The G Cracka X Files

On Christian Rap

2007-03-24T10:48:00.001-04:00

Alright, here's the deal: many things you will find in life are not inherently evil or good. They're neutral. Obviously, there are exceptions. God is intrinsically, inherently good. I believe that pornography is intrinsically, inherently evil. But most are neutral. This computer I'm using to print this message is neutral. I can use it to glorify God or to fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Hip-hop is no different. The best definition of this genre comes from Neginoth Soldiaz, a Christian rap group I heard down in Charlottesville. If memory serves me correctly, they defined hip-hop as, "Lyrical poetry set to music." And there was a brief mention of its harmony with Psalms.

Now, clearly the artists were not saying that David and crew busted out da scratched records and turntables. Their comment has made me think of the similarity between the music of Psalms and the music of rap. Are the two so different? Perhaps in sound and delivery, but not so much in essence. I think it would be fair to label both - at their core - as "lyrical poetry set to music."

It is important to distinguish a medium from how that medium is typically used. I think the criticism of using rap to glorify God comes not so much from an objective analysis of the essence of hip-hop, but rather from a concern that the Church will look like those who use rap to glorify rape, violence, murder, the objectification of women and lawlessness. I would challenge opponents of Christian rap to name one Bible verse where God speaks out against it. Where is the 'Thou shalt not use hip-hop to bring praise to Me?'

On the contrary, let's use it to bring much honor and glory to Him. Christian rap can be used to edify believers (as God has done with it for me) and to convict non-believers of their sin and lead them to true faith in Christ. We must contextualize the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Fundamentalist music will reach fundamentals. Gap kid music can influence gap kids. But neither of those styles are appealing to most urbanites and suburban-urbanites. Many of them prefer hip-hop.

God opened my eyes to how powerful rap music can be in exalting Him. I know from personal experience that it can be useful for ministry (depending on context and audience) - for edification and conviction. Two of the things I love about Christ-centered hip hop are its thematic depth and its passion. By some, it is used not only to praise God but also exhort listeners to do the same. With zeal!

On Sanctification

2007-01-27T14:32:00.000-05:00

Is there another means by which man is sanctified apart from the Gospel? Can we "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18) by multiple means? By trying harder? By praying more regularly? More time in the Bible? Can there be a deeper dependence on Christ without a deeper understanding of His saving grace toward us?

On Christology

2007-01-20T17:01:00.000-05:00

Can someone explain to me the concept of Jesus being both fully God and fully man at the same time? This is something that is hard for me to fully grasp with my mind.

For instance, when Jesus incarnated, how did that affect some of His attributes, like omnicience and omnipresence? I don't want to say that He temporarily gave them up, but how then can this God-man nature be characterized?

On Genealogy

2007-01-20T10:48:00.000-05:00

I hold to a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis 1-2. One support I use for this position is that it seems to me that Jesus, Paul, John and Jude all referred to Adam and Eve or one of their children (Cain, Abel, Seth) in a manner that suggested that they were not figurative, but real people (Matthew 23:35, Luke 3:38, Luke 11:51, Romans 5:14, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Hebrews 11:4, 12:24, 1 John 3:12, Jude 1:11, 14).

I recognize that there are challenges to address in holding this view. One that crossed my path recently was, "Who did Adam and Eve's children marry?" I would assume the answer would be, "each other". But, then, that leads to the question, "so when did it not become acceptable (spiritually, genetically, or both) for children to marry each other?"

On Soteriology

2006-11-22T18:54:00.000-05:00

Let me start off by saying how salvation is obtained: by grace alone, through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), in Christ alone (John 3:16, 36). Works cannot add on to saving faith, otherwise saving faith is no longer saving faith. Jesus told the repentant thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that day (Luke 23:43) and I think this is a clear example of someone who had been saved but had little to no opportunity for good works because he had a "deathbed" conversion.

The question I pose is: what is the role of Christ-centered Lordship in the life of a human? Is there a such thing as a 'carnal Christian' i.e. someone who claims to trust Christ as his/her personal Savior, but whose life indicates no fruit of the Spirit, no evidence at all of submitting to His Lordship? Is it possible to have saving faith without repentance? Can someone be a convert without having a heartfelt commitment to discipleship (in other words, not that the person is perfect in sanctification, but that he/she desires to submit his/her life to Jesus Christ)?

Which equation do you think most accurately describes salvation? (I believe I got this from Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul)

Works = Salvation
Faith + Works = Salvation
Faith = Salvation
Faith = Salvation + Works

I know many of the likes of Ryrie and Macarthur have written extensively on this topic, but I was hoping to get your thoughts on the matter.........

