Have you guys been watching the Presidential race? I can't help but to contemplate what kind of hutspa was found in our country's founding fathers. To look into the face of tyranny and declare their independance boggles the mind of one who rarely needs to declare his baggage, much less his freedom.
A child's first step is an occasion that parents gleefully celebrate. Like a child's first word or a teenager's first job, it is an independence day of sort.
From the moment we are born we are learning to grow in self-reliance. We are rewarded with smiles when we start walking and dessert when we learn to say "please". Though they don't always see eye to eye in the definition or application of independence, it is no doubt the desire of both parent and child. The best interest of the child is a concept parents see more thoroughly. When a father stands beside his child with his hand on the back of the bicycle seat, the goal is to slowly hold on less and less. If he lets go it is not because he doesn't want to hold onto his son, but because he wants to show his son the joy of bike riding. Though he let go of the seat, he did not let go of his role as parent. When boy and bike come tumbling to the pavement, consoling arms are not far off. Though the child moves in newfound independence, he knows his dad is near. And just as falls are more bearable when someone bigger is watching on, so the accomplishment is more victorious when it is done in dad's sight.
Independence, it seems, is known at its best when it is experienced within certain roles. The psalmist reminds us that this is true also of God and man.
As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust. As for man, his days are like grass, he flourishes like a flower of the field; the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more. But from everlasting to everlasting the LORD's love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children's children- with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts.
The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all. (Psalm 103:13-19).
With Adam and Eve, we are children struggling to exert our independence. When we see ourselves as we are—children living near the Father, dust and fleeting flower—we flourish under the everlasting throne. When we fail to remember who we are, we miss both the joys of childhood and the wonder of independence.
There is something disturbing about seeing the roles of parent and child reversed. When a 4-year-old has learned that he can control his mom and dad, he is merely exercising the independence they taught him. And yet we are aware that it is independence gone wrong. The child is playing the role of something other than child; he is living outside of his own best interest. That a child first learns to seek independence at all is because of the love and guidance of a parent.
To seize the power of independence while forgetting dependence on the one who longs most for our success is a disheartening sight. Within the nature of independence lies the truth that we are, at our most authentic, undecorated level, wholly dependent upon something beyond ourselves. "I became my own," said C.S. Lewis, "when I gave myself to Another." It is in giving our lives to Christ that we find them, declaring independence in the freedom his life ordains.
As the psalmist declares and our lives confess, we are people seeking what we were created to know. Under the everlasting throne of God our days of independence are most worth celebrating. For He who formed us is the Maker of independence, in his service is perfect freedom.
Psalm 29:2 Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness.
I am seeking God for Holiness lately, and I want to know exactly what that means, though it terrifies me. I admit that I am a mesh of emotions, thoughts and doubts. I believe that God is real, that he is the God of the Bible, but I have trouble understanding many of the depths that the contemporary prophets seem to speak of so freely. I understand that the pursuit of knowledge of the Holy is simply a chasing of vapors, but I am driven for some reason to try. I have been taught that holiness is being pure, being set apart. I want that for myself, but I really struggle with giving up what I need to give up in order reach that "state". Its not that I don't want to want to, really desire to desire. Then again, I second guess any effort I put forth and wonder whether I should just pray, and let God change me. I've heard that a lot from the "prophets". I just don't know what that means.
Perhaps a look at the Holiness of God will help.
The beginning of this chapter of the Psalms compels believers to recognize the splendor of God's holiness. His "separateness" is shown by His power and might, and in response to this holiness we are to bow down in worship. It is interesting that this entire passage uses language to separate God from man. He is described as "Thunderous", "Powerful", "Majestic". He smashes cedars, His voice is a flash of lightning. The manifold facets of the splendor and might of God may drive one to worship prostrate, unable to lift one's head in fear of the crushing voice of God. One would tremble, being left in a terrible state of uneasiness.
I believe this uneasiness is a necessary feature to the worship of God.
One who's voice shakes the desert of Kadesh and strikes with flashes of lightning brings to the surface my fear of God's nature.
