here the corner stone is lain down but once. Why should the foundation be lain down repetitively? ("having been built!")
 
An objection may be made that Eph. 4:11 provides us with the 5-fold ministry list, and therefore it should continue today. Looking at Eph. 4:11 we immediately find "and He gave" (KAI AUTOS EDWKEN) which signifies a one time event in the past when He poured out initial giftings on the church. This verse merely establishes the fact that these offices were given, not whether more people would be called to each of these offices. This has to be determined from the rest of the New Testament.
 
"In fact, we see that there were many prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers established by Christ throughout all of the early churches, but there was only one more apostle given after this initial time (Paul, 'last of all,' in unusual circumstances on the Damascus Road)."[10]
 
Summary
 
The term "apostle" can be used in a broad sense to mean "messenger" or "pioneer missionary," but in a strict sense it includes the fifteen or sixteen apostles mentioned in the New Testament.
 
The qualifications of an apostle were two-fold: 1) He had to have been a witness of the resurrection of Christ, and 2) He had to have been called directly by the Lord Himself.
 
We have also found that for several reasons the office of apostle did not continue beyond the calling of the apostle Paul.
 
Anyone calling himself an apostle today would rather cause confusion in the church by conjuring up the idea of authority to the magnitude of the New Testament apostles.
 
Endnotes
1.  A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Second Edition, "Revised and Augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer's Fifth Edition, 1958," (BAGD), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1979, p. 99. 
2 Grudem, Wayne, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY An Introduction to Biblical Theology, Intervarsity Press, Leicester, England, 1994, p. 908. 
3 Ibid., p. 908. 
4 BAGD, p. 99. 
5 Grudem, 9. 909. 
6 Hamon, Bill, Apostles Prophets and the coming moves of God, Destiny Image® Publishers, Inc., Shippensburg, PA, 1997, p. 4. 
7 Ibid., p. 5. 
8 Grudem, p. 60. 
9 BAGD, p. 314, 3b.
10. Grudem, p. 911.
 
Just thinking...

Life is fleeting

Yesterday, my wife and I participated in a cycling race just north of Pretoria, South Africa. We enjoy cycling together on a tandem.

About 1.5-2Kms after the start of the race we passed what at the time seemed to be someone who fell with their tandem. There were already quite a few other cyclists there, so we decided to carry on. After the race we heard from a cyclist that started in another batch 15 minutes after us that when he passed the scene there was an ambulance there and the paramedics were doing CPR on the man. Well, this morning on my way to work I sa
w newspaper headlines that said, "Heart claims man in Pretoria cycle race."

This got me thinking. I know! It is an unusual experience for me and it sometimes hurts to think.

What struck me is that life is so fleeting. By that stage of the race a person's heart rate is not even that high yet and the duration of the heart rate is not that long yet. So, my conclusion is that it was not the cycling exercise that killed him! It just seems that he must have been on his way to a heart attack anyhow. Be that as it may, he died!

One of the things that also happened during this race is that it was a double race. There was a 100Km race and a 50Km race going on. We participated in the 50Km. That meant that the 50Km riders had to turn around at some point to make the ride back. However, the turn around point was not that well marked at all for the front riders to see and they missed the turn around. For the slow ones like us, by the time we got there, there was a person with loudspeakers anouncing that the 100Km riders should go straight and that the 50Km riders should cross the bridge over the freeway and go back on the other side of the freeway. That meant that several riders of the 50Km race did not turn around there and went on. They ended doing about 10Km further than they should have. This was the only way my wife and I could beat my wife's sister and her husband on their tandem. Otherwise, they probably would have beaten us by about 20 minutes. So, officially we beat them by almost a minute!

However, there was a lot of complaining going on by the riders that were not told to turn and instead went a little (10Km) further. There were complaints by some Christians there who were doing well up till the "point-of-no-return" but then ended in the second half of the riders and never got to do that well.

This got me thinking too! Ouch!

If Christians involved in sport put the same amount of effort they put into sport into furthering the kingdom of God, surely we would start seeing a change around us. These people would then become the most on-fire Christians around and they would end up evangelizing their communities in no time! Naturally, if I have to use this standard for my wife and I, we would accomplish nothing in the kingdom of God since we really do not put much effort into our sport!