Darfur Crisis Article

2006-11-14T22:46:00.000-05:00

This is a link to an article about rape in Sudan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15718844/

It's SO easy for me to forget about the atrocities of the world here in my Northern Virginia comfort bubble. Let us be bold in waging war (by means of prayer) for rape victims and their assailants, that both would come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. May the assailants repent and turn from their wicked ways (I'm not better than them, just callin' it like it is) and be regenerated from their depraved state. May the victims be protected and find healing in Jesus Christ and undestand His sovereignty in a deep way amidst the tragic suffering that they endure.

On Eschatology

2006-11-04T10:32:00.000-05:00

Eschatology is defined by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition) as, "the branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of mankind."

I think this subject is important to study. Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 19:16), talked about it at length when asked in Matthew 24:3 and Luke 21:7. Paul writes about it in 1 Corinthians 15, as well as in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Remember that in writing to his "children" (1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2, Titus 1:4), Paul emphasized the importance of solid teaching/doctrine (1 Timothy 4:6, 16, Titus 1:9, 2:1, 7, 10).
Eschatology helps us grasp with our minds and hearts the future of the redeemed and the lost - the severity of eternity spent in God's gracious love or His unrelenting wrath. We can be encouraged by the fact that He Himself is the protection for the Church, His bride, both now and in the future. Truly grasping the depth of this subject will help you long for His return.

So, if these statements are true, why do some Christians shy away from the topic? I will give three possible reasons:

1) Perhaps there is a belief that some or all of the events in the future are unknowable. I call this idea, "Prophetic Agnosticism." This concept could stem from a belief that God does not know all things or from a hesitancy to make authoritative conclusions derived from prophetic books such as Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Revelation.

While I believe that God is omniscient, I do understand the hesitancy. Prophetic books have a lot of passages that require careful interpretation. Jesus Christ, in speaking of His return, says in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 that only the Father knows the hour and day (Note to Christians: if you ever hear anyone claiming to have knowledge of the specific day and hour of Christ's return, respectfully challenge them with these verses).

While I respect the hesitancy, I do not believe that all we can safely conclude about the future is that Christ will return. We have too much of the Word of God detailing this subject to be THAT restrictive in our eschatology deductions.

2) I think many Christians shy away from this topic because it causes controversy. Undoubtedly, many pointless arguments and disputes that do not exalt Jesus Christ have been waged over this topic. These type of engagements within the Church do not serve as a good witness to unbelievers.

However, the fact that a pariticular topic is controversial should not, by itself, deter Christians from an honest study of the topic. For example, soteriology (the theology of salvation) is a controversial topic, but Christians MUST have a right understanding and heart belief in the truth that we are justified by grace through faith (Romans 4:5-6, Galatians 2:20-21, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5-7, to name a few).

Eschatology is not salvific (meaning that it does not have the power to save anyone from their sins), but it is a branch of theology that helps us understand our Master and His plans for Himself, the world and its inhabitants. Therefore, we should not shy away from this topic, but rather study it, pray about it, and dialogue about it with others in an honest, yet peaceable manner.

3) Third, and perhaps the strongest reason I can think of for a lack of knowledge among Christians regarding eschatology, is a perception that eschatology is not an important topic to study. Hopefully, this post has convinced you otherwise!

I think that a one-on-one or small group conversation is a suitable forum for a fuller discussion of the topic, so let me know if you ever want to converse with me about eschatology.

Darfur Crisis: Please Pray

2006-10-22T21:04:00.000-04:00

Thousands dead. Over one and a half million forced from home. Two hundred thousands refugees gone to neighboring Chad.

Read more here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5317796.stm

Please pray that God would glorify His name by healing this ravaged nation, and that human solutions would not be trumpeted as the ultimate answer here, but that the gospel message would transform this land. That is the only way that the name of Christ will be exalted, and that is where all true healing begins and ends.

On Fun

2006-10-14T20:07:00.000-04:00

What is the role of fun in the life of a Christian? This is something I often think about, and had wanted to blog about, but forgot about until one of John Piper's sermons reminded me of the thought chain.

Here are some Google definitions of fun: 'activities that are enjoyable and amusing', 'playfulness: a disposition to find (or make) causes for amusement', 'amusing: providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining.' I like fun activities - they stimulate me, entertain me, and (sometimes) provide relaxation. I enjoy watching football (especially the Redskins), lacrosse (especially Navy or Syracuse), March Madness, surfing the Internet, talking about fantasy football, and playing video games (though I barely play them anymore).