Could it be that the "separateness" that God desires of us is not that we push and push to be better people, but to bring ourselves to a point of brokenness. To understand just how sin effects us and hurts our Maker would decimate our pride and self-centeredness. What would this attitude do? It would separate us from the world, which seems to continually build itself on towers of Babel. It would make us "Holy".
After all, the sacrifices God desires are a "broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart."
Lord, help us to fall down broken before the splendor of your holiness!
Today I would like to open the doors up and challenge myself.
Come one come all. I want to hear EVERY Bible contradiction you can come up with. I will then compile this list and attempt to answer all of them from a conservative Christian viewpoint in future blogs.
Just remember, I am doing this for the edification of myself and those who will participate. I have respect for you all, even those I disagree with.
Thanks for your participation.
P.S. I may not comment on your comments, but be assured that I read them all, and will take them all seriously.
Hey all. So if you have been wondering what this preacher has been doing in his cave for the past few weeks, I would like to let you know.
I have be doing a lot of marketing work, organizing a grand re-opening of our church. The neat part is, everyone reading this can now participate in my church online if they wish. This all starts this Sunday, March 9th at 10:30am eastern time. To find out what the heck I am talking about, watch this video, and follow the web address at the end. If you live in the Tampa Bay area, listen to AM 570 and you will be hearing me all week.
You may be interested in the live streaming interactive sermons link, preached by the Frog!
First, press pause on my music. You will not need it today.
OK. I am somewhat enamored with a few opera singers lately. I decided to compare them one by one, give you my pick for the number one spot, and you can give me your opinion also!
There has been a rage in the last year about this guy named Paul Potts. He entered "Brittain's Got Talent" and blew everyone away with his surprisingly good voice. See for yourself, singing "Time to Say Goodbye"
But then I decided to put him up against some of the great names in opera. I think it becomes very obvious why someone like Andrea Bocelli has become so renown. He smashes Paul Potts. It made me realize that I think I was cheering for Paul Potts like I would cheer for someone in the special olympics (Insert your own joke here).
Sarah Brightman is in the following video as well. In my opinion, she has one of the best female voices of our time-but Bocelli is yet on another level even from her. Enough jibber jabber. Watch the real pros.
So now that the pedestal I put Paul Potts in had been shattered, I decided that maybe it was just that particular song.
After all, the very respectable Josh Groban couldn't even keep up with his tone and breath control when they sang a duet together at the Grammys. Notice the breath Groban has to take at the end! If you can't see the video, you can watch it
Or copy and paste: http://www.troodi.com/media/5079/Andrea_Bocelli_and_Josh_Groban_Grammy_Awards_2008/
Maybe Potts could do "Nessun Dorma" better. After all, he actually won the competition singing that song. Lets compare:
First, Paul Potts:
Now Bocelli:
OK, so Bocelli is now the Master. He has a voice that can bring me to tears. Literally. But when we speak of Nessun Dorma, we must also speak of Luciano Pavarotti. How does Bocelli stack up against the impressionante maestro?
WOW. I didn't think you could improve on Bocelli. Now you can see why the world mourned when this Master Tenor passed. I will always live with the regret that I will not weep at one of his live performances.
I declare the master of Opera, the best voice since the recording of voices, to be Luciano Pavarotti.
I remember the first time I heard my first child cry. He was put under a heat lamp at the hospital in Seymour, Tennessee. It was a joyous thing. Little Josiah, bright red, with a squished nose and matted hair. He was beautiful.
In the course of an infant's life, his first real means of articulation is his cry. Although babies in the womb remind their mothers of their presence by kicks and somersaults, the cry is the first communication the child makes with the world. It carries a very simple message: something is wrong.