The question is: "Should they rather put that effort into the kingdom of God?"

If we see how fleeting life is and how fragile the human body is and how quickly one can be taken from this world, then shouldn't we stop wasting our time on things that do not matter at all in this life and start getting busy with the things of the life hereafter?

Why should we then be bothered so much about getting a good position in a race that is ultimately so meaningless, while most participants in the race are going to hell anyway?


What do the kingdom scales tell us about ourselves? Is our weight of effort on the side of the kingdom of God, or on the opposite side?

Just thinking...

Last Week's Highlights

I am starting a new post that I will attempt to do every Monday, time permitting. I will highlight some of the blog posts that have caught my eye the previous week ranging from the previous Monday to Sunday.
 
So here goes:
 
Highlights
 
Enjoy your blogging or bleading (new word coined by me: blog reading, hence bleading or to blead). So, now you must all start using this so we can get it into some dictionary, Ok!
 
Just thinking...

Friday, November 11, 2005

Be Filled with the Spirit

In the whole debate on cessationism that is currently keeping bloggers busy in the existence of blogdom I thought that I'd point you to a sermon that John Piper preached on Eph 5:18.
 
The apostle Paul commands in Ephesians 5:18 that we be filled with the Spirit. Therefore, I want to try to answer two questions today. What does it mean to be filled with the Spirit? And, How can we be filled with the Spirit? I think it might help you follow me if I tell you at the outset where I am going. So I'll start with my conclusions and then give the Biblical support. I think being filled with the Spirit means basically having great joy in God. And since the Bible teaches that "the joy of the Lord is our strength" (Nehemiah 8:10), it also means there will be power in this joy for overcoming besetting sins and for boldness in witness. But basically it means radiant joy because the Spirit who fills us is the Spirit of joy that flows between God the Father and God the Son because of the delight they have in each other. Therefore, to be filled with the Spirit means to be caught into the joy that flows among the Holy Trinity and to love God the Father and God the Son with the very love with which they love each other. And then, in answer to the second question, the way to be filled with the Spirit is by trusting that the God of hope really reigns—that not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from His will (Matthew 10:29)—and that He runs the world for you and for all who trust His word. In believing that, you will be filled with the Holy Spirit and with joy.
 
With the spread of Pentecostalism in this country and in the third world there has been a lot of discussion about the New Testament phrases "filled with the Spirit" and "baptized with the Spirit." I feel some obligation therefore today not merely to interpret Ephesians 5:18 in its immediate context but also to orient what I say in the wider New Testament teaching.
 
Continue reading Piper's sermon called Be Filled with the Spirit.
 
Just thinking...
 

South Africa is burning!

It amazes me that when people in this country do not get their way, they have to resort to violence and riots!
 
Over a period of 2 months, train commuters have caused 100s of millions of South African Rands ($1 = R6.67) worth of damage to train coaches.
 
Just two days ago commuters, who were upset about trains running late, torched 28 coaches (R200 million worth of damage) fuelled on by their barbarism. I am sorry, but when a train is running late, you deal with it like a civilized adult, not like the spoilt brat of a barbarian from some pre-historic age. There was a lot of burning of anything that moved before the first "democratic" elections in 1994 in what was known as the "apartheid" era. Here is a newsflash! NOTHING has changed!
 
Selwyn Duke at NewsWithViews wrote an article called SHOOT RIOTERS ON SIGHT. I am starting to think that it is a good answer to rioting here in South Africa. It just seems to me that our government is incapable of handling situations like this. On the other hand, without sounding conspiratorial, I don't think our government wants to do anything against it since 99% of these people make up their voters base.
 
When a people cannot rule themselves from within, they will have to be ruled from without. What is the other alternative?... Anarchy! When a people cannot rule themselves from within, they open themselves to the rule of tyrants. More than once in the history of the world, the only way to deal with anarchy was to rule with the iron fist of a tyrant.
 
When a nation turns its back on Christianity, which is so well suited for being ruled from the inside by an ever present God, then the people will no longer be able to base their choices in life on what is objectively right and wrong. When what is wrong today becomes the right of tomorrow, the people will become rule-less in themselves and their choices will abundantly portray that in their actions.
 