But is Jesus Christ glorified in these activities? Do they help me stay relevant to the culture, or engrossed in it? Do they provide needed rest from work and ministry, or an idolatrous distraction from the living God? Do they enable me to evangelize with more effectiveness (a la 1 Corinthians 9:22), or cause me to act, think and talk just like the world system?

Sometimes when my conscience challenges me about my involvement in such activities, I try to defend myself with 1 Timothy 4:4b, which states that 'nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude' or 1 Timothy 6:17b, which indicates that God 'richly supplies us with all things to enjoy.' Is this a Christ-centered use of these verses?

It seems to me like I approach such issues with a "what's wrong with this?" mindset. In other words, if I can't think of a Bible verse that speaks against a particular action, then I'm free to do it. However, the harder question to answer is "what's right with this?" Or, as these Christian men I respect put it:

How does this help me treasure Jesus Christ? (John Piper paraphrase)
How does this help fulfill the Great Commission? (K.P. Yohannan)

To put it another way, instead of engaging in fun activities, would God rather me rest by praying, reading Christian biography or instructive books, meditating on Scripture, loving someone else besides me, studying God-centered doctrine or pondering the nature of God and of man?

Your thoughts are welcome...........

On Baptism

2006-10-09T15:08:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I was baptized at Reston Bible Church. Many volunteers and staff worked hard to make the event a God-glorifying one, and I appreciate their efforts. Many others came out to attend the service, some traveling from out of state!

This was no ordinary baptism service (although, now that I think of it, no true baptism service is ordinary). For the one performing the baptisms - Jason VanDorsten - not only got baptized himself by Paul Goodnight, but also baptized his wife.

What a blessing it was to see this take place! Two things stood out to me:

1) The display of Christ's deep love for His bride, the church. This was so evident in the verbal and non-verbal communication between Jason and Katie. Surely Christ's love is "deeper than my view of grace." And this idea ties in to his testimony, that if Christ truly is who He says He is - God incarnate - and His love is so great that while His children were yet sinners, He died for us, (Romans 5:8), bearing all of our sin on the cross, then my response not only cannot be nominal, but it must be no less than total worship for all of eternity.

But therein lies the problem, right? God has revealed the depths of my sin to me, showing me that "nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh" (Romans 7:18). I am utterly incapable of a true and pure response to Christ's atoning, wrath-absorbing sacrifice. Which brings me to point #2:

2) In a marriage relationship, the man symbolizes Christ and the woman symbolizes the church (Ephesians 5:22-33). When Paul Goodnight baptized Jason, and then when Jason baptized the rest of us, they referenced Romans 6:5 in that water baptism symbolizes that we are buried in the likeness of His death, and raised in the likeness of His resurrection.

This part wasn't new to me. The new part was reflecting on the idea that not only was baptism symbolizing my conversion, but also symbolizing that God alone brought me to Himself! In more detail, God the Father draws His people to Himself through God the Son by the power of God the Holy Spirit (John 6:44, 6:63, 6:65, 14:6, Romans 10:17). Christ through Jason performed her water baptism (Galatians 2:20), a symbol of the result of God's grace toward her in giving her saving faith (Ephesians 2:8, 2 Peter 1:1) .

Tagged (Is that good or bad?)

2006-08-25T21:32:00.000-04:00

Well, apparently I got tagged, which is bad on the playground (perhaps the virtual playground is a different story). At any rate, it reveals that (until today) I haven't been keepin' up with Van Diesel's blog. Shame on me - you put together some quality posts, JVD.

And now, the resposnes:

1. One book that has changed your life: Revolution in World Missions by KP Yohannan. I don't think I even made it halfway through the book before I got on my knees and repented of my gross selfishness/wasteful use of the LORD's money. This book also opened my eyes to the native missions movement and God's actions in India, a nation with a population of 1,095,351,995 - 2.3% of them are Christian (according to CIA - The World Factbook). If my math is correct, that leaves 1,070,158,899 non-Christians.

Through volunteer work with Gospel For Asia, I've probably handed out over a hundred free copies of the book. Go to their website and get your free copy!

2. One book that you've read more than once: The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Once for high school and once for college.

3. One book you'd want on a desert island: The Works of Jonathan Edwards (either volume). His material is thick and rich, and if I was stranded on a desert island, I might have the time to delve deep into the spiritual goodness that is packed into one of those tomes.

4. One book that made you laugh: The Pushcart War by Jean Merrill (or at least I think it made me laugh).

5. One book that made you cry: See response to question #1. According to an August 15, 2004 journal entry, I shed a few tears (which is a big deal for me).