The infant plays the easy part in the exchange; he merely sounds the warning. It is the parents' job to determine the source of his discomfort and seek a remedy. I doubt that the infant even understands the need behind the cry; otherwise, why wouldn't a baby who is overtired just go to sleep instead of crying? No, the infant only senses that crying is the appropriate way to express his bewildering need to someone who can do something about it. In this sense, the cry is the articulation of the inarticulate. Sean D'Souza might appreciate that. ;)
In Tennyson's lengthy poem, he writes about what he would like to see the world become, a place where harmony is restored and every evil redeemed. Then he writes: But what am I? An infant crying in the night: An infant crying for the light, And with no language but a cry.
You see, a cry does not express an end goal. It merely expresses a need. Women sometimes take a bad rap when they cry without knowing the reason. I would argue instead that crying is particularly appropriate when you can't put your needs or frustrations into words. It expresses that we need help, though we may not be sure what kind of help we need.
The Book of Psalms repeatedly looks at God as a person who is trustworthy to receive our cries. David writes, "The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their cry" (Psalm 34:15). This brings to my mind the image of an attentive mother, discerning the cause of her baby's cry. She does not question him or chastise him; she exercises her wisdom and then moves on his behalf. David goes on to say, "The righteous cry out and the LORD hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles. The LORD is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit".
God is not looking for us to articulately express our need of Him before He will draw near to us to help us. God does not save us on the basis of our self-awareness or our insight—He lifts up those who are crushed in spirit. When the most that we can do is cry, that is enough. It puts us into the receiving position of a little child, which is one of the marks of those who will enter God's kingdom (Mark 10:15).
We can follow the example of the psalmist by directing our cries to God. Although we may not know what we need or how it can be accomplished, like an infant we know who can meet the need.
A Primer on the views of Eternal Security by way of Arminianism and Calvinism.
ARMENIANISM: EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT
Arminians teach that the atonement of Christ was universal. "This does not mean that all mankind will be unconditionally saved, but that the sacrificial offering of Christ so far satisfied the claims of the divine law as to make salvation a possibility for all."? The provision of Christ in His atonement is for everyone; it is sufficient for everyone to be saved (although not all are). The Scriptures emphasize universal provision (John 3:16–17; Rom. 5:8, 18; 2 Cor. 5:14–15; 1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10; Heb. 2:9; 10:29; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 2:2; 4:14). Since Christ made provision for all, the proclamation of the gospel is to all (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 ; Luke 24:47).
Arminians also teach that the benefit of the atonement includes the following.
(1) The continued existence of the race. It is hardly conceivable that the race would have been allowed to multiply in its sin and depravity, had no provision been made for its salvation.…(2) The restoration of all men to a state of salvability. The atonement provided for all men unconditionally, the free gift of grace. This included the restoration of the Holy Spirit to the race as the Spirit of enlightenment, striving and conviction. Thus man is not only given the capacity for a proper probation, but is granted the gracious aid of the Holy Spirit.…(3)The salvation of those who die in infancy. We must regard the atonement as accomplishing the actual salvation of those who die in infancy.?
SALVATION MAY BE LOST
Arminians have adhered to the doctrine that believers can lose their salvation. Although Arminius himself did not clearly state that believers could be lost, his conclusions pointed in that direction. Arminius taught that man is saved by grace but not apart from his free will. The will remains free. Arminius emphasized that the free will had to concur in perseverance, otherwise the believer could be lost. "It is unavoidable that the free will should concur in preserving the grace bestowed, assisted, however, by subsequent grace, and it always remains within the power of the free will to reject the grace bestowed and to refuse subsequent grace, because grace is not an omnipotent action of God which cannot be resisted by man's free will."?
John Wesley also taught that the believer may "make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, that he may fall, not only foully, but finally, so as to perish forever." The basis for losing one's salvation is found in passages like Luke 13:14; Colossians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 6:4–6; and 1 Peter 1:10.
Calvinist Eternal Security
There are two distinct views concerning the eternal security of the believer. The Arminian says that man has received his salvation as an act of his will and he may forfeit his salvation as an act of the will—or through specific sins. The Calvinist says that the true believer will persevere in his faith. This doctrine is sometimes called "perseverance of the saints," which is not a proper title since it places the emphasis on man's ability to persevere rather than on God's ability to keep the believer. A better title might be "perseverance of the Lord."
