Justin Martyr

Since we're on the subject of preaching Christ from the OT,
thought we could do a few Justin Martyr quotes,
Justin's my favourite author - he's from 100+ AD,
so taught by the people the apostles taught,
and is incredible to see how he uses the old testament,
since it seems the only NT book he's quoting from is Matthew

All these are from his dialogue with Trypho the Jew

Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. For if it were necessary, as you suppose, God would not have made Adam uncircumcised would not have had respect to the gifts of Abel when, being uncircumcised, he offered sacrifice and would not have been pleased with the uncircumcision of Enoch, who was not found, because God had translated him. Lot, being uncircumcised, was saved from Sodom, the angels themselves and the Lord sending him out. Noah was the beginning of our race; yet, uncircumcised, along with his children he went into the ark. Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised; to whom also Abraham the first who received circumcision after the flesh, gave tithes, and he blessed him: after whose order God declared, by the mouth of David, that He would establish the everlasting priest. Therefore to you alone this circumcision was necessary, in order that the people may be no people, and the nation no nation; as also Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, declares. Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned, though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses, under whom your nation appeared unrighteous and ungrateful to God, making a calf in the wilderness: wherefore God, accommodating Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name, in order that you might not serve idols. (XIX)

"I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God. (XXVI)

What need, then, have I of circumcision, who have been witnessed to by God? What need have I of that other baptism, who have been baptized with the Holy Ghost? I think that while I mention this, I would persuade even those who are possessed of scanty intelligence. For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them. Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them. (XXIX)

And where it has been said, 'O God, give Thy judgment to the king,' since Solomon was king, you say that the Psalm refers to him, although the words of the Psalm expressly proclaim that reference is made to the everlasting King, i.e., to Christ. For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and angel, and man, and captain, and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove from all the Scriptures. (XXXIV)

"And the offering of fine flour, sirs," I said, "which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. (XLI)

Now assuredly, Trypho, I shall show that, in the vision of Moses, this same One alone who is called an Angel, and who is God, appeared to and communed with Moses. For the Scripture says thus:'The Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the bush; and he sees that the bush bums with fire, but the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will turn aside and see this great sight, for the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he is turning aside to behold, the Lord called to him out of the bush.' In the same manner, therefore, in which the Scripture calls Him who appeared to Jacob in the dream an Angel, then[says] that the same Angel who appeared in the dream spoke to him, saying,'I am the God that appeared to thee when thou didst flee from the face of Esau thy brother;'and[again] says that, in the judgment which befell Sodom in the days of Abraham, the Lord had inflicted the punishment of the Lord who[dwells] in the heavens;--even so here, the Scripture, in announcing that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, and in afterwards declaring him to be Lord and God, speaks of the same One, whom it declares by the many testimonies already quoted to be minister to God, who is above the world, above whom there is no other[God]. (LX)

Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.' Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses(Oshea). For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name is in Him,' was Jesus. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also. (LXXV)

"Moreover, the prophecy, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' was uttered respecting Him. For if He to whom Isaiah referred was not to be begotten of a virgin, of whom did the Holy Spirit declare, 'Behold, the Lord Himself shall give us a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son?' For if He also were to be begotten of sexual intercourse, like all other first-born sons, why did God say that He would give a sign which is not common to all the first-born sons? But that which is truly a sign, and which was to be made trustworthy to mankind,--namely, that the first-begotten of all creation should become incarnate by the Virgin's womb, and be a child,--this he anticipated by the Spirit of prophecy, and predicted it, as I have repeated to you, in various ways; in order that, when the event should take place, it might be known as the operation of the power and will of the Maker of all things; just as Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs, and as all living beings were created in the beginning by the word of God. But you in these matters venture to pervert the expositions which your elders that were with Ptolemy king of Egypt gave forth, since you assert that the Scripture is not so as they have expounded it, but says, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive,' as if great events were to be inferred if a woman should beget from sexual intercourse: which indeed all young women, with the exception of the barren, do; but even these, God, if He wills, is able to cause[to bear]. For Samuel's mother, who was barren, brought forth by l the will of God; and so also the wife of the holy patriarch Abraham; and Elisabeth, who bore John the Baptist, and other such. So that you must not suppose that it is impossible for God to do anything He wills. And especially when it was predicted that this would take place, do not venture to pervert or misinterpret the prophecies, since you will injure yourselves alone, and will not harm God. (LXXXIV)

Hear, then, how this Man, of whom the Scriptures declare that He will come again in glory after His crucifixion, was symbolized both by the tree of life, which was said to have been planted in paradise, and by those events which should happen to all the just. Moses was sent with a rod to effect the redemption of the people; and with this in his hands at the head of the people, he divided the sea. By this he saw the water gushing out of the rock; and when he cast a tree into the waters of Marah, which were bitter, he made them sweet. Jacob, by putting rods into the water-troughs, caused the sheep of his uncle to conceive, so that he should obtain their young. With his rod the same Jacob boasts that he had crossed the river. He said he had seen a ladder, and the Scripture has declared that God stood above it. But that this was not the Father, we have proved from the Scriptures. And Jacob, having poured oil on a stone in the same place, is testified to by the very God who appeared to him, that he had anointed a pillar to the God who appeared to him. And that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we have also proved by many Scriptures; and that the unguent, whether it was of oil, or of stacte, or of any other compounded sweet balsams, had reference to Him, we have also proved, inasmuch as the word says: 'Therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.' For indeed all kings and anointed persons obtained from Him their share in the names of kings and anointed: just as He Himself received from the Father the titles of King, and Christ, and Priest, and Angel, and such like other titles which He bears or did bear. Aaron's rod, which blossomed, declared him to be the high priest. Isaiah prophesied that a rod would come forth from the root of Jesse,[and this was] Christ. And David says that the righteous man is 'like the tree that is planted by the channels of waters, which should yield its fruit in its season, and whose leaf should not fade.' Again, the righteous is said to flourish like the palm-tree. God appeared from a tree to Abraham, as it is written, near the oak in Mature. The people found seventy willows and twelve springs after crossing the Jordan. David affirms that God comforted him with a rod and staff. Elisha, by casting a stick into the river Jordan, recovered the iron part of the axe with which the sons of the prophets had gone to cut down trees to build the house in which they wished to read and study the law and commandments of God; even as our Christ, by being crucified on the tree, and by purifying with water, has redeemed us, though plunged in the direst offences which we have committed, and has made a house of prayer and adoration. Moreover, it was a rod that pointed out Judah to be the father of Tamar's sons by a great mystery." (LXXXVI)

and so many more...

The Director of Music...

This is a cut out from: The Bible Student's Compendium And Dictionary
I'm sure it could be massively more Christ-focused,
but I think it's a great attempt nevertheless...