6. One book you wish had been written: God Loves Himself More than You

7. One book you wish had never been written: The Day of the Dinosaur by L. Sprague de Camp & Catherine Crook de Camp. I'm not hatin' on this book because of its substance, but rather because I borrowed it as a kid from Joshua Barney School Library in Italy and never returned it. Its due date is March 5th, 1990 and sixteen years later, it rests on my bookshelf. I probably owe the Italian government a bazilly amount of lira (or I guess its euros these days).

8. One book you're currently reading: Desiring God by John Piper (my second time through).

9. One book you've been meaning to read: Knowing God by J.I. Packer (never read any of his books)

10. One book you recommend: Treasure Principle by Randy Alcorn. Short book, but full of application regarding finances.

God's Will: Flexible or Concrete?

2006-08-20T20:50:00.000-04:00

This post is in response to a conversation I had with Truitt (and Truitt, if I botch this up in anyway, please feel free to correct me or clarify the discussion/thought pattern). I think the main question we were searching to answer in our conversation is: Is God's Will flexible? Or, to put it another way, are there situations in life in which God does not care which action is performed (or not performed)? Let me provide a series of examples.

Right now, in the panty, there are two boxes of cereal waiting to be devoured by me. One is Raisin Bran from Harris Teeter. The other is Frosted Maple and Brown Sugar Shredded Bite Sized Wheats from Trader Joe's (quite a name, huh? Feel free to take a breather after that one.....). If a straight interpretation of Ephesians 1:11 is taken, does God ordain my action of eating one of the cereals tomorrow (as I plan on doing, LORD willing)? Does it matter to Him? If, as I read in that article referred by Van Diesel, that God indicates through His Holy Word that He ordains even things like dice rolling and travel plan completion, where does breakfast selection fall in line?

Say you have a dollar to donate, and two different missionaries need that dollar. You perceive that both missionaries have equal need, and that 50 cents will not do: each needs the entire dollar for ministry. Is it possible through prayer that a Christian can receive a conviction to give the dollar to one of them, but not receive specific revelation as to which one should be the beneficiary? Is this scenario possible, and if so, would God be honored equally no matter which missionary received the dollar, or is His will so specific that giving to one would be honoring, and giving to the other would be sinful?

Chew on this real example. After reading the church bulletin tonight, I see two activities for September 9th: church-wide prayer and house painting for a missionary. Both seem like excellent investments of my time. Is it possible that I could be convicted to participate in one of them, but not convicted to the point where I sense that God is leading me to one, but not the other? (This, of course, is assuming that the events overlap each other, which may not actually be the case).

Hrm.....................

The sin of Adam: Ordained, or chosen (or both)?

2006-07-21T10:01:00.000-04:00

So you thought I was finished postin', after a recent drought of activity here. Au contraire, my friend!

This post is in response to a discussion I had last night with my man, Mark Kupets. We got to talking about theology, and specifically, whether God chooses who will be saved, or if man freely chooses. This is my understanding of the process: because of the sin of Adam, man has a corrupt, sinful nature that does not allow him to seek God on his own. God moves in the hearts of the elect, and changes their desires by regenerating them, causing the regenerate to choose to place their complete trust in Jesus Christ for salvation.

But what about Adam? He didn't start off with an inherited sin nature. So did he freely choose to sin, or was it ordained by God? If the former is the case, then doesn't that place God in a reactionary position, where man acts and then God responds and plans around man's decision? If the contrary is true, then what role does the sin nature play, since in this scenario he was going to sin even though he didn't have the sin nature? And what does it say about God and His relationship with man? What are the implications of either scenario, and which scenario is most accurate, according to the Bible?

I also had a discussion about providence with Justin Stone last Tuesday. I think he discerned accurately by stating something like, "The root issue for me in this discussion is understanding the nature of God." Right on, Solid Stone.

And you, diligent reader? What say you about God and His relation to man?

The Petitionary Prayer Process Part III: Does God change His mind?

2006-06-03T16:51:00.000-04:00

In the previous post, I asserted that God is omniscient, basing my claim on verses from the Old and New Testament. In this post, I want to preface my explanation of "1,2,3,4" (if you don't know what that is, read the first post in this series) with an assertion that not only is God omniscient, but He is also perfect in truthfulness. In the 23rd chapter of Numbers, Balaam receives a prophecy from God:

"Then the LORD met Balaam and put a word in his mouth, and said, 'Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak.' "
- Numbers 23:16

And what is the first thing that Balaam says about God in his discourse?