This doctrine does not suggest that the believer will never backslide or sin. It means, however, that when a person has genuinely believed in Christ as His Savior from sin he is forever secured by God by His keeping power.
The basis for the security of salvation does not rest with man, but with God. The security of the believer is based on the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
SECURING WORK OF THE FATHER
Believers are secure because the Father has chosen them to salvation from eternity past (Eph. 1:4). The Father predestined believers to come to the status of sonship in Christ (Eph. 1:5). The Father has the power to keep believers secure in their salvation (Rom. 8:28 –30). The ones the Father foreknew, predestined, called, and justified are the same ones He brings to glorification in the future. None are lost in the process. The Father's love for believers also guarantees their security ( Rom. 5:7–10).
SECURING WORK OF THE SON
The Son has redeemed the believer (Eph. 1:7), removed the wrath of God from the believer (Rom. 3:25 ), justified the believer ( Rom. 5:1), provided forgiveness (Col. 2:13), and sanctified the believer (1 Cor. 1:2). Moreover, Christ prays for believers to be with Him (John 17:24 ); He continues to be their Advocate at God's bar of justice (1 John 2:1); and He continues to make intercession as the believer's High Priest (Heb. 7:25 ). If a believer could be lost it would imply Christ is ineffective in His work as the believer's Mediator.
SECURING WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit has regenerated the believer, giving him life (Tit. 3:5); the Holy Spirit indwells the believer forever (John 14:17 ); He has sealed the believer for the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30 ), the sealing being a down payment, guaranteeing our future inheritance; the believer is baptized into union with Christ and into the body of believers (1 Cor. 12:13 ).
For a believer to lose his salvation would demand a reversal and an undoing of all the preceding works of the Father, Son, and Spirit. The key issue in the discussion of the believer's security concerns the issue of who does the saving. If man is responsible for securing his salvation, then he can be lost; if God secures the person's salvation, then the person is forever secure.
The eternal security of the believer by the grace of God is the completion and crowning glory of God's plan of salvation.
So what do you think?
CREDITS:
Bangs, Arminius, p. 216.
Richard S. Taylor, "Historical and Modern Significance of Wesleyan Theology," in A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology: Biblical, Systematic and Practical, by Charles W. Carter, R. Duane Thompson, and Charles R. Wilson 1983), 1:63.
Enns, Paul P.: The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago , Ill. : Moody Press, 1997, c1989,498
Enns, Paul P.: The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago , Ill. : Moody Press, 1997, c1989, 340
This is a formal debate with Alister Mcgrath and Richard Dawkins at the Oxford Festival. It deals with the subjects of their books, "The God Delusion" and "The Dawkins Delusion" respectively. This debate just goes to show that two highly intelligent people can debate in a civil nature, even though they disagree. I wish more of the debates here on myspace were like this.
Kant thought that if we think something is beautiful then we want everyone to agree with us. I disagree. That is a selfish interpretation of beauty.
Many have endeavored to explain the beauty of an unfolding rose, the light from a moonlit path, or a west-coast Florida sunset. Poets have crafted our language to try to express our feelings of passion that are envoked by an ornate oak, or emerald rolling hills. I love the stimulation that comes with well done art, and the awe and respect for the vastness of nature.
Where is God in all of this beauty? Could we dust the horizon, and find the fingerprints of God freshly laid?
I think that the answer could be found, if one is mature enough, in the deepest of the fathoms of the spirit, in the placid glass that forms the heavens, in the utter beauty, the existential sweet exquisiteness-of my wife's fun bags.
I cannot under any other circumstances except in the worldview of a theist explain the allure of nature.
Why do I find things beautiful?
Some of you will be thinking, "Duh, it's an evolutionary trait, something we are born with. It gives us the will to procreate, it tells us what is good to eat, it guides where we sleep, it helps determine the future of the human race."