To err is to not see Jesus in everything
The problem with every exegesis is it's never enough about Him

____________________________________________________________

The 5 books of the Psalms:

BOOK 1 IS THE GENESIS BOOK. It shows us God's plan for MAN. God is Jehovah (the Lord) in this book. He has covenant-plans toward mankind. True, sin has broken things up and man is in rebellion against God. But the plans were made in CHRIST, and God still has His one Man in mind: Ps. 2; THE LAST ADAM: Ps. 8 (cf. Gen. 1). The middle Psalm of the book (21) describes Him as crowned for rule and set to be a blessing for ever (v. 6; cf. Gen. 12 and 22:18); though, indeed, He shall only reach His Crown through a Cross (22-24). Yet the MAN Christ Jesus is set before us, waiting in faith for the glory the Lord will give Him (16, 17, 18); "bowed down heavily" in the days of His flesh (35:14), yet "the Lord hath pleasure in the prosperity of His Servant" (v. 27), and when He has "waited patiently" as "a poor and needy" Man, cast upon the Lord, He receives the promised reward (40, 41). It is a "blessed" thing to consider this poor MAN (41).

BOOK 2 IS THE EXODUS BOOK. It begins with the true Israel in tears and suffering (42) yet appealing to God against "an ungodly nation" (43) and though "counted as sheep for the slaughter" (44), calling upon God to redeem them (44:26). Then comes THE DIVINE REDEEMER. Finally a redeemed Israel sings sings praises for deliverance (61-68). And the book that began with suffering conducts us, Psalm by Psalm, through a varied experience on pilgrimage towards God, towards the glorious kingdom of Christ, which will leave nothing for the loyal soul to desire (72: see esp. v. 19 and 20).

THEN BOOK 3 IS THE LEVITICUS BOOK. This is the book of the Sanctuary. Search and see how that in nearly every Psalm some reference is made to the sanctuary. Israel's house is indeed now left unto her "desolate" and given over to her enemies. But HE WHO DWELLS BETWEEN THE CHERUBIM (80:1) will yet "shine forth" again and the deserted altars shall again be laden with worship (84). For Jehovah is faithful and has sworn (89).

BOOK 4 IS THE NUMBERS BOOK: the book of the wilderness. Angels watch over God's true Israel there (91), and when Israel has profited by the past wilderness lesson (95), the wilderness shall blossom as the rose (96, etc. cf. Is. 35). For Christ will return as LORD OF THE WHOLE EARTH (98:5-7; cf. Heb. 1:6) and the earth will no longer be a wilderness but will enjoy the promised blessings (101-106). This is a very striking book indeed and may well end, as it does, with "Hallelujah."

BOOK 5 IS, LIKE DEUTERONOMY, THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT WORD. Its chief Psalm is 119, which is all in praise of that Word. (Remember Deuteronomy begins "These be the words" and tells, as we saw, how God bare witness of a New Covenant through Moses). This Word tells of "good things to come." Christ is the High Priest of these good things (Ps. 110; cf. Heb.). It will be a wonderful day when "the greater Hallel" (Pss. 117-118) is sung in Mount Zion - "the day which the Lord hath made," when the Rejected Stone is made "THE HEADSTONE OF THE CORNER." No wonder the words are treasured by believing hearts (119) and their eyes "lifted up" (121) for their redemption which draws nigh. From distress (120) they will ascend - as the songs of "degrees", songs of "the steps" (the steps of ascent to the Divine Temple) describe - to the sanctuary of blessing, where the Lord of heaven and earth will bless men out of Zion (135).

The Book closes with a grand universal anthem in five "Hallelujah" Psalms.

Preaching to the Elderly

Anyone from Asia will know how tricky it can be to preach to an older generation rooted in cultural religion...

One Singapore pastor gives his suggestions...

Winning over the elderly

The Ascension

Ever wondered what the ascension is about? Why Christ had to leave the earth after His resurrection? Didn't have a huge party on the 1st of May to celebrate Ascension Day?

Here's my attempt at explaining a bit of this glorious event at the Clubhouse service...

The Ascension of Christ

MP3 File
(apologies for preaching so fast - figured we get taught so little on it, so didn't want to wait a whole year to get on the subject again)

In the Image of God we were made long ago...

The "image of God" has been a subject of much debate over the last 2000 years in theology,
with viewpoints ranging from - 'we look like Him' to 'we can think and can be creative'

A talk a few weeks ago at the clubhouse brought this to mind -

Very many Christians argue that we should love someone because they are special,
i.e. they are walking image-bearers, thus they deserve respect and honour and love
He then continued to say this is a whole bunch of nonsense,
since at the fall, the image of God was utterly destroyed

The illustration he used was this:
Like an old Victorian house which they've kept the front or façade of it
but they have demolished everything within it for renovation,
so once you look past the shell, it is only dust and destruction

That seems to be a good analogy of what remains of the 'Imago Dei'
All was lost at the fall, with only a shell remaining,
That image, that likeness corrupted, ruined, devastated by sin

Thus only in Christ is that image remade new, rebuilt,
that Victorian house is renovated with a stunning new interior,
and in fact we wait for the exterior to be destroyed and rebuilt as well
An unbeliever is like a thing that does not exist
broken pots waiting to be smashed
A shadow, destroyed by the sun
A nightmare, vanishing with like a dream
Whereas those in Christ are clay jars that hold burning torches within,
also waiting, except we long, groan for the day of revelation

Why then do we love our neighbour?
Not for anything that they are,
but rather for Who Christ is,
and what Christ has done for us on the cross,
We love because God loved us first...
We forgive others because our debts are forgiven
We honour others, because all authority is given to us by Christ
We are patient with others, because of the Father's patience
We are generous with others, because He will supply all our needs
We are kind with others, because He showed pity on us
We suffer and bear others, because He suffered so that by the grace of God, none of us need taste death

UCCF recommended books

(copied from Dan Hames blog)

This is hilarious.....

Challenged directly by tutor

Hi all, thought I should share that recently I was directly challenged from my tutor not in a merely dismissive, indifferent manner... but a full frontal assault. A blessing in disguise? A gift of the opportunity to evangelise to him(the tutor)?

Here is a message from him (followed by my reply and one other Christian's reply so far) - please evaluate.

Re http://godisimaginary.com/

I suggested the group try these 50 Questions. Jacky Lam, kindly and courteously, replied to me, inter alia, that they were 'not new'. Well sorry Jacky (and your friends) since you persist in airing your views on FB you can have no objecton this bull having finally lost patience with the red rag you keep waving in his face!

Of course my objections are not ‘new’ Jacky, to my certain knowledge, I have been arguing them since before you were born (yes I am that old). I think you’ll find that intelligent people have been arguing against the mind numbing stupidity of all religious ‘belief’ at least since the time of Lucretius. Oh yes, and then there is the little matter of The Enlightenment for you to deal with and, in no particular order, Hobbes, Spinoza, David Hume, Marx, John Stuart-Mill, George Elliot, Percy Bysshe Shelly, Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, George Orwell, Philip Larkin, Freud, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, John Updike, A.J Ayre, Salman Rushdie, Ian McEwan … not to mention Darwin and Einstein, before you even begin to take on Stephen Hawking, astro-physics and the origin of the universe (and our obscure insignificant de-centred place in it) string theory, qantum mechanics, and then Richard Dawkins and the origin of DNA, just for starters!