"God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"
- Numbers 23:19

Samuel corroborates Balaam's statement with his own declaration:

"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."
- 1 Samuel 15:29

Hebrews 6:18 states that it is impossible for God to lie. Titus 1:2 affirms this truth.

So, if God is omniscient and perfect in truthfulness, then I will make these assertions regarding Exodus 32:7-14:

1) God knew that He would not destroy Israel
2) God did not lie to Moses about His intentions

Observe,

"Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation."
- Exodus 32:10

In other words,

"Leave me alone, so that I will perform X and Y."

If this is true, I argue that the following is implied:

"If you do not leave Me alone, then I will consider not performing X and Y."

The actual outcome of the event bolsters my implication assertion. In the passage, Moses (a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ) intercedes for God's people, and God grants his request.

In context of "1,2,3,4", here is the event sequence:

1) God wants to shower His grace and mercy upon His people to maxmize His glory.
2) God ordains that Moses intercede for the Israelites (whether God brought this about through His statement or by moving in Moses' heart, or both, I am not sure)
3) Moses pleads to God that He be merciful to His people
4) God answers Moses' prayer.

Now how does "1,2,3,4" reconcile with verse 14?

"So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people."
- Exodus 32:14

One should not understand this verse to mean: God thought it would be a good idea to obilerate the Israelites, but after considering Moses' request and thinking it over, He changed His mind. That interpretation implies that God changes His mind like a human. Humans can change their mind based on learning new facts about a situation, or based on appeals to emotion, or for illogical, arbitrary reasons.

This is not so with God, indicated by verses such as Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29 (both quoted earlier) and this verse regarding God's immutability:

"For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed."
- Malachi 3:6

Therefore, Exodus 32:14 should be interpreted as follows: because of Moses' intercession, God did not destroy Israel. God is sovereign - He ordained Moses' prayer. Yet Moses' actions had a real consequence - the preservation of Israel.

The Petitionary Prayer Process Part II: Is God Omniscient?

2006-05-21T20:43:00.000-04:00

"Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!"
- Romans 11:33

My man J Truitt asks a solid question, which I will address in this post and the next. He says, "in your estimation, is your "1, 2, 3, 4" list (for lack of a better description) the way that petitionary prayer works, or a way?" In his comment, he references Exodus 32:7-14.

Exodus 32:7-14 presents an intriguing dilemna. If God wanted to obliterate the idolatrous Israelites, why did He heed Moses' prayer? And if God planned to show mercy on them, why did He say that He was going to destroy them?

I believe that in order to correctly understand the complexities of this passage, one must first understand the nature of God. Specifically, I want to focus on the extent of God's knowledge. It should provide a solid framework from which to base our interpretation of Exodus 32:7-14. If it can be established that God is omniscient, then it follows that God knew before He said that He would destroy the idolatrous Israelites that He would show mercy to them. If it can be proven that God is not omniscient, then it is a necessary possibility that God did not know the final outcome of this interaction with Moses until after the outcome occurred.

What does the Bible say about the knowledge of God? I believe that it describes God as all-knowledgeable. Here are the passages that I found (mainly through consulting the writings of various theologians) that are in favor of this viewpoint:

"For truly my words are not false;
One who is perfect in knowledge is with you."
- Job 36:4

"Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds,
The wonders of one perfect in knowledge,"
- Job 37:16

"Great is our LORD and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite."
- Psalm 147:5

"Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
God, and there is no one like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';"
- Isaiah 46:9-10

(admittedly, this passage is less direct in reference to God's omniscience. However, I include it because I believe that if God did not know everything, then it is necessarily possible that an event could occur that could alter the end that God declared, or any of the events that He declared from ancient times).

"And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do."
- Hebrews 4:13

And the clincher,

"Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things."
- 1 John 3:18-20

It could be argued here that since this passage references the human heart, then the phrase "knows all things" could be referring to oneness/intimate knowledge rather than a factual type of knowledge. But is it consistent to say that God is one with everything and every person? Is He in perfect harmony with an unrepentant sinner? Does God know a speck of dust like He knows His bride, the Church?

I say no. It is a better fit in the passage itself to interpret "knows all things" as "has infinite insight and understanding." Then, the passage makes sense. Here is my interpretation: the fruit of a Christian's faith is evidence of his/her saving relationship with God through Christ. Even if the flesh of the Christian accuses him/her (which is not a given at all times, according to verse 21), God has infinite knowledge and therefore knows better than his/her heart that he/she is reconciled to Him.