Will the people choose the iron fist of a tyrant or will they rather live under the hand of God? It seems to me that this people do not know, since there categories of right and wrong are baseless in this postmodern era of shifting moral sands!
 
Just thinking...
 

Should we shoot rioters on sight?

Before I read the article I am pointing you to today, I thought that shooting rioters on sight would not be the democratic way of the west. After I read the article I now agree with its premise.
 

As riots spread throughout France like wildfires left unattended by those afraid to use water, a sane person has to be struck by the impotence of modern Western governments. Whether it's Moslem enclaves in France, New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, or South Central Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict, it seems that the new paradigm involves letting wicked flames burn themselves out, only doused at times by the innocent blood of victims who, in a most shameful abdication of governmental duty, are left to twist in the wind by the Neros who masquerade as statesmen.
 
As to the unrest in France, I have read headlines stating that the authorities "can't" stop the violence. "Can't" is an interesting choice of a word. A better one would be "won't." Because, I assure you, I could have stopped the riots on the first day.
 
The solution: shoot rioters on sight. [Continue reading SHOOT RIOTERS ON SIGHT.]

 
What do you think?
 
Just thinking...
 

Thursday, November 10, 2005

God is the gospel

Daniel Phillips wrote a review on John Piper's book and said a lot of stuff. Are these comments valid, or are they simply opinion?  Ok, all reviews are simply opinion! Yet, can Piper learn something from this review?
 
I haven't read the book, so I would like to know from others what they thought of the book.
 
Any takers?
 
Just thinking...
 

Personal Prophecies: A means by which we can fight the good fight?

This post comes as a kind of follow up of the post called Hearing God and Moving in the Prophetic: A critique. It seems that the issue of cessationism vs. non-cessationism is a hot topic these days in blogdom. Discussions on this issue can be found at PyroManiac, The (In)Scrutable Observer and at Biblical Christianity.
 
Text: "18 This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, 19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. 20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme." 1 Tim 1:18-20 (NASB)
 
The statement was made in a sermon a short while ago that prophecy is a weapon of spiritual warfare, using 1 Tim 1:18-20. Adding 1 Tim 6:12, "12 Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses (NASB)," it was said that "we are enforcing the victory of the cross." Further, based on Rom 10:17, "17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (NASB)," we were told that the "prophetic word brings about faith." What a misinterpretation of the verse!
 
Are we to get prophecies or words from God and fight our fight of faith by relying on them? Are we in trouble if we do not "fight the good fight" through the "prophecies" we have been given? Do we keep our faith and conscience by depending on these "prophecies?" If we do not, will we also suffer shipwreck with regard to our faith? Is this really what Paul meant when he wrote these words to Timothy?
 
No doubt, 1 Tim 4:14, "Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you (NIV)," refers to the same event as 1 Tim 1:18. Wuest quotes Vincent, "The sense of the whole passage is: 'I commit this charge unto thee in accordance with prophetic intimations which I formerly received concerning thee.' According to I Timothy 4:14, prophecy has previously designated Timothy as the recipient of a special spiritual gift; and the prophecies in our passage are the single expressions or detailed contents of the prophecy mentioned here." [1]
 
These "prophecies," when seen in the light of 1 Tim 4:14, "must be understood in the sense of predictions in some way granted to Paul concerning Timothy before his call to the ministry. It may be parallel to those given to the Antiochene church regarding the missionary vocation of Paul and Barnabas." [2] These prophecies "seem to have been prophetic utterances that pointed Timothy's way into the ministry." [3]
 
If we want to know what the prophecies concerning Timothy were (1 Tim 1:18; 1 Tim 4:14) and what the gift was that was given to him (1 Tim 4:14), then we need to understand who Timothy was and how he fit in the church where Paul left him.
 
Timothy, a native of Lystra, had a Greek father and a Jewish Christian mother (Ac 16:1). Paul invited Timothy to join him on his second missionary journey. Timothy also  participated in the evangelisation of Macedonia and Achaia (Ac 17:14-15; 18:5) and was with Paul during his long stay in Ephesus (Ac 19:22). From there he travelled with Paul through Macedonia to Corinth and back to Macedonia and then to Asia Minor (Ac 20:1-6). He may even have gone as far as Jerusalem and was with Paul during his first imprisonment (Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; Philem 1). After Paul's release (Ac 28), Timothy travelled with Paul but finally stayed at Ephesus to deal with problems there. Paul had a high regard for Timothy since he mentioned Timothy as co-correspondent of six of his letters (2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon).
 