I think my main objection to all religious ‘believers’ is that they just will not leave people alone. If you want to ‘believe’ and put your ‘faith’ (as you clearly do) in fairy stories that have no basis in historical fact, never mind operating outside every single scientific one, that is your, and in my view, sad destiny. It is the need to proselatise such dangerous clap-trap on FB and elsewhere, particularly to children in HK schools, that I seriously and vehemently object to. (See your blog 'Easter Club'. Children 4 -11. 5 'talks' 9 Bibles! There is no such thing as a 'Christian child' Jacky, only Children who are indoctrinated by adults, however well meaning. If it was political or economic theory or Nazism or Communism in China, you would say it was tantamount to child abuse. Why is Christian 'doctine' any different when instilled into a 'captive' 4-year old?)

It is bad enough in European culture, where there is at least a semblance of a chance that the history of the Christian Church (that is, to all intents and purposes, the Catholic Church and its ‘Orthadox’ and Protestant schisms and off-shoots over the past 2000 years) might be ‘recognized’ and taught as history. In HK many of the local ‘innocents’ are so utterly devoid of any Judeao-Christian, historical anchoring, that they constantly say things to me like ‘No I am not a Catholic I’m a Christian’. Sometimes I want to pat them on the head other times I want to slap some sense into them, depending on my mood. Western missionaries have a lot to answer for in replacing an historically Chinese belief in the supernatural with and equally nonsensical Western one. In the case of the many protestant 'sects' here in HK they ones which are historically, often falsely and dishonestly portrayed, in terms of their origins in Catholic teaching.

Perhaps it is no co-incidence that the Abrahamic ‘God’ of the Judeao-Christian-Isalmic religions are based on ‘revelations’ to semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions ‘long, long ago’. Of course, not everyone is taken in by ‘spiritual experiences’ ‘ghost stories’ and ‘babblings from beyond’. I have met many intelligent ‘believers’ (and one time believers, one of my best friends is a Greek & Roman scholar and former Precentor of Canterbury Cathedral … now an atheist public school Latin teacher) but there is not one in human history remotely qualified to say that they ‘understood’ the mind of God. Yet that is precisely what you (as you describe yourself, a 'fundamentalist Christian bible-basher) and those that profess to be mono-theistic Christians, Jews or Muslims must claim. So however modestly and humbly you think you express your views (and you always do) I can have no respect for them.

I would never, personally, describe myself as an atheist because this puts me on the back-foot in having to give too much away to ‘believers’. As Sam Harris has argued, I do not feel the need to describe myself as an ‘anti-racist’ why would I even begin to feel the need to describe myself as an anti-theist? The idea itself is just too stupid in the first place, tout court. The existence of a deity cannot ever be dis-proved but at least an intelligent theist can opt to be a mere deist (i.e. that the sheer magnificence of the known universe and everything in it strongly implies an ‘ordering force’) as much as I regard that idea with equal contempt. By contrast, those besotted by religion, have to go one further and say, as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, ‘that this creative force is also an intervening one: one that cares for our human affairs and is interested in what we eat and with whom we have sexual relations, as well as the outcomes of battles and wars’. For you and others to even begin to assert such nonsense is quite simply to assert more than any human being can or will ever know, and why it makes me so cross when you attempt to do so, particularly to the young and the ignorant, the vulnerable and the infinitely gullible.

Homo-sapiens have been on earth for at least 150,000 years and if you want to ‘believe’ in one of the tens of thousands of shamans offering ‘miracles’ that just happens to have become (through violence, bloodshed, corruption and the naked armed power of Catholic Popes) a popular fairy story for the past 2000 of those 150,000 years, that is your choice. If, despite your expensive education, you feel the need to persist in a belief in the ‘virgin birth', and people rising from the dead, I suppose you are only deluding yourself. But even if you could ‘prove’ it categorically, this still would not come close to ‘proving’ Jesus was the ‘son of god’, would say absolutely nothing about truth and morality let alone an afterlife (ha ha), or ‘last judgement’. It is just proof of the stubbornness with which otherwise intelligent people can cling to opinions without a shred of evidence to support them.

Again, to quote Hitchens directly, my simple position on all religion (and on the rule of law for that matter) is this: ‘ … the original form of tyranny of man over man, and of man over the mind of man (sometimes called totalitarianism) was certainly theocratic, and no overcoming of the absolutist or of the arbitrary is complete unless it includes a clear-eyed rejection of any dictator whose rule is founded on the supernatural … who [in their right mind except fundamentalist religious epigones like you and your PCLL Christian group, apparently!] wishes that there was a permanent, unalterable, celestial despotism that subjected us to continual surveillance and could convict us of thought-crime, and who regarded us as its private property even after we died? How happy we ought to be that there is not a shred of respectable evidence to support such a horrible hypothesis. And how grateful we should be to those of our predecessors who repudiated this utter negation of human freedom'.

He goes on … 'If anything proves that religion is not just man-made but masculine made, it is the incessant repetition of rules and taboos governing the sexual life. The disease is pervasive, from the weird obsession with virginity and the one-way birth canal through which prophets are ‘delivered’ through the horror of menstrual blood all the way to the fascinated disgust with homosexuality [where do you stand on this Jacky? Do you support the legal right for 16-year-olds to bugger each other in private in HK?] and the pretend concern with children (who suffer worse at the hands of the faithful than any other group) [Cathoic Priests in the US, we know the vile suffering you inflicted on thousands of children]. Male and Female genital mutilation; the terrifying of infants with hideous fictions about guilt and hell; the wild prohibition of masturbation [I won’t ask you where you stand on this, though personally I am in favour!]: religion will never be able to live down the shame with which it has stained itself for generations in this regard, any more than it can purge its own guilt for the ruining of formative periods of precious life’ (‘The Portable Atheist’, Christopher Hitchens, 2007).

----

Hi Keith, Given the word limit, forgive me for doing it comment after comment after comment... for I have some things to say just in response to this note (and to make sure that people are aware of what I think as well)... Firstly, your concerns are something which I do consider everytime I speak the gospel to someone. When you lay yourself up for a discussion on the generic topic of God, before moving on to Christianity (to which you often used the historical/academic term 'Judeo-Christian'), I tend more than often to grab such opportunities to share my faith in God. Why? Not because I am a self-righteous despotic person trying to spread my self-righteousness onto others.. (and I think you can see that :) ) rather, I am telling people about this object of faith which - frankly - is pretty amazing in my eyes.

Jacky Lam wrote at 11:48pm Now, like Tim says on his facebook profile, I don't want to spoon feed anyone. I am here as a witness that God did indeed change my life and no-one can take that truth away from me -- and everytime I proselytise, I am telling people about this amazing truth which changed my life and that this living truth can change theirs too. Surely, I am not prevented from sharing this good news to others? Of course, we then come to the T-junction... and you have of course responded negatively to my personal expressions (such as my prayers for you or people in general) to which I am not surprised actually. I used to persecute Christians and laugh at them on some level, without necessarily using intellect to browbeat them, but on a very simple 'common-sensical' level. Yet, now, I don't rely on common sense... I don't think there ever was such thing as an objective common sense, esp. having been blessed with the opportunity to travel to many places and meet many people in my short 22 yrs.