The Petitionary Prayer Process

2006-05-13T14:15:00.000-04:00

(Before I begin, I must give props to Michael J. Murray and Kurt Meyers for writing an article in the Philosophy and Faith textbook (edited by David Shatz) that got me to ponder this topic. They also provided the framework for some of the arguments and counter-arguments presented here).

Have you ever wondered, "Why do I make requests to God?" The simple answer is: because God says so (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:28, James 5:16, to name a few).

That answer is sufficient. Yet, it seems that if one understood the petitionary prayer process, one would have a greater motivation to pray.

A volley of questions now ensues:

Does not God always do what is ultimately best in a given situation? When a believer requests something that is in His will, was God already going to perform the act? If so, then why ask in the first place? If not, then why does God change his course of action based on human request? Can one add to the wisdom of God? Or does anyone have insight that God does not possess?

One might say, "Making requests to God draws me closer to Him." Another might say, "Petitioning God helps me recognize my dependence on Him." (Really, these are the same).

Yet someone might respond, "Does He not give you other methods of drawing close to Him/recognizing dependence on Him, such as reading, studying, meditating and memorizing His Word? Or by exhortation from other believers? Or by praising God? Or thanking Him? Or confessing sin?"

Here is my understanding of the petitionary prayer process (feel free to offer objections or alternative viewpoints):

1. God wants event X to occur
2. God moves in the heart of a believer to pray that event X will occur
3. A believer feels a desire to pray for the occurence of event X and does so.
4. God responds to the prayer of a believer and causes event X to occur.

This understanding of petitionary prayer both upholds God's omnibenevolence and sovereignty (in other words, He has the desire and power to do what is ultimately best) while maintaining the efficacy of the believer's prayer (in other words, the prayer of the believer had a real impact on the outcome of event X).

Now, the immediate objection is: "Well, that's terribly inefficient! Why doesn't God skip steps 2, 3, and 4a and go straight from 1 to 4b?"

My response: God is more glorified in the case where He causes the event He wants to occur after a believer prays for it than by simply causing the event to occur.

Of course, even if this response is accepted, there are still unresolved problems. For instance, if no one prayed for the world to be created, and God is more glorified when He responds to the prayers of believers, then did God choose a less glorious route by creating the world and man without involving the prayers of the saints?

Persecution

2006-05-02T20:26:00.000-04:00

"Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me."
- John 15:20-21

"Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted."
- 2 Timothy 3:12

How do I reconcile these verses with my life? I had the pleasure of watching the final segment of a six-part series by John Piper on fighting for joy, and one of the things he recommended was to visit a website on persecution. There's a tab on the left entitled, "Country Info." I decided to read about Christian persecution in North Korea.

The 2005 North Korea report is rather grim. I can't truly imagine what my life would look like if I lived in a country that did not permit me to worship the triune God, or people that would toss me into prison for not hanging up a picture of Kim II Sung or Kim Jong Il in my place of residence.

I also got to read about persecution in SEND! magazine, a Gospel for Asia publication. What would I do if I was a pastor with a family, and got thrown out of a place that doubles as home and church building for sixty?

On the contrary, I live in an area that allows me to think freely, worship freely and never have to worry about threats against me to deny Christ. Praise God for these blessings!

However, what if this prosperity continues for the rest of my time in this perishable body? Would this lack of persecution indicate that I don't desire to live godly in Christ?

Hell: Joy Quencher?

2006-04-21T20:24:00.000-04:00

"It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
- Hebrews 10:31

I attend a weekly event at Reston Bible Church for yound adults called 7:24. Recently, we have been watching a six-part video series by John Piper on God, joy and how to fight for joy in God.

I believe that I experience times of joy in the LORD. However, there is at least one topic that saddens my spirit whenever I ponder it with any degree of seriousness.

It is the doctrine of eternal judgment. Hell.

The word 'hell' is found in the Bible in thirteen verses. Jesus Christ directly spoke this word in eleven out of the thirteen verses. Eight other verses record Jesus talking about a place where there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth.' He referred to the wailing place as 'the outer darkness' and 'the furnace of fire.'

Words like these plague my soul.

It isn't that I believe that God is unjust toward sinners. When I examine myself in light of what Scripture reveals about me, I know without a doubt that I am a blasphemer, an adulterer, a rapist, a murderer, a traitor, a hypocrite, a liar, a cheater and worse. In short, an idolator. It would be unjust for God to sentence me to anything less than death, facing the full fury of His wrath. I praise God that He has delivered me from such a terrifying end by His grace alone through faith in His Son. Christ is my propitiation. He has fully satisfied God's demand for justice through His perfect sacrifice on the cross. Considering what I deserve helps me appreciate with deeper sincerity the unmerited favor that God has extended to me.