Let's take a sunset for example. I live on the west coast of Florida, so I have the privilege of taking in some of the most breathtaking sunsets in the world. You know the postcards you buy on vacation? That's my backyard. Sunsets, though, have nothing to do with procreation, survival, or anything beneficial to my species. Actually, sunsets become more brilliant when pollution is at it's height. Something that is almost universally held as beautiful is the result of our destroying the environment.
For another example, lightning. I also happen to live in the lightning capital of the world. Lightning strikes here quite a bit. These strikes are usually mixed up with some kind of storm. I am completely drawn to this kind of weather. I love lightning. I wish I could grab it and stare at it for a while.
Robert Frost has a famous poem:
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice,
But from what Ive tasted of desire
I'd hold with those who favor fire
But if I had to perish twice
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great, and would suffice
He contrasts two beautiful things with very ugly actions. A frosty lake, a candle flame-both are beautiful-and both can kill you.
I think Weimaraners are absolutly beautiful, but I don't want to have sex with them, I don't want to eat them, and I don't have any real beneficial purpose for liking them. What benefit then, is beauty, beit objective or subjective?
I offer this explanation. Could it be, that we have a creator who is benevolent in more that just the unique miracles of scripture? Could it be that my west coast Florida sunset was a truly altruistic and loving gestural abstraction?
I think God had fun creating the world. Not like the fun you and I have, which is often self-centered. He enjoyed taking out his "paintbrush", using the laws of science and physics, and breathed art into the world for us to enjoy.
On a recent radio program, I heard a caller phone in with the question, "How do I know God is real?" This is an excellent question that I also asked multiple times on my own search for God.
But the question has many sides to it. If someone were asking this question for himself, it would require a different response than if the person were asking this for writing an argument in a paper. The former is personal; the latter is more abstract. Let me attempt a short answer.
This question already assumes there is a real world out there. It is not The Matrix question of whether anything we experience is real. But the thing in question is the reality of God.
Many arguments can be put forward for God's existence. Alvin Plantinga, one of the leading Christian philosophers in the world, wrote a paper where he discusses two-dozen (or so) arguments for God's existence. Historically, the classical arguments include, among others, the cosmological argument (that the world could not come from nothing), the teleological argument (that the world has purpose and design), and the moral argument (that moral laws require a Moral Law Giver, that justice requires a Judge). When the arguments are laid out and taken cumulatively, the fact that God is real far outweighs the idea that He is not.
But there is more. Is life even livable without God? I remember watching a major network television program years ago. On it, the host held up a book by Ravi Zacharias called Can Man Live Without God? The host of the program responded immediately, "Of course he can. He's been doing it for years." The rhetorical move pushed the audience to consider the next secular perspective, while never answering the real question. Is life really livable?
We can go to work, get married, have children, and celebrate birthdays without God. But the question is deeper than that. Can we do these things with ultimate meaningfulness without God? Can we live a moral life without a moral reference point? Can we ultimately trust that justice will be served? And, most importantly, can man have spiritual life apart from God? As Malcolm Muggeridge has noted, if God is dead someone will take his place Either the power-monger or the hedonist. Augustine's words resound clearly and intuitively, "You have made us for Yourself and our hearts are restless until they rest in You." I'll stake my soul on the resounding and coherent idea that God exists. He is real.
But even as believers we have our days of darkness and hours of doubt. Sometimes this is our own doing. Susanna Wesley stated that often our sin "obscures our sense of God." When we do not align ourselves with the character of God, then our idea about the goodness of God can often become confused in our minds. When his character is in doubt, his Realness is soon to follow.
But when we choose to follow Jesus Christ and walk in accordance with God's design, God becomes more real and relevant to our perception. As was responded to the radio caller, it is because of the coherence of his historical Word and the visiting of his Person in the Incarnation that makes purposes, goodness, and reality mean all the more. As C. S. Lewis described of the New Narnia, "Every rock and flower and blade of grass looked as if it meant more." I suggest glimpses of this same experience come to us when we seek God. He promises we will find him, when we seek Him with all our hearts.
Please check out my new blog: Pastor Fred Wolfe’s Blog
adventurous
refreshed