And rather bewildered at my change, and having seen and met at least over a thousand Christians by now being changed so drastically for God, it is almost like I am meeting a bunch of people who have returned from an AA meeting, fully reformed. A fellowship of humble, honest people who - rather than relying on themselves, decide to rely on a completely irrational concept. God. Yes, you have the odd people like Pascal, Augustine, Aquinas, Lane Craig, Piper, Warren, Locke, Hegel who try to bring religion into the secular sphere and make God understandable... and yet, at the same time, they make God even less understandable than ever, mixing in personal opinions and Scriptural views. So whilst I would rely little on historical views on God, the Enlightenment to which I am vaguely familiar, especially with the whole pseudo Christian Socinian debacle which essentially kick-started the Enlightenment, I'm not surprised that the huge anti-God backlash is not as a result of discontent

against God (and even if that is the case, that is not surprising since I believe that we are all born with the tendency to rebel against a higher being), but more so (the Enlightenment anyway) a discontent against self-contradicting Christians. Indeed, such internal struggle will never end, with the huge scandals of all religious people (Muslim extremists; Catholic fathers taking advantage of young children to which the Pope apologised; Inquisition against Catholics and Protestants alike; Jewish persecution... you name it, I'm ashamed of it), any non-Christian will respond in disgust. Yet, Christianity (and by no means do I represent all Christians in the fellowship at PCLL) is joy in this atheistically defined delusion. Because to us, it IS the truth - it is more true than some aspects of science (I think you were speaking with some authority concerning Homo-sapiens being around for 150,000 years, but I'm positive that among my friends who studied/study evolutionary psychology

/biology for PhD or whatnot, with their more learned and paid time spent to think all day long how to debunk religious nonsense, would still respectfully concur that there are still some disputed truths about evolution and origin of species which, though it still debunks their interpretation of Genesis, is by no means united in its method of debunking). Surely, just because scientists working at Answers-in-Genesis in USA/UK; the marginalised intelligent design scientists (who are not religious by any means), are not recognised in the scientific community, that is not a standard through which we immediately dismiss creationism and certain aspects of Christian miracles as so anomalous that it must be eradicated completely?

Ultimately, there is so much more to be said, and while I can continue on (and of course continually learn more over the course of my life - since I am indeed so young and can only rely on God to impart more wisdom to me over time!) - I feel that this discussion can go on for a little while, subject to changes in our lives which will also alter our worldviews and convictions. And of course, though my comments are long(-winded!), I trust you note is intentionally for all people to see and for all people to comment. I thank you for your honesty, and I hope to match it with mine.

So just in response to two things which you mentioned (which I think you wanted me to respond to specifically): Hitchens' view on on religion (and the rule of law for the matter) - is the despotism that is God. Please don't be offended when I say that... I don't actually understand what kind of God he is referring to. And yet, this is a similar sentiment that the majority of atheists worldwide have about God... repression, despotism, authoritarian, domineering etc etc... and somehow, as a Christian (again, I cannot speak for other religions... since there's a reason I'm not a liberal multi-religionist, but a Christian!), the God described in Scripture is nothing like the despotic theocratic God which you described. If there is such a disagreement... then perhaps we ARE talking past one another, as I've said, like jurisprudential lawyers of the modern day.

Now you can try to compare me with Muslims and Jews who also believe in this Judeo-Christian God, but again... I'm saying that I disagree with them (and I am positive they also disagree with me on who/what God is!). So if there are disagreements as such, then I would urge all non-religious people, when addressing religious issues, would try to address these issues more specifically rather than create a generalised post-modern version of God as is so common in modern culture. Now.. as Hitchens continues, he says that men (who created God.. a la Nietzsche and Freud) had created this anti-homosexual, sexually repressive social taboo, virginity pre-marriage and so forth. If I may clarify... I know many homosexual Christians, Christians who have sex before marriage, Christians who shout at their mummies and daddies without a shred of regret and etc...yet, at the end of the day, Christ makes them aware of what they now consider as their objective law - God's law...

... yet, they don't say to themselves, "I will force myself to be ascetic, to impose this asceticism on everyone else regardless of their belief". No. I pray (and by no means is this happening yet) that Christians will say, "I'm sorry God, and I am sorry to the person whom I was rude to (or whatever he/she did); I pray for your forgiveness and for the forgiveness of ____... and that I can even have the privilege to know you because of Jesus Christ and what he did when he was a social outcast while he was here on earth". Judgmental Christians are the bane of the faith, and God detests that. But God's law (for us) still stands. So when a homosexual wishes to believe in God, we sensitively tell them that God wishes for all men and women to be heterosexual, not to 'repress' them sexually, but to 'release' them from what God calls a bondage. And of course, everyone can say its God's word against yours, etc etc... and what is the point of obeying God's law if you aren't even..

a Christian. And YES!! I AGREE! I think that if you're a non-Christian, there is absolutely no reason for a Christian to persecute homosexuals/etc just because they're doing something which we view as sinful in God's eyes. Why? Because they don't even believe in God! Why then would it make any difference if we were to theocratically impose on them this 'law' if they are unwilling to do it, since they feel there is no God (let alone any respect for Him). Do my answers provide any particular insight? As a Christian, every act of mine is to show one or two different personalities of God as proclaimed in Scripture. The Christian view of non-pre-marital sex, of heterosexuality, of complementarianism of male/female roles etc... are all meant to show a facet of the personality of a holy family, the Trinity, the relationship between what we call the Father who commands the Son, the Son who relies on the Father, the Son and Father who can't do anything without the Spirit.

Now.. the implication therefore is that everyone in the world, whatever we do, is an offshoot of our world-view belief anyway. Your respect for science and certain interpretations of it led you to witness to a type of evolution that denies any possibility for the Trinity. My respect for God led me to witness to a truth that denies everything else. When viewed as such... any attempt to unite society through naive ideas of globalism/tolerance etc is thrown out the window - because disagreements will stay until one comes to either side (so either Christians renounce their faith or non-Christians renounce theirs). Like many of my homosexual friends, they don't wished to be merely tolerated, but to be completely accepted. Can we, as a people, completely accept every else's view? Absolutely not, for we will lose what philosophy entitles individualism (something increasingly popular in the last 50 years). So, I have come to the point to say that Keith, we have to agree that for now

... we have to agree to disagree. My adamant nature for God (which is by no means closed to all extra-biblical views mind you!) in contrast to your adamant nature against Him (which is also, by no means, closed to all intra-biblical views as I respectfully understand) will stay in opposition. The last thing I want to say is thank you. We need more honest people with strong convictions like you, rather than people indifferent to these issues. And it is because of these discussions that we can truly air our views, however preliminary or amateur-ish they sound, so that we become stronger in our convictions, or able to humble ourselves to change them. I believe that is one of the reasons why you train the moot teams, so that you don't indoctrinate them but let them come to these decisions themselves. And so I, like other Christians, come to know God by our personal choice. So I trust you can do the same with my views, and of course do the same with self-evaluating yours.