Nevertheless, I know that most people will suffer the fate of an unrepentent sinner: eternal damnation. And oh how this stark reality torments my soul when I meditate upon it! There are at least two major reasons that the thought of hell is frightening:

1) It is a place of suffering. There will be no parties in hell, no joy, no satisfaction, no love, no freedom, no relief and no peace. Hell might literally be a place of burning fire, darkness and crying and teeth-gnashing, or the imagery could be figurative. Regardless, the message that hell is a place of suffering is clear.

2) The suffering is everlasting - it lasts for eternity (Daniel 12:2, Matthew 18:8, 25:41, 46, Jude 1:7). There will be no 'second chance salvation.' There will be no relief in the form on annihilation. Only inexpressible pain and agony. Forever.

It almost feels wrong to have joy in light of this. It seems like I'm in one room praising God and in another room, there are men and women that are screaming out of sheer pain. And I have no access into the room. How would one find joy in such circumstances?

Or how do I find joy in conversing with an unbeliever about matters other than the Gospel? Imagine standing on a median, talking to someone who is standing in the middle of the road, about to be splattered by an eighteen-wheeler. Could I be comfortable with the standard, "Hey, how are you, Graham?" "Fine, how about yourself?" and then talk about the weather? Should I not say, "HEY, YOU NEED TO GET OUT OF THE STREET BEFORE YOU DIE!" and not apologize for the intensity of my command because it is uttered out of compassion?

And yet the majority of my conversations with unbelievers resemble the first dialogue.

I know that joy in light of all this is possible. God commands us through His word to rejoice (Psalm 32:11, Philippians 4:4, 1 Thessalonians 5:16). Paul found a balance in his walk with Christ - he described himself as 'sorrowful, yet always rejoicing' (2 Corinthians 6:10).

So what is the proper balance? How does one take seriously the reality of eternal damnation and at the same time not let it quench your joy in God?

What does God foreordain?

2006-04-07T18:10:00.000-04:00

Here's a question that has puzzled me for awhile: What does God foreordain?

(Note: Foreordain is another word for predestine. My definition - to determine/will the outcome of an event before it happens).

With the recent posts about God's sovereignty as well as the discussion I had with Truitt and Diesel at Slidell, I feel like this is a relevant topic.

So, does God foreordain:

A) Nothing at all? A Christian holding this view would need to explain God's interaction with the universe. Take weather, for example. If weather is not foreordained, how does it occur? Does God decide the current weather in the present moment? Or does God not have control over weather?

B) Prophetic events only? I ask in response: what makes prophetic events special so that they are the only things that God ordains? Does God allow creation to exist 'as is' and intervene only during significant moments in history?

C) Salvation? Believers holding this idea must explain how this idea harmonizes with human responsibility.

And there are other questions. Would God predestine some to salvation, but still give the non-elect the opportunity to be saved? Then I would ask: why would God have two tiers of believers - the elect and the 'lucky'?

Even more bone-chilling: If salvation is predetermined, but not everyone is saved, does it then follow that some are predestined to spend eternity in Hell? If so, then why would God do that?

D) Everything that matters to God? In this case, I would ask: what is a biblical definition of occurrences that 'matter to God'? Or, perhaps a better question to ask is: what does God not care about?

E) All events? Well then, are people no more than robots? How does one holding this view explain evil? If God's providence extends over all events, can humans make any real choices?

Which is the most biblical response?

The Glory of God: Abstract or Concrete?

2006-03-31T09:18:00.000-05:00

When I was a senior in college, I was told that a friend of mine named Jon Bonker was planning to deliver a sermon related to this question. I had never before thought of the glory of God being something concrete, something substantive, but it got my mental cogs wheeling (and yes, wheel is normally used a noun, not a verb.....but it painted the desired picture, did it not?)

So you're asking yourself, "Why should I care about this question?" Because it relates to why we were created and our ultimate goal and the meaning of life. God’s people are created for His glory (Isaiah 43:7). Listen to what God inspired Paul to write to the church at Corinth: “Whether then, you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31). The keywords here are ‘all’ and ‘glory of God’. How does a Christian apply this verse?

In order for someone to ‘do all to the glory of God’, one should first know what the glory of God is, right? Or, in Inductive Bible Study terms, interpretation precedes application.