It was during his fourth missionary journey that Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy while Timothy was at Ephesus. It was in this letter (1:3) that Paul instructed Timothy to stay on at Ephesus to take care of the church at Ephesus. Timothy was not an apostle, and neither was he an overseer ("elder" or "pastor") since he was given instructions concerning overseers (3:1-7) and how to choose them. It may be safe to say that Timothy was an apostolic representative--in this case Paul's--entrusted to carry out distinctive work. Timothy basically had to perform two major tasks: refute false teaching (1:3, 10; 4:6; 6:3, 20-21) and organise the church in Ephesus (church worship--2:1-15; appointing qualified leaders in the church--3:1-13; 5:17-25; prohibitions on women in ministry--2:9-15).
 
Now, returning to "the prophecies previously made concerning" Timothy (1 Tim 1:18), in the context of who Timothy was and his place in the church we can conclude that these "prophecies" very likely concerned his ministry in the church, especially in Ephesus. Also, considering 1 Tim 4:14, writing of "the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery (NASB)," it would seem that these "prophecies" and the subsequent gift bestowed on Timothy were related specifically to his ministry. The fact that the presbytery laid hands on him seems to point towards his ordination into the ministry. We see this same type of ordination when Paul and Barnabas were sent off by the church onto their missionary journeys in Ac 13:3, "3Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (NASB)"
 
Why would Paul remind Timothy of the prophecies concerning him and that he must remain mindful of them to strengthen him in his ministry? Timothy was not the confident person many of us today would claim to be! Paul had to remind and encourage Timothy not to let anyone look down on his youthfulness (1 Tim 4:12). Further, in 1 Cor 16:10-11 Paul writes to the Corinthians that if "Timothy comes, see to it that he has nothing to fear while he is with you, for he is carrying on the work of the Lord, just as I am. 11 No one, then, should refuse to accept him. Send him on his way in peace so that he may return to me. (NIV)" Paul also characterised Timothy as timid (2 Tim 1:7). Paul furthermore had to encourage Timothy not to neglect the spiritual gift he had received (1 Tim 4:14), and not to be ashamed of the gospel but to speak out for the sake of the gospel (2 Tim 1:8). Timothy was specially ordained by Paul and the presbytery for the ministry described in 1 and 2 Timothy, and for the reason of his timidity, Paul had to encourage Timothy by reminding him of his ordination by the laying on of hands and the prophecies spoken concerning his ministry.
 
The question now remains, do we in the church today need to hear prophecies and to fight the good fight by using these prophecies? If we are prophesied over and do not fight the good fight by them, will we suffer shipwreck? We have to remember, that just because Paul told Timothy to do so, especially in light of the special circumstances, does not mean that we need prophecies to fight the good fight! The only other times that Paul used the language of fighting the good fight (admittedly, in 1 Tim 1:18 it literally means "war the good warfare"), Paul expressly meant for Timothy to fight the good fight of the gospel (1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7). In both cases when Paul used this language, he meant that he remained true to the gospel.
 
These were special circumstances, in that Paul was an apostle and most likely was the one that prophesied over Timothy. This makes our own situation different from that of Timothy. The main differentiating point is that there are no apostles that can prophesy over us today. This makes Timothy's situation unique and points to the fact that we cannot claim like Timothy that we have similar prophecies to fight the good fight.
 
Thus, prophecy is not a weapon in spiritual warfare. Neither is prophecy some "skip start and collect $200" type of fast track in our spiritual walk with God. The only trusted weapon in spiritual warfare is the Word of God, the Bible, and the faithful preaching of the gospel.
End Notes
 
[1] Wuest, Kenneth S., Wuest’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament for the English Reader, Volume Two, The Pastoral Epistles, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, Reprinted, January 1979, p37.
 
[2] Guthrie, Donald, The Pastoral Epistles, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England, Reprinted 1979, p67.
 
[3] Gaebelein, Frank E., General Editor, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 1 Timothy by Ralph Earle, Regency Reference Library, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978, p356.
 
Just thinking...
 