Hilarie Lam wrote at 12:48am Keith, u do have a free choice whether or not to believe. Choice, from the very beginning of the world, is given to u by God. Don't u ever wonder why the all-powerful God doesn't convert everyone to Christians? well that's because he doesn't want to, not because he can't. As Jacky and other brothers and sisters contend, we are not forcing ppl into the christian "gang", rather our spreading of his Word is a response to his love. His love is so amazing that those who have experienced it have no choice but to share with others. I will not venture on Keith but since u know that we are doing this out of altruism - one cannot but wonder, why is Christianity able to command such response?

Intense!

Jacky has decided to do some kind of crazy awesome verse by verse Christ-focused commentary on the whole Bible..

http://thesentone.wordpress.com/

Well done man.. keep at it! =)

God or Money?

A great sermon by the Rev Mark Prentice on money during an interns' conference

Godly Treasure

"Shout to the Lord" on American Idol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WOzF9ZGA7A

http://www.joshharris.com/2008/04/american_idol_and_shout_to_the_1.php

At your discretion...

Luther Stuff

http://www.megaupload.com/?f=B4U84Y64

A compiled folder of three things... his preface to Romans, preface to Galatians and commentary on Galatians... they can be found on www.ccel.org but quite difficult to compile & navigate if read straight off the page, so I hope these revised files help...

Ben Stein - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

New movie out..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

dunno if it is in the cinemas near you.. although intelligent design isn't nearly as good as biblical creationism, perhaps a stepping stone?

Easter Club

One week, 8-5pm daily
30-35 children aged 4-11
12 leaders aged 20-31
A big castle with working fireplace
A costumed medieval drama
5 talks, 9 bible studies generally based on Hosea
Glory....
























More photos can be seen at http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=80157&l=14850&id=222406230

Make me and mould me....

Another great article from Glen....

The Living God is One who forms. He is the Potter, the yozer,[1] who forms humanity,[2] our hearts,[3] our eyes,[4] our spirit,[5] our days,[6] Israel,[7] light,[8] life,[9] indeed the whole world.[10] He does so by degrees. And He does so along a trajectory of death then resurrection.

In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the earth. But, as the very next verse describes, this creation began ‘formless and empty’ (tohu wabohu). The Spirit, in brooding power, hovers over a scene associated, throughout the Scriptures, with judgement.[11] Only then, by the power of the Almighty Word is light, life and order brought to the creation. By the Word the formless and empty world is formed (days 1-3) and filled (days 4-6). And this occurs in the context of a judging Word – judging in two senses. First the Word separates – light from darkness, dry land from waters etc. Second the Word evaluates – ‘It was good.’ In this process the world is brought gradually to shalom and ‘it was very good.’

The first creation narrative ends with this purpose clause in the Hebrew:

tAf)[]l; ~yhiÞl{a/ ar”îB’.

Literally this means ‘God created (bara) in order to make (asah).’ The word bara is used almost exclusively of God’s creative activity.[12] In the intensive (piel) stem bara conveys the sense of cutting down, clearing a space.[13] On the other hand asah in the intensive (piel) stem can mean squeeze or caress.[14] This tells us something of the meaning of these verbs (which are here in the normal qal stem). Taken together with the purpose clause contruct we see that God’s bara activity prepares the ground for His asah activity. The LORD begins creation by clearing a space for the purpose of continuing His work upon that creation. He makes and then moulds. Again we see that the LORD forms in stages. First the outline then the filled out reality.

Humanity follows this pattern – first Adam is ‘formed’ from the dust of the earth and the breath of the LORD. (Gen 2:7). Next Eve is formed from the death-like sleep of the man. (Gen 2:21-24). Out of this deep-sleep (tardemah) in which violence is done – his side is pierced – he is raised up to consummation with bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. The formation of humanity was a process and one which journeyed through darkness and pain before something better resulted. It is not too much to say that even in the first two chapters of the bible the process of formation is set before us as one of death and resurrection.

This is the way of the LORD. His formation begins with raw materials but is perfected in stages and through suffering. All things in God’s economy are to be formed through death and resurrection. The people of Israel as the seed of Abraham are filled by Christ, the Seed of Abraham. The law is the form of the covenant and is filled by the gospel events. The land (eretz) from (Dead) Sea to (Mediterranean) Sea is filled by the whole earth (eretz!) from Sea to Sea. Our bodies are seeds to be transformed in death and resurrection to immortal glory (1 Cor 15:44). Ultimately all this happens through the true Adam – the Last, Heavenly Adam. He fills full Adam’s Headship over creation, He fills full the land, the people, the law and through death and resurrection brings it all to glory. Even the Son Himself is made perfect through suffering. (Heb 5:8-9).

In all this we see that Eden is not the point. Adam is not the point. Adamic humanity is not the point. Israel and its worship is not the point. All these things are passed through death and resurrection – from Eden and beyond to the New Jerusalem; from Adam and beyond to the Heavenly Man; through Israel (and its worship) and beyond to the Church of Jesus Christ. And so the Christian knows two incontrovertible facts: First, all things are forward-looking. The best is yet to come – in the process of formation we are optimists. Secondly, the path to better things is through suffering. The road to resurrection blessing always goes through the cross. In the process of formation we will also be realists.

---

[1] Isaiah 45:7,9; 64:8; Jer 18:6; Zech 12:1; cf. Rom 9:21

[2] Gen 2:7; Isaiah 43:1

[3] Psalm 33:15

[4] Psalm 94:9

[5] Zech 12:1

[6] Psalm 139:16

[7] Isaiah 43:21

[8] Isaiah 45:7

[9] Gen 2:19

[10] Psalm 95:5

[11] ‘Darkness’, ‘waters’, ‘the deep’ are all symbols of judgement. So too ‘formless and empty’, cf Jeremiah 4.

[12] Even the exception of Ezekiel 21:19 may be in order to maintain a parallelism with God’s activity in v30

[13] Josh 17:15,18; Ezek 23:47

[14] Ezek 23:3,8

The Third Day He Rose Again From The Dead

A couple of excerpts from the above chapter of Karl Barth's "Dogmatics in Outline", available at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dogmatics-Outline-Classics-Karl-Barth/dp/0334028388/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208468111&sr=8-1

"The goal is that man is transferred to another status in law. He no longer belongs to that which had a right over him, to that realm of curse, death and hell; he is translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. That means that his position, his condition, his legal status as a sinner is rejected in every form. Man is no longer seriously regarded by God as a sinner. Whatever he may be, whatever there is to be said of him, whatever he has to reproach himself with, God no longer takes him seriously as a sinner. He has died to sin; there on the Cross of Golgotha. He is no longer present for sin. He is acknowledged before God and established as a righteous man, as one who does right before God. As he now stands, he has, of course, his existence in sin and so in its guilt; but he has that behind him. The turn has been achieved, once for all. But we cannot say, 'I have turned away once for all, I have experienced' - no; 'once for all' is Jesus Christ's 'once for all'. But if we believe in Him, then it holds for us. Man is in Christ Jesus, who has died for him, in virtue of His resurrection, God's dear child, who may live by and for the good pleasure of God."