I used to always think of the glory of God in abstract terms. And I feel like I had Biblical reasons for doing so. Here are but a few passages that (in my opinion) refer to the glory of God in abstract terms:

Ascribing glory to God (1 Chronicles 16:28-29, Psalm 29:1-2)

Glory paired with other abstract entities (Psalm 84:11, Jeremiah 13:11, 1 Timothy 1:11, Hebrews 2:9, Jude 1:25, Revelation 4:11)

Glory as something given by humans to God (Joshua 7:19, Psalm 115:1, Isaiah 42:12, John 9:24)

But how about these verses, which suggest that God’s glory is concrete?

Human(s) seeing the glory of God (Exodus 16:10, Leviticus 9:23, Numbers 14:10, 16:19, Isaiah 35:2, 60:2, Ezekiel 3:23, 44:4, Luke 2:9, Acts 7:55)

Glory associated with something observable, such as fire, smoke or light (Exodus 24:17. Revelation 15:8, 21:23)

Glory of God in spatial relation to something physical (i.e. the glory of God moving, or hovering over something) (Exodus 40:35, Isaiah 10:16, 58:8, 59:19, 60:1, Ezekiel 10:19, 11:22, 43:2)

So, is the glory of God abstract, concrete, or both? And what then does it mean to 'do all to the glory of God'? Post your thoughts here!

God more glorified through money or time?

2006-03-29T12:52:00.000-05:00

The Geography Division of the US Census Bureau (translation: where I work) is relocating in August. At that time, I will be taking the Metro into work most of the time. My brother and I discussed various options: parking at Vienna and Metroing in from there, taking an Express Bus from the Herndon-Monroe Park and Ride to Rosslyn, then Metroing from there, taking a regular bus to West Falls Church etc. Some options are quicker, others are more cost efficient. At the end of our conversation, my brother said something to the effect of, "The best plan depends on whether you want to minimize travel time, cost, or some cross-section of both."

This statement got me thinking - what is God's criteria for the situation? If I minimize travel time, that frees up a little more of my day for other activities - prayer, meditation, reading, etc. If I minimize cost, that frees up more money to invest in worthy causes - such as world missions. Choosing an option with a lengthened commute time does not preclude me from some activities like prayer or reading, but I find them harder to do when I'm passively or actively engaged in another action (ex: traveling).

Maybe I should 'play it safe' and try for the third option - finding a balance between cost efficiency and commute efficiency. What do you think?

The Trinity

2006-03-25T20:59:00.000-05:00

"I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals.........And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne." - Revelation 5:1,6-7

The passage got me thinking about what I believe regarding the Trinity: God as a triune Being. By triune, I mean someone who is 'ever three, yet ever one.' But what does that really mean?

I looked to Desiring God Ministries for help. They have an article dedicated to explaining the doctrine of the Trinity. The writer of the article makes three major assertions:

1) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons.
2) Each Person is fully God
3) There is one God

I agree with all three of these statements. Yet I struggle with how they fit together. The article's author states that God is One in Essence and Three in Person. Essence there is defined as 'what you are' or 'Being', while Person is 'something that regards himself as "I" and others as "You" '.

And so I wonder - 1) Does God maintain three distinct, yet unified streams of thought at any given moment? 2) Does 'prayer destination' have any significance (in other words, directing your prayer toward a particular Person of the Trinity)?

Admittedly, I have little insight regarding the answers to these questions. The article's author suggests that Ephesians 2:18 is the general model of prayer found in the Bible. Prayer should 'to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.' Again, what does that mean? That I should direct my prayers to the Father, recognizing that I am able to communicate with Him because of Jesus Christ the mediator, and that what I communicate to Him are not my words, but the cries of the Holy Spirit?

I don't know the answers, but I do know that Romans 8:26 says "In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;"

One thing I discovered after reading the article is how inaccurate one of my previous analogies was in illustrating the Trinity. I used to say something like, "In the same pattern as there is Graham the worker, Graham the housemate and Graham the friend, there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit." However, my analogy does not speak of three distinct Persons, but merely one person with three roles. The second half of the pattern actually is God the Father the Creator, God the Father the Sustainer and God the Father the Judge (or any other set of His roles). Clearly, this pattern leaves out mention of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, who both are active in all of God the Father's activity, for they are all One, and yet Three (are we back to square one??)

If you have any comments about this topic, or illustrations that help convey the concept of The Trinity, feel free to respond to this post.

Welcome

2006-03-23T12:43:00.000-05:00

Hey there! Thanks for checking out this blog. You can view my profile to get all of the important information about myself.

On this blog, I will be posting my thoughts. Theology, challenges I'm facing at a particular life juncture, controversial issues, and maybe even a little humor might find its way into my writing.

As a general clarification, any Bible verse quoted on this blog is taken from the New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise noted.

Enjoy!

GCX