Countries of Particular Concern

The US State Department has just released a report in which they have named their Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs).
 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Washington Tuesday, said, "These are countries where governments have engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom over the past year. We are committed to seeking improvements in each of these countries."
 
These CPCs are Burma, China, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Vietnam.
 
Under 1998 legislation, this designation of religious freedom violators provides the US government with punitive steps against CPCs. Apparently, most of these countries are already targeted by pre-existing US sanctions.
 
What bothers me the most about all this is that although Saudi Arabia is on this list, measures against them were waived for 6 months about 2 months ago. I would really like to know why? Then there is China, who became a preferred trading partner under the infamous Clinton.
 
I would really like to know how they are going to handle this? It is easy for the US to take "punitive" steps against the smaller countries that have next to no impact on American economics, but what will they do with the bigger countries. Will they do something against countries that stand no chance against the American juggernaut and leave the big countries alone to carry on with their human rights violations, or will they do what is right instead of what is convenient?
 
Look, I love the US and I lived there for two years (1999-2000)--loving evry minute of it! So, what I am saying is not to dig at someone I despise. I am concerned that the American government will lose their moral compass in favour of economic expediency.
 
I know that here in South Africa our government has lost their moral compass. They no longer know the difference between right and wrong. In fact, I do not know if they know what is right at all! China is definitely one of South Africa's preferred trading partners and in fact will do nothing about that since the communistic Chinese government gave the ANC a lot of help in their struggle for freedom and "democracy." The ANC's stance is that they will not turn their back against their former partners in the struggle. No matter that these "partners" are also involved in gross human rights violations.
 
Will the US government, and indeed my own government here in South Africa have the moral "guts" to do anything at all with regard to these violations against humanity? I think not!
 
Will governments stand for justice or will injustice prevail?
 
I agree with John Owen who said that God will not bless nations whose leaders do not live lives of personal holiness! He said that "the people of Israel were at the height of their fortunes when their leaders were godly."
 
Just thinking...
 

My visitors

Over at Centuri0n's blog I saw that he posted a visual snapshot of where his visitors come from all over the world. I just had to know for myself where my visitor's came from.

So, here it is. I'm famous. I get people from all over the world. The next step... world domination! For those too serious to get it, that was a joke!



Just checking...

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

"Cultured" riots

The French, long seen as a very cultured lot now has to deal with a very uncultured bunch of "youths"--the politically correct term being used in the media for a bunch of Muslim thugs. There, I said it! These "youths" are not youths as we understand the term when spoken of within the context of a specific country! When I speak of youths in my country, I understand the term to mean young genuine South Africans.

When the media speak of the rioting "youths" in France and elsewhere in Europe, they do not mean "European youths!" They do not mean Pierre, Jacques or Klaus! They are using the term as a euphemism for Muslim thugs! This way they hide the truth from the world by making the world think that these are simply angry "youths" who cannot find jobs. However, this is not the truth! The fact of the matter is that these are people with an ideology that says the infidel must die while these "youths" are attempting a revolution!

Al Mohler has written a very insightful piece on this matter called Civilization Under Siege--The Riots in Paris. It is definitely worth reading it.

Just thinking...

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Political idolatry

I just heard from a reliable source that someone in our church who used to be an ANC activist here in South Africa who came to know the Lord Jesus Christ some years back, has decided to stand once again for the ANC in the coming local elections.
 
Now this strikes me as really odd!
 
The ANC stands for things like pornography, abortion, the legalizing of homosexual marriage and other heinous and evil ideologies. How in the world does one reconcile these criminal activities with the Christian worldview? Here is a party, based on its communistic stance, that opposes God directly!
 
This kind of thing happens when a church does not teach proper doctrine or proper Biblical worldview from the pulpit. It is fine to say that there are courses that can handle these things when people are simply too busy living their lives to add all kinds of other courses to their already busy schedules. These things should be preached from the pulpit!
 
To answer my first question, there is no way that a Christian can reconcile himself with standing for a party that aligns itself with the depraved activities of evil! We are told to come out from among them, yet this person is doing exactly the opposite! How about that Godly obedience?!
 
In fact, Paul is very clear on the subject of evil. He told us not to take "part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." (Eph 5:11) This guy would rather join them than expose them! There is enough to expose in the ideologies of the ANC.
 