"In the resurrection of Jesus Christ the claim is made, according to the New Testament, that God's victory in man's favour in the person of His Son has already been won. Easter is indeed the great pledge of our hope, but simultaneously this future is already present in the Easter message. It is the proclamation of a victory already won. The war is at an end - even though here and there troops are still shooting, because they have not heard anything yet about the capitulation. The game is won, even though the player can still play a few further moves. Actually he is already mated. The clock has run down, even though the pendulum still swings a few times this way and that. It is in this interim space that we are living: the old is past, behold it has all become new. The Easter message tells us that our enemies, sin, the curse and death, are beaten. Ultimately they can no longer start mischief. They still behave as though the game were not decided, the battle not fought; we must still reckon with them, but fundamentally we must cease to fear them any more. If you have heard the Easter message, you can no longer run around with a tragic face and lead the humourless existence of a man who has no hope. One thing still holds, and only this one thing is really serious, that Jesus is the Victor. A seriousness that would look back past this, like Lot's wife, is not Christian seriousness. It may be burning behind - and truly it is burning - but we have to look, not at it, but at the other fact, that we are invited and summoned to take seriously the victory of God's glory in this man Jesus and to be joyful in Him. Then we may live in thankfulness and not in fear."

A Sermon for the Day of the Lights

By St. Gregory of Nyssa

O Lord, art the pure and eternal fount of goodness, Who justly turned away from us, and in loving kindness had mercy upon us. You hated, and were reconciled; You cursed, and blessed; You banished us from Paradise, and recalled us; You stripped off the fig-tree leaves, an unseemly covering, and put upon us a costly garment; You opened the prison, and released the condemned; You sprinkled us with clean water, and cleanse us from our filthiness. No longer shall Adam be confounded when called by You, nor hide himself, convicted by his conscience, cowering in the thicket of Paradise. Nor shall the flaming sword encircle Paradise around, and make the entrance inaccessible to those that draw near; but all is turned to joy for us that were the heirs of sin: Paradise, yea, heaven itself may be trodden by man: and the creation, in the world and above the world, that once was at variance with itself, is knit together in friendship: and we men are made to join in the angels' song, offering the worship of their praise to God. For all these things then let us sing to God that hymn of joy, which lips touched by the Spirit long ago sang loudly: "Let my soul be joyful in the Lord: for He has clothed me with a garment of salvation, and has put upon me a robe of gladness: as on a bridegroom He has set a mitre upon me, and as a bride has He adorned me with fair array." And verily the Adorner of the bride is Christ, Who is, and was, and shall be, blessed now and for evermore. Amen.

The Prince of Singapore

Now I'm a bit wary of Joseph Prince ministries...
He's come up with 'interesting things' like this:

(copied from http://draltang01.blogspot.com)

Joseph Prince, (2006), Health and Wholeness through the Holy Communion (Singapore: Media Pte Ltd).

Joseph Prince is the senior pastor of New Creation Church, a megachurch of more than 15,000 members in Singapore. In this book, Prince seeks to correct “misconceptions about the Holy Communion have robbed many believers of an important God-ordained avenue of healing and wholeness.” (backcover)

In his introduction, Prince notes that, “I have discovered that God ordained the Holy Communion not as a ritual to be observed, but as a blessing to be received – the blessing of health and wholeness” (p.6). To expand on that statement, Prince attributes different function to the wine (representing the blood of Christ) and bread. He writes that “the blood is for forgiveness” (p.24-25) and the “bread is for healing.”(p.25-32). Thus the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion “brings the double cure…in other words, Jesus bore not just our sins, but also our bodily weaknesses, sicknesses, and pains.” (p.32)

While most evangelicals will agree that the Holy Communion is a sacrament which is a blessing from God, they may have problem with the fact that partaking of the Holy Communion cures diseases and ill-health. The proof text used by Prince is 1 Corinthians 11:29-30.
“For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.”

Prince infers that “He (Paul) was pointing us to one singular reason Christians become weak, sick, and die before their time…their failure to discern the Lord’s body.” (p.13) Apparently because they “did not know why they were partaking” or “they had no idea why they were eating the bread.” (p.13) so they became weak, sick and die. Prince further adds, “since truth is parallel, it means that if we do discern the Lord’s body, we will walk in His health and wholeness.” (p.13-14)

What is the correct way to discern the Lord’s body? Prince offers this answer, “And as you partake of His broken body, know that yours can be whole. When you partake in this spirit of faith, something happens to your body. You become strong, healthy and you will live long” (p.31). He further adds, “so healing like forgiveness, is not a promise. It is the blood-bought right of Christians!” (p.36)

Prince also advises, “But if you are sick, I would recommend that you have Communion daily. I know of people who are so radical that they take it like medicine-three times a day. And you know what? They get radical results.” (p.45)

And also an additional benefit, “The Holy Communion is God’s solution to offset the decay (ageing). And even your friends will see the results. They will ask you, “Hey, why do you seem to look younger and younger? You never seem to age!”” (p.58). Goodbye biotox.


This is one of his later sermons though
sounds a bit better... although the last bit I'm not sure what his implications would be
although his theology seems to be getting deeper
his application always seems to be the life of the individual... what can God do for you...
as opposed to live a life for God

Hosea

Been doing stuff on Hosea for Easter club...
Some shorts from Spurgeon

“Ephraim is a cake not turned.” — Hosea 7:8

A cake not turned is uncooked on one side; and so Ephraim was, in many respects, untouched by divine grace: though there was some partial obedience, there was very much rebellion left. My soul, I charge thee, see whether this be thy case. Art thou thorough in the things of God? Has grace gone through the very centre of thy being so as to be felt in its divine operations in all thy powers, thy actions, thy words, and thy thoughts? To be sanctified, spirit, soul, and body, should be thine aim and prayer; and although sanctification may not be perfect in thee anywhere in degree, yet it must be universal in its action; there must not be the appearance of holiness in one place and reigning sin in another, else thou, too, wilt be a cake not turned.

A cake not turned is soon burnt on the side nearest the fire, and although no man can have too much religion, there are some who seem burnt black with bigoted zeal for that part of truth which they have received, or are charred to a cinder with a vainglorious Pharisaic ostentation of those religious performances which suit their humour. The assumed appearance of superior sanctity frequently accompanies a total absence of all vital godliness. The saint in public is a devil in private. He deals in flour by day and in soot by night. The cake which is burned on one side, is dough on the other.

If it be so with me, O Lord, turn me! Turn my unsanctified nature to the fire of Thy love and let it feel the sacred glow, and let my burnt side cool a little while I learn my own weakness and want of heat when I am removed from Thy heavenly flame. Let me not be found a double-minded man, but one entirely under the powerful influence of reigning grace; for well I know if I am left like a cake unturned, and am not on both sides the subject of Thy grace, I must be consumed for ever amid everlasting burnings

“From Me is thy fruit found.” — Hosea 14:8

Our fruit is found from our God as to union. The fruit of the branch is directly traceable to the root. Sever the connection, the branch dies, and no fruit is produced. By virtue of our union with Christ we bring forth fruit. Every bunch of grapes have been first in the root, it has passed through the stem, and flowed through the sap vessels, and fashioned itself externally into fruit, but it was first in the stem; so also every good work was first in Christ, and then is brought forth in us. O Christian, prize this precious union to Christ; for it must be the source of all the fruitfulness which thou canst hope to know. If thou wert not joined to Jesus Christ, thou wouldst be a barren bough indeed.

Our fruit comes from God as to spiritual providence. When the dew-drops fall from heaven, when the cloud looks down from on high, and is about to distil its liquid treasure, when the bright sun swells the berries of the cluster, each heavenly boon may whisper to the tree and say, “From me is thy fruit found.” The fruit owes much to the root — that is essential to fruitfulness — but it owes very much also to external influences. How much we owe to God’s grace-providence! in which He provides us constantly with quickening, teaching, consolation, strength, or whatever else we want. To this we owe our all of usefulness or virtue.

Our fruit comes from God as to wise husbandry. The gardener’s sharpedged knife promotes the fruitfulness of the tree, by thinning the clusters, and by cutting off superfluous shoots. So is it, Christian, with that pruning which the Lord gives to thee. “My Father is the husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” Since our God is the author of our spiritual graces, let us give to Him all the glory of our salvation.

God Men ... Rawrr!

Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda

(copied from 'Presbyterians Today') The church reformed and always to be reformed Our misused motto
	By Anna Case-Winters Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda! Even to this day, these ancient words are a rallying cry for Presbyterians and other Reformed Christians. It is a motto that reminds us of who we are and who we intend to be. But what does this phrase really mean? It is used as a springboard in all kinds of contexts and conversations, sometimes with little sense of how it arose and what it meant among the Reformed folk in the 16th and 17th centuries. It is appropriated in times of disagreement and pressed into the service of our own agendas. It is even sometimes wielded as a weapon against those who differ from us, as if to say, "My position is more reformed than your position!" This saying should indeed be a watchword for us, but we need a heightened sense of its meaning and the challenge it puts before us. Used without attentiveness to its historical context and import, it loses much of its power to challenge us. What the Reformers meant Our Reformed motto, rightly understood, challenges both the conservative and the liberal impulses that characterize our diverse church today. It does not bless either preservation for preservation's sake or change for change's sake.
	The cultural assumption of the Reformers' day was that what is older is better. This is strange to our contemporary ears. We do not share this assumption; if anything, we applaud the new and "innovative." But one of the serious charges church authorities hurled at the Reformers was that they were "innovating." John Calvin responded to this and other charges in his treatise "The Necessity of Reforming the Church." As he put it, "We are accused of rash and impious innovation for having ventured to propose any change at all [in] the former state of the Church." He then goes on to counter that they were not "innovating," but restoring the church to its true nature, purified from the "innovations" that riddled the church through centuries of inattention to Scripture and theological laxity. The appeal was to a more ancient source, Scripture—"sola scriptura" (Scripture alone). According to church historian David Steinmetz, by submitting themselves to Scripture, the churches of the Reformation movement were purging themselves of these unwanted "innovations" and returning to a more ancient and therefore purer form of church life. What the motto does not mean 1. Newer is always better. Using the motto to back up any and all "innovations" would be a misuse of the original intent. In many places where the slogan appears, the phrase is completed with a clarifying addition so that it reads: ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbi dei, which translates, "reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God." Reform, where it is advocated, must find its grounding in Scripture.
	2. The church can reform itself. Another potential misuse of the phrase is lodged in a common mistranslation as "reformed and always reforming." This can mislead us to believe that the church is the agent of its own reformation. God is the agent of reformation. The church is rather the object of God's reforming work. God's agency and initiative have priority here. The Latin verb is passive, and it is much better translated as "always being reformed" or "always to be reformed." Theologian Harold Nebelsick put it well: "We are the recipients of the activity of the Holy Spirit which reforms the church in accordance with the Word of God." * The church is God's church, a creature of God's Word and Spirit. As we say in our Brief Statement of Faith, "we belong to God." God's Word and Spirit guide the church's forming and reforming.
	The Presbyterian Book of Order, in the chapter "The Church and Its Confessions," follows the mistranslation but is on target with its theological interpretation. It says: "The church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms 'Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,' that is, 'the church reformed, always reforming,' according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit." That last phrase is crucial in clarifying both the direction (and the Director!) of the church's reform. Why the church needs reforming 1. Because of who we are (sinners) Part of our openness to being reformed comes out of a conviction about who we are. Reformed folk have been particularly aware of human fallibility and sinfulness. One of the particular gifts of our Reformed tradition is the notion of "total depravity." It is one of our least understood gifts to the ecumenical community, but all it means is that we recognize that there is no aspect of our lives that is unaffected by our estrangement from God. Even our best endeavors and highest aspirations are prone to sin and error. Forms of faith and life in the church are no exception. This is why Reformed confessions tend to have their own built-in disclaimers. The preface to the Scots Confession invites all readers to offer correction from Scripture if they find the confession to be in error. The Westminster Confession of Faith asserts, "Councils may err and many have erred." We acknowledge that the church even at its best is a frail and fallible human institution. We know that we "hold these treasures in earthen vessels." Edward Dowey, another church historian, has written that reform is the institutional counterpart of repentance. ** Recognizing how far short we fall from God's intentions, we continually submit all doctrines and structures to be reformed according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit. The church is a frail and fallible pilgrim people, a people on the way, not yet what we shall be. The church, because of who we are, remains open to always being reformed. 2. Because of who God is (a living God) Openness to being reformed comes not only because of who we are but because of who God is. The God "whom alone we worship and serve" (Brief Statement of Faith) is a living God. God is not bound, either to our tradition or to our particular contemporary context. God's revelation is always a gift, never a given.
			As Dowey rightly observed, "Reform has a backward and a forward reference. It leads not only back to the Bible but also forward under the Word." **The Presbyterian Confession of 1967 underscores this teaching: "As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture." The backward and forward reference of reform invites us on the one hand to attend respectfully to the wisdom and Scriptural interpretations of those who have gone before us with humility. On the other hand, it pushes us to do more than simply reiterate what fathers and mothers in the faith have said. Rather, we must do in our day what they did in theirs, worship and serve the living God. Therefore, while we honor the forms of faith and life that have been bequeathed to us, we honor them best in a spirit of openness to the Word and the Spirit that formed and continue to re-form the church. The church, because of who God is, a living God, remains open to always being reformed.
	A gift to the wider church A vision of the church reformed and always being reformed is one of the gifts the Reformed have to bring to the wider Christian church. Such a notion may already be out there among our ecumenical partners. A case in point is one of the memorable moments in the first-ever face-to-face conversation between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Roman Catholic Church represented by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity in December 2000. Cardinal Cassidy observed, "You have a saying that seems to be at the heart of your self-understanding as a church. What do you mean when you keep referring in your documents to ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda?" It was moving to hear the 12 Presbyterians at the table try to say in their own words what that means to us. And it became all the more moving when the Roman Catholic representatives called our attention to the papal encyclical, Unitatis Redintegratio. In this they have now said in the strongest way possible that the church is continually in need of reform. This was a high point of the dialogue. The call to be reformed, while it remains our distinctive gift, may no longer be our exclusive possession. Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda. This motto calls us to something more radical than we have imagined. It challenges both liberal and conservative impulses and the habits and agendas we have lately fallen into. It brings a prophetic critique to our cultural accommodation—either to the past or to the present—and calls us to communal and institutional repentance. It invites us, as people who worship and serve a living God, to be open to being "re-formed" according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.
	* "Ecclesia Reformata Semper Reformanda," Reformed Liturgy and Music, Spring 1984. ** "Always to be Reformed" in Always Being Reformed: The Future of Church Education, John C. Purdy, ed. Geneva Press, 1985.
	Anna Case-Winters is a professor of theology at McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Ill.