What bothers me is that there is one larger Christian party called the ACDP and also a smaller new one called the CDP (this used to be their website address but for some reason it is unavailable right now). That this man could not rather join a Christian party standing for real Christian principles is completely beyond me. Maybe I am just not sharp enough to see that we should rather be standing in elections for godless parties than for Christian parties! During "floor-crossing" even some ACDP party members left the ACDP and joined other parties such as the ANC.
 
When a person's worldview is so distanced from that of the Bible, that he can stand in an election for a godless party, I am inclined to call that person's salvation into question based on the evidence I see. Naturally, only God can make the final call. On the other hand, Jesus did say that we will know them by their fruit!
 
How can we as Christians stand for such political idolatry? In the early church, during the persecutions of that time, if a Christian denied Christ, some Christian leaders would not easily allow them back in the church. I don't think that we should go that far (or maybe we should?), but what I would suggest is that the church must call these people in and require an explanation from them, at the least! When a Christian gives the appearance of denying the faith, the church has a responsibility to stand beside such a person to guide him back to the truth! If the church does not do that, it is failing miserably. It fails the church and its mission to make disciples of all nations. The church is then simply grandstanding; however, with no eternal effect!
 
Just thinking...
 

Friday, November 04, 2005

Hearing God and Moving in the Prophetic: A critique

Since Phil Johnson has started a series of blog posts on "evangelical soothsayers" and "rubber prophecies," I thought that I would also say something about the concept of hearing God and the "prophetic."
 
Some time ago, a message, entitled Hearing God’s Voice, was preached at our church by one of our own pastors. He cited Is 50:4-5, "[4] The Sovereign LORD has given me an instructed tongue, to know the word that sustains the weary. He wakens me morning by morning, wakens my ear to listen like one being taught. [5] The Sovereign LORD has opened my ears, and I have not been rebellious; I have not drawn back." (NIV) All verses read by him were read from the NIV.
 
His first point was that we should hear God for ourselves before we can hear God for others. This he got from Is 50:4-5.
 
I am not against prophecy, if it is from the Lord Himself. It must not be some concocted idea from our own minds. Hearing from God is a sovereign act by God. Amongst the prophets, the majority (if not all) heard God when He sovereignly spoke. It was not a case of waiting to hear what God had to say, but rather God intervened when He wanted to speak. In this verse, if it is read without the usual charismatic preponderance to the dramatic, it is made clear that it was the "Sovereign LORD" that gave Isaiah an instructed tongue; it was the "Sovereign LORD" that woke his ears to listen. A sovereign act of God Himself!
 
To corroborate this idea of hearing from God for ourselves first, from the New Testament, this pastor quoted 2 Cor 1:3-4, "[3] Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, [4] who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God."
 
I have to be honest, how he got these two different passages to say the same thing is beyond me! The only way these two passages could corroborate each other is by preconceived ideas inducted into these passages by eisegesis, instead of proper Biblical exegesis!
 
Next, the preacher wanted to drive home that we have God’s prophetic Word in our heart and in our mouth. What Scripture passage did he use? Rom 10:6-8, "[6] But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) [7] "or 'Who will descend into the deep?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). [8] But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming."
 
A little simple exegesis would have made clear just what the word was that Paul meant here. Again, preconceived ideas made the preacher see things in the passage that did not exist in the passage. What word did Paul mean here? Well, the passage at hand tells us! It tells us that the word that is in our hearts and in our mouth is "the word of faith we are proclaiming." What is "the word of faith we are proclaiming?" The gospel! This is spelled out clearly in verses 9 and 10. "[9] that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; [10] for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
 
Does God reveal mysteries? Naturally. He did to Daniel. The next verse the preacher used was Dan 2:8, "[8] but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries." Daniel had just revealed to king Nebuchadnezzar the dream he had and the meaning of the dream. To back up the mystery revealing God from the New Testament, he used Lk 10:21, "At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure."
 
What is this verse telling us? Is this saying that God reveals prophetic type mysteries to children and not to others? No, it tells us that God’s kingdom is not revealed to those who seek it by pure logic, but that God is the revealer of His kingdom. In our own wisdom, we cannot reach God’s kingdom. Only by God’s revelation of His kingdom, can we know about His kingdom. This revelation of God’s kingdom is clearly set out in the Scriptures, the Bible!
 