Essay 2

Well.. 2nd essay is finally done

ever so slightly over the 4000 word limit =)

Essay 2 - The Law

PS: Thx Glen for many a quote!

The problem is that you do not sin enough!

Here are a couple of mind-blowing Luther quotes! If such pastoral advice seem a bit far-fetched for us, could it be that our understanding of God's mighty grace in Christ is too small?

Whenever the devil pesters you with these thoughts, at once seek out the company of men, drink more, joke and jest, or engage in some form of merriment. Sometimes it is necessary to drink a little more, play, jest , or even commit some sin in defiance and contempt of the devil in order not to give him an opportunity to make us scrupulous about trifles. We shall be overcome if we worry too much about falling into some sin.
Accordingly, if the devil should say, "Do not drink," you should reply to him, "On this very account, because you forbid it, I shall drink, and what is more, I shall drink a generous amount." Thus one must always do the opposite of that which Satan prohibits. What do you think is my reason for drinking wine undiluted, talking freely, and eating more often if it is not to torment and vex the devil who made up his mind to torment and vex me? Would that I could commit some token sin simply for the sake of mocking the devil, so that he might understand that I acknowledge no sin and am conscious of no sin. When the devil attacks and torments us, we must completely set aside the whole Decalogue. When the devil throws our sins up to us and declares that we deserve death and hell, we ought to speak thus: "I admit that I deserve death and hell. What of it? Does this mean that I shall be sentenced to eternal damnation? By no means. For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction in my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He is, there I shall be also." (From Luther's letter to Jerome Weller)

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.
We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2 Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognised the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.
No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner. (From one of Luther's letters to Melancthon)

Christians suing their teachers?

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2303288/7241528
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345274,00.html

Something inherently problematic about Christians suing their teachers? How do you think the Christians will be able to show Christ's love if their teachers lose their job because the Christian wants to be protected by the human rights constitution, rather than God? What happened to good old persecution on Christ's behalf?

1 Peter 1:6-7

"In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith - more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire - may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ".

Come on now Christians, lets not be whiny. We should rejoice that we are suffering for Him, and out of our freedom do we obey and suffer to witness to the Messiah who freely became sin for us, the Messiah who did not retaliate, the Messiah who did not, above all, relied on his Father for true protection!

Penal Substitution?

Penal substitution in current evangelical theology is the primary consequence of the cross of Christ

Meaning, Christ takes all our sins and we take all His righteousness,
now what it implies is a 'vicarious atonement' - that is, only the debt of the punishment is transferred

According to Berkhof's Systematics, this implies:

1. The guilty part himself is not in a position to bear the penalty through to the end, so that a righteous relation results
2. the transfer does not encroach upon the rights and privileges of innocent third parties
3. the person enduring the penalty is not himself already indebted to justice
4. the guilty party retains the consciousness of his guilt and of the fact that the substitute is suffering for him

so in summary: "The guilt of sin as a liability to punishment was imputed to Christ, and this could be transferred because it did not enhere in the person of the sinner, but was something objective."

Now is it just me, or is this slightly wonky?

As far as I know "He who had no sin BECAME sin for us"

It is also not as if Christ dies for Adam therefore Adam goes free...
No it is Christ dies, therefore all in Christ live
In fact Scripture says, "We are crucified with Him, we died with Him, we were buried with Him, we were raised with Him, we ascended with Him, we are seated on the right hand of God with Him now"

All the allegories in Scripture, the tree, the ark, the sheep pen, the body etc...
imply a much more personal union with Christ, that we participate in the cross, and now are truly righteous in Him - true participators in the Divine Nature

Everything in the law indicates we are dead to the world, and are alive in Christ, in fact He is our life, and we are hidden in Him

This is no mere substitution, but a full incorporation into the Godhead...
Therefore as Paul we must say...
Galatians 6:14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

The Desire for Christ

(quoted from "The Poor Doubting Christian Drawn to Christ" - Thomas Hooker, 1647)

How does the desire for Christ come?

There are but two affections in the soul for absent good. God infinitely wise having so framed it, and these two are hope and desire. The understanding says, "Such a thing is profitable and comfortable if I had it." The hope is sent out to wait for that goodness. And if it does not comes, then desire is sent out to meet that goodness. Hope stand and waits for it, but desire wanders up and down seeking and inquiring after the Lord Jesus, and goes from coast to coast and from east to west. "Oh, that I could; oh, that I might! And when shall I? And how may I come to the speech of the Lord Christ?" As it was with the spouse in the Song of Solomon (when her beloved was gone, she wandered up and down seeking him, and inquiring of the watchman if they did not see him whom her soul loved), so desire wanders from this thing to that, from this place to that place, and never ceases to seek and see if she can gain notice of Christ. It goes to prayer to see if that will entreat Christ. It goes to the Word to see if that will reveal Christ. It goes to conference to see if it can hear of Christ there. Then it comes to the congregation and to the sacrament, to see if it can hear of any news of Christ and mercy.

The soul thus continues wandering and seeking till at last the Lord Christ comes into the soul. When the soul has hungered and longed for Him, at length the Lord Christ is pleased to show Himself. "Behold the King comes." So the soul says, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away your sins." O poor, broken-hearted sinner, here is your Saviour. He has come down from heaven to speak peace to your soul in the pardon of your sins. You who hunger after Christ, here He is to satisfy you. You who thirst after Christ, here He is to refresh you. To you who have long sought Him, He says, "Here I am, and all my merits are yours." Now when the Lord Jesus is pleased to present Himself to the soul, desire hath met with the Lord.