Later in the sermon, the preacher referred to Mt 11:25-26, "[25] At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. [26] Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. [27] "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. [28] "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.""
 
Again, what has this passage got to do with anything prophetic? Nothing! This passage has nothing to do with spiritual revelation or the prophetic!
 
The next statement the preacher made he based on Mt 4:4, "[4] Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"" The word used for word in this passage, is the Greek word rhÄ“ma (rhma). The preacher made the usual charismatic comment about this word, that it means the spoken word as opposed to the written word which they say is logos (logoV).
 
This difference in the meanings of these two words are totally unfounded. If we bother to study the various instances of the uses of rhēma and logos, we will discover that there is no reason for us to speak of rhēma as the spoken word of God, and of logos as the written word of God. Both have the potential to be used in either way. For a more complete study of this issue the paper at http://teachingtruth.cjb.net/studies/rhemaandlogos.html may be studied.
 
The next point made by the preacher is that our imagination and our spiritual eyes reside in the same place. How did he get to this? Hab 2:1, "[1] I will stand at my watch and station myself on the ramparts; I will look to see what he will say to me, and what answer I am to give to this complaint."
 
The claim here is that we must look into the spiritual realm with our spiritual eyes to see what the Lord wants to tell us. The NASB puts it this way, "[1] I WILL stand on my guard post And station myself on the rampart; And I will keep watch to see what He will speak to me, And how I may reply when I am reproved." Is the point of this verse really to exercise looking into the spiritual realm with our spiritual eyes to see what the Lord wants to say? Or, is the point of this verse rather to be on our guard to hear when God speaks? What was Habakkuk waiting to hear from God? The first two chapters of Habakkuk are about Habakkuk’s argument with God over God’s unfathomable ways, which even seemed unjust to Habakkuk. Does this mean that Habakkuk said that we should now practice hearing God’s voice by looking into the spiritual realm? Not in the least! It simply recounts Habakkuk’s struggles with what seemed to be an unjust God.
 
Before the preacher gave over to the head pastor of our church, he told how he would hear from God in his practice sessions. He tried to make the point that God mostly spoke through visions. What he would do is to imagine he was back on the farm where he grew up. Then he would imagine that Jesus would be sitting next to him. At this point he would just sit and watch Jesus. Then, Jesus would start talking to him about things. The final few minutes were handled by the head pastor of our church. In this time he made a big deal about the fact that God uses our imagination to speak with us through visions. He then made use of what the previous preacher taught about how he uses his imagination to start seeing visions. At church we have two huge overhead screens. He had four scenes beamed onto the screens. We were told to watch these scenes--each of which were left on the screens for a few seconds--and then to see what the Lord will tell us about those scenes.
 
This is a clear case of trying to induce visions! This is definitely more the art of suggestion than hearing God’s voice or seeing visions! Were these actions Biblical? I do not believe so!
 
Does God speak to us today? Yes! Can we induce it? Undoubtedly not! Whenever God spoke to the prophets--Old Testament or New--He spoke sovereignly. They never tried to make God speak with them. Whether it was the prophet Isaiah or the apostle Paul, God spoke to them when He needed to say something important.
 
What is God’s primary method of speaking to us today? I believe it would be the Scriptures. Does God speak in any other way? Yes, he does. However, the method God uses is up to Him, not us! He chooses how to speak and when to speak. When God speaks, we will not be in doubt that God spoke.
 
Do we have to hear from God everyday? Definitely! We need to read the Bible and study it everyday to know what God’s Word says to us. It is as we get to know God’s Word that we will know how to conduct ourselves in this world and what God expects of us in different situations. There is no bypassing the Scriptures! Try to bypass the Scriptures and you will simply land into all kinds of deceptive ideas like trying to induce visions or God’s voice.
 
Let us rather get back to the reading and studying of God’s Word, the Scriptures!
 
Just thinking...

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Sulu is gay

For all those Star Trek fans, Sulu (George Takei) has revealed that he is gay.
 
This is quite a shock, but I suppose that amongst "stars" gay is in!
 
With me, it is definitely out!
 
Just thinking...
Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin