The Eternal Generation of the Son

The eternal generation of the Son has been a concept that was difficult for me to understand. The Son is spoken as being generated (begotten) from the Father. The natural sense of the word "begotten" implies a beginning. Yet orthodox Christianity doesn't only hold to the generation of the Son, but the eternal generation of the Son. Thus affirming that although the Son was begotten, this begetting was not at any certain point in time. How does that make sense? What does this mean?

How does that make sense?

Imagine the sun. The sun cannot exist without its radiance and its radiance cannot exist without the sun. The radiance of the sun generates from the sun and therefore comes chronologically after the sun. But if the sun has eternally existed (as the Triune God has eternally existed), then the generation of the radiance isn’t chronological but only logical. 

So following the analogy above: 

1. Since the Son was generated (begotten) from the Father.
2. And the Son eternally existed (John 1:1; Phil 2:5-6) being referred to as YHWH (Phil 2:11; Heb 1:10–12).
3. Then the generation of the Son expresses the logical order of the Persons of the Trinity to distinguish one from another, not to illustrate chronology. 

This is the same with regards to the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.

What does this mean?

Seeing that the Son's generation does not speak of a chronological order, we see that there is yet a logical order within the Triune God. That is, the Father communicates the divine essence to the Son. What makes God, God, is what makes the Father, God. What makes the Father, God, is what makes the Son, God, because of this communication of the divine essence. 

Recognizing that the analogy is not perfect we can see this communication occurring, to a certain extent, in the sun analogy. The radiance of the sun is, in some sense, the communication from the sun to the emission of heat and light. What belongs to the sun also belong to the sun's radiance. So, the essence that belongs to the Father is communicated also to the Son.

Conclusion

So we see here that by affirming that the Son was begotten, it is in reference to the communication of the divine essence from the Father—not a beginning point in time for the Son. The generation of the Son is what distinguishes the Son from the Father and the Spirit. The Father and the Spirit were never begotten, but the Son was.

For more on eternal generation and the communication of the divine essence, see here.

The Trinitarian Gospel in TULIP

Calvinism remains the centre of debate in a lot of Christian conversations. Did God actively predestine things to happen or does He passively foresee the future based on His foreknowledge? As the debate continues, I would like to share something that I learned awhile ago when I read Dr. James Boice's The Doctrines of Grace. In it he shows the harmonious work of the Trinity in the salvation of sinners.

Let me briefly explain. TULIP is the acronym used to describe the "5 points of Calvinism". It goes as follows:

• Total Depravity - The effects of sin has affected every capacity of man. The body, the mind, and the will. It does not mean we are as bad as we can be, rather, every single part of a person has been affected by sin.
• Unconditional Election - The choosing of the Father is not based on anything the sinner has done. The choosing of the Father is solely based on God Himself, according the the purpose of His will.
• Limited Atonement - Rather than limiting the effect of the atonement (i.e. its sufficiency; its power), Calvinists believe the atonement made by Christ is limited in its extent. So, the atonement only covers the sins of those whom Christ died for. In essence, if Christ has died for you, you will be saved.
• Irresistible Grace - If the Father has chosen you and Christ has died for you, then the Spirit will draw you to Him. He will give you a heart of flesh and cause you to be born again so that you will come to Him.
• Perseverance of the Saints - The evidence of points ULI will be a perseverance unto the end. The true saints will strive until the end.

Incase you missed the harmony, look below:

• T - the state of mankind
• U - the work of the Father
• L - the work of the Son
• I - the work of the Spirit
• P - the fruit of the work of the Triune God

Those whom the Father chosen, the Son dies for. And those whom the Son dies for, the Spirit gives regeneration. There is no disunity in the Trinity, the Father and Spirit are not at odds with the Son who some say died for every single person on earth. All are working together in bringing to pass the salvation of the elect.

Providence at Work: Calvinism and Grieving

Similar to the CCSA (Chinese Christian Softball Association), the CVA (Christian Volleyball Association) has a time for devotion after every volleyball game between two teams. I had a devotion prepared tonight on the topic of grieving. Based off Dr. James White's book, Grieving: Our Path Back to Peace. After the devotion, two people told me that what I shared was very timely. I am very grateful that the Lord would use me to share something from the Word at the right place and at the right time. His timing is perfect.

I would like to type out briefly what I shared tonight. To be clear, tonight's devotion wasn't exactly based off of the book. More like an accumulation of listening to his podcasts.

Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose’

Isaiah 46:8-10

In this passage the Lord describes his absolute sovereignty over all things. He has a purpose in the things that He does and has declared what would happen in the end since the beginning of time. God has established Himself as one who has control over every single thing. Including the actions of every individual.

As Abraham Kuyper famously said, "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!"

How this relates to the topic of grieving is understood when we consider what was written by the Apostle Paul, "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)

The words of the apostle gives great comfort in times of grieving, knowing that "all things work together for good." But have we considered that Paul said "all things"? Have we considered that Paul is familiar with Isaiah, which describes God as one who has "declar[ed] the end from the beginning" and that he said, "I will accomplish all my purpose"?

Many are uncomfortable that God is in control of all things in the sense that He has declared it.* Meaning whatever happens, God not only knew it, but He declared it. He is not passively receiving knowledge of what happens in the future, He has ordained for the future to happen the way it happens.

Although there are objections, consider what Scripture had said about God and see how this helps us in our grieving. If the Lord has declared it, then He has a purpose in all things that happen. It is not just a meaningless accident, there is a purpose behind it whether we see it or not. So, knowing that God is sovereign over all things on earth, we have certainty that God had a purpose in suffering. We know that God is good, so we know that ultimately, every suffering and grief we experience has a purpose in the overall plan of God.

As Joseph said to his brothers, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Genesis 50:20). Whatever calamity may fall, our Almighty God has a good purpose behind it all.

*Due to time and the nature of the devotion, I did not address how God can be the one who declared it while we are still the ones responsible. This is commonly known as compatibilism. Check out more here and here.

Losing a Child

In the midst of suffering in this world. Christians don't grieve without hope. We grieve, but we are hopeful for what comes next (1 Thess 4:13-14). Below is a letter written by Rev. Samuel Pearce to his wife in the midst of his daughter's illness. May this be an encouragement to stay faithful to our Lord.

Northampton, Dec. 13, 1794. 

My Dear Sarah, 

I am just brought on the wings of celestial mercy safe to my sabbath’s station. I am well; and my dear friends here seem healthy and happy: but I feel for you. I long to know how our dear Louisa’s pulse beats: I fear still feverish. We must not, however, suffer ourselves to be infected with a mental fever on this account. Is she ill? It is right. Is she very ill … dying? It is still right. Is she gone to join the heavenly choristers? It is all right, notwithstanding our repinings … Repinings! No; we will not repine. It is best she should go. It is best for her: this we must allow. It is best for us: Do we expect it? Oh what poor, ungrateful, short-sighted worms are we! Let us submit, my Sarah, till we come to heaven: If we do not then see that it is best, let us then complain. But why do I attempt to console? Perhaps an indulgent providence has ere now dissipated your fears: or if that same kind providence has removed our babe, you have consulted enough in Him who suffered more than we; and marathon enough to quiet all our passions in that astonishing consideration, —“ God so loved the world, that he spared not his own Son.” Did God cheerfully give the holy child Jesus for us; and shall we refuse our child to him? He gave his Son to suffer: he takes our children to enjoy. Yes; to enjoy Himself. Yours with the tenderest regard,—S. P.

The Restraining Hand of God

I am currently working on my reading assignments for a course: Christian Spirituality: A History. Reading the Memoirs of Rev. Samuel Pearce compiled by Andrew Fuller, I came across the following quote (p. 369, emphasis mine):

When a child, he [Pearce] lived with his grandfather, who was very fond of him, and endeavoured to impress his mind with the principles of religion. At about eight or nine years of age he came home to his father with a view of learning his business. As he advanced in life, his evil propensities, as he has said, began to ripen; and forming connexions with several vicious schoolfellows, he became more and more corrupted. So greatly was his heart at this time set in him to do evil, that had it no been for the restraining goodness of God, which somehow, he knew not how, preserved him in most instances from carrying his wicked inclinations into practice, he supposed he should have been utterly ruined.

O that we would see the hand of God in our lives! That the reason behind our lack of sinful behaviour is due to the restraining goodness of almighty God. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

God Told Me: A Phrase to Abandon

If I told you that God told me something, what would you be thinking? What if I say that God told me to tell you something?

Six years ago, if you told me that, I would have assumed that you heard an audible voice. In fact, I tried to listen to God in silence during my devotional and prayer times. I distinctly remember going to a prayer meeting in university where we tried to listen to God speak. I also held a prayer meeting where we sat in silence and would share any words, scriptures, or pictures that came to mind.

Today, I was talking to someone about something similar and that is exactly what he thought about God speaking. It started with him asking me about my call to ministry. "Did you receive the call to ministry or was it your thoughts?" As if my thoughts are automatically something that would be in direct conflict with the will (or call) of God. Our conversation led us to talking about this "calling" and God "speaking." It is because of such confusion that I propose we should either abandon this phrase from our Christian vocabulary, or we must qualify what we mean when we tell others that God told us (or God spoke to me, or God said).

Here are 5 additional reasons that this term should not be used:

1. The Body of Christ is being harmed with such language.
   From my own experience and from the experiences of those whom I have talked to, I get the sense that people want "more" of God because their life seems so ordinary. The problem is that they don't seem to be getting what they are hearing about.
   
   They hear about passionate people sharing about what God has been telling them. They want this literal face-to-face relationship with God that they are hearing about. But they are not getting this relationship. Instead, it is are simply praying to God and reading His word and obeying His commandments. Their prayers, they say, seem like a one way conversation with the Lord.
2. Those who hear God are prophets of God.
   In Numbers 12, the Lord responds Miriam and Aaron's envy against Moses with the following words in verse 6-8:
   And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
   
   Notice, Moses is being compared to prophets. The contrast is that Moses has an even deeper relationship with God than any prophets of the Old Testament. Whereas the Lord speaks to the prophet in visions and dreams, Moses is spoken to "mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles."
3. Not everyone hears direct objective instructions from God.
   If we understand that there is no distinction* between OT and NT prophets, then we know that those who hear God speak are those with the gift of prophecy. And we know that not everyone are prophets (1 Cor. 12:29; Eph. 4:11).
4. Confusing your words with God's words is a dangerous thing.
   This phrase should already be enough:
   To claim that you are speaking the words of God when in fact you are not is to heap judgment upon yourself.
   
   Prophets are to be tested and are to be 100% accurate (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22). The words of a prophecy are the very words of God because He puts words in the mouth of His prophets (Ex. 4:15; Deut. 18:18).
5. The focus is unnecessarily being taken away from the sole sufficient Word of God.
   When people are looking for these "extraordinary" experiences, it takes the focus away from God's word. However one tries to make distinctions, it is difficult for the one not experiencing God as he thinks he should to be content with the Spirit working by His word in an ordinary way. They want the Spirit to work extraordinarily as evidence to themselves that they are not missing out on the blessings of God.
   
   If the norm is not the working of the Spirit in the life of the believer (the changing his disposition from sin towards obedience to Christ), but dreams, visions, signs and wonders, then first of all, you misunderstood the gifts of God as defined by Scripture. Second, chasing after these voices over Christ's sufficient word is inevitable.
   
   Lastly, if an audible voice, or dreams and visions is not what you mean by "hearing from God," then you have made an unnecessary stumbling block for your brothers and sisters in Christ when you don't qualify what you mean by that.

So, please refrain from talking about "hearing from God" and saying "God told me." These statements must be followed by how you heard Him or how He told you. The Bible? Words of others? Just a thought that came to mind? What you think He told you?

Perhaps it is best to learn from Dr. MacArthur:

This is probably not a quote from him. Not surprised if he actually say it though.

*Some argue that the NT prophets are fallible, and the OT prophets are infallible. Simply put, Joel had in mind one type of prophecy when he wrote Joel 2:28-32. That is, the type of prophecy that he is gifted with, OT prophecy. When Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-21, there is no reason to think that Peter is changing the meaning of prophecy. If there is no reason for the change in meaning, then NT prophecy is the same as OT prophecy.

Can Snakes Talk?

A couple weeks ago, my coworker was talking to me about religion (specifically Christianity). In the past he asked me about my thoughts on different things, but maybe because I didn't take the view that he thinks conservative Christians take then he thought my views were liberal. (I think that must've been good from his point of view.) He came up to me and told me about someone he knew, when he was younger, who "believed the Bible is historical." At that moment, I interrupted, "I believe that." To which he responded, "Seriously? Really, Andy? You believe that snakes can talk?" (Referring to Genesis 3, when the serpent talked to Eve.)

Now let's pause. How would you respond to this question?

... tick tock, tick tock ... Ok, time to continue.

I replied by saying, "I don't believe snakes can talk." This can be observed in our everyday lives. Naturally, snakes are unable to speak as human beings do. So, snakes cannot talk.

"However, what happened there was a supernatural moment." Afterall, the snake was Satan (Rev. 12:9; 20:2), who is himself a supernatural being. Supernatural events do not happen all the time. They may or may not repeat themselves. So I believe that although it is true that snakes can't talk, it is also true that the snake in the garden did talk, provided we allow for a supernatural event to occur.

At the end of all this, it comes back to our worldview. The lens with which we see the world. Christians are supernaturalists; atheists and, generally, agnostics are naturalists. If one doesn't allow for supernaturalism in their worldview, one will never accept that it is even remotely possible that the snake in the garden of Eden talked to Eve.

There is a differentiation made here, if you ask me "Can snakes talk?", I will tell you that snakes can't (unable to) talk in human languages. However, if you ask me "Did the snake in Eden talk?", I will tell you that it did. Because the event was not purely natural.

After explaining that to my coworker, he did show appreciation that I made the distinction.

We Christians are not naturalists, we are supernaturalists. The physical world exists, the spiritual world also exists.

So, can donkeys talk? (Num. 22:28-30)

What Happens When We Die?

Disclaimer: I clearly have not done some deep digging and research on this subject, but thought it would be nice to share. I welcome any criticisms and thoughts on this topic.

For the most part, everyone knows that when they die they will either go to heaven or hell. By everyone, I mean every Bible believing Christian. People of other religions may think differently, and liberal Christians... are just wrong. The point of contention is not whether heaven or hell exists, but, chronologically, what exactly happens after death.

Here are some views:

1. The soul goes to heaven or hell immediately after death.
2. The soul goes to heaven immediately, hell comes after judgment.
3. The soul "sleeps" until the resurrection, heaven and hell comes after judgment.
   (If I remember correctly, this is also known as soul sleep. The Seventh Day Adventists believe in this.)

And there are some nuances, like how there will be a new heaven and new earth, and that God will dwell with His people on the new earth (Rev. 21). Therefore, you don't go to heaven but you stay on the new earth while God dwells among us. I believe that in the end, God will dwell with us on the new earth.

I think most people believe number 1 because they haven't given too much thought about our state of consciousness after our death. Rather, they just assume the end. (heaven = good, hell = bad)

My stance is number 2. I typed up a short email awhile ago. They were just quick short thoughts that came to my mind as I was reading Job. I reworded it so it doesn't sound like an email. 

Here it is:

Job 14:12-13, talks about dying as sleeping, but it also mentions being in Sheol. Which makes me think that the expression of sleeping is the observation that the living sees of the dead, instead of what is actually happening to the dead.  

Then my mind was brought to Jesus' story about the rich man and Lazarus, which takes place in Sheol (Gk. Hades). And the statement that Jesus made to the thief on the cross that he will be with Christ today in paradise, along with Paul's statement of being away from the body and at home with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6).  

We also see in Rev. 20:13-14 that those in Hades will be given up for judgment (so they come out of Hades), and Hades itself will be thrown into the lake of fire (hell). Whether Hades is only reserved for OT saints and that NT saints go straight to heaven after death, I'm uncertain, but I tend to lean towards that understanding.

The strongest argument I hear for number 3 (which I don't think is really that strong after considering the Bible passages above) is the argument of the influence of Greek thinking. That the separation of soul and body is too Gnostic-like[1]. They argue that the Hebrews didn't believe in such a distinction/separation. Therefore, separation cannot happen. And to make sense of being in paradise "today", the individual must be sleeping until the day s/he enters paradise. That way, to the individual, it feels like "today" but it's not really.

Thoughts?

[1]Gnosticism believes that the spirit is good and the material is bad. That there is a secret knowledge that must be obtained to be freed from this material world. As a result, Gnostics would try to abstain from material possession and earthly enjoyment. On the other hand, there are Gnostics who would indulge themselves in the flesh because, afterall, we will be rid of our flesh after we die anyways.

Note: Gnosticism is a system of thought that had also infiltrated some small sects of Christianity. Evidenced by writings such as the Gospel of Thomas (also known as a Gnostic gospel).

The Atheist's New Year's Resolution

 I just came across this on my Twitter newsfeed:

Characteristically excellent advice from @MickNugent: https://t.co/s6mHoPl75D New Year resolution to follow it.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) January 2, 2016

Just so I won't be accused of having not read the article, let me read it now ... ok done.

My initial thought when I saw the tweet was, Why? Why, from the atheistic worldview, should this even be your new year's resolution? Why is it even excellent from your perspective?

Incase the reader doesn't know, this is the atheistic worldview as I understand it to be:

We are an accident. Evolution brought us here. The world has no purpose. We are only matter. Our mind is simply caused by chemical reactions. 

There are a lot of things I like about the article and think is good. For example, challenge #2 "Promote robust civil dialogue not Internet rage" is good because then it will allow people to better understand each other as we dialogue. The Christian worldview believes everyone deserves respect because we are made in the image of God, we are morally obligated to treat each other with respect. But, when it comes to the atheistic worldview: Why? If ultimately we are matter and chemicals, we die and we are gone, then why civility?

Let me just take 3 examples (I arbitrarily chose the number 3, I'm pretty sure there were more things I noticed as I was reading the article):

• Challenge #1 summary talks about giving Muslim respect by opposing Islamophobia, and criticizing abuses on Muslims by Islamism.  From the atheistic worldview: Why is respect important? Why address abuses?
• Challenge #3 summary says "do constructive things, and be seen to do constructive things, while explicitly self-identifying as an atheist." Why must we do constructive things?
• Challenge #4 is to promote fundamental human rights. Why must we do that?

Ok, I definitely think I there are more, but I think the reader gets the point. There are many ways to approach dialogue with an atheist, but the foundational question that keeps coming back is this:

"On what basis does an atheist have to do what s/he is doing? Why must the atheist do 'this' and not 'that'?" This goes back to Pastor Jeff Durbin asking, "So What?" (there are 3 links there). It seems with the atheistic worldview, there is really no basis to keep any of the resolutions in general, let alone keeping 5 challenges of the article as resolutions.

Praising God for His Impassibility

I just finished an article by Kevin DeYoung on the Impassibility of God. That is, God's attribute that affirms His inability to suffer involuntarily or be acted upon externally. The article was written for the breakout session that he spoke at Together for the Gospel 2010. The fifth point in the article makes me want to break out and worship God. It's amazing! Here are two paragraphs:

Listen to Hebrews 2:9: ―But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. This is a purpose statement. The Son of God had to be made for a little while lower than the angels so that he might taste death. Apart from the incarnation, the Son could not die, because God by definition is immortal.

and

Do you see the connection in all of this with the doctrine of impassibility? If God as God can suffer then the incarnation is robbed of its glorious condescension. There‘s no mystery and no majesty in the incarnation apart from impassibility. Why become a man if God is capable of experiencing all that needs to be experienced in order to save men?

I hope you see the wisdom, mercy, and love of God in the incarnation of Christ. Look at that, just in time for Christmas.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” 

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Romans 11:33-36 

Same Words, Different Meanings

I just came across a link to an amazing video performed by this person, Lindsey Striling. She is definitely a very talented violinist. At the end of the video, she gives a very inspiring message of her hope. Of the gospel, of Jesus Christ:

You know, I have realized that a lot of times I have failed to see the beauty that is in the moments and people that surround me every single day. And this video is actually a really humbling experience, and it reminded me of a time where I honestly felt that no one could see the beauty in me. And maybe that's something you can relate to. Maybe you think that no one sees the beauty in you. But there is one person that, I have learned, always sees the beauty in us. And that's our Savior, Jesus Christ. And this is the time of the year that we have the opportunity to celebrate his birth. He was the greatest gift that we've ever been given, and his gospel allows us the knowledge to know that we can be with our loved ones forever. And in my darkest moments, Jesus Christ has given me hope. If you want to see more about this message, you can click on this video, A Savior is Born. Please share it, watch it, and please know that there is a gift inside of you. He sees it, I see it. I really hope that you can see it. I just want to thank you guys for seeing the gift in me.

But which Jesus Christ is she referring to? Striling is a Mormon. The Savior she refers to is not the one the Bible teaches. The Jesus she knows is Lucifer's spirit brother, a created being. The gospel she refers to does not save. Their emphasis on family and "be[ing] with our loved ones forever" is their gospel. My gospel, the real gospel, reconciles sinful man to a holy God.

I'm very surprised that the words Mormon or Latter Day Saints didn't appear anywhere in the video or article. If one doesn't know better, one could have easily fallen into thinking she is a Christian. This goes to show how one religion can use the same terms, but define them completely different from another.

Cessationism: Clarifying Some Terms

From time to time I would read online, or hear someone say something about Cessationism that leaves me scratching my head. Cessationism is putting God in a box? Experiencing miracles disproves Cessationism? Does this guy actually understand the doctrine of cessation?

As defined by Wikipedia in the hyperlink above, the doctrine of cessation states that the "extraordinary" gifts of the Spirit (i.e. Prophecy, tongues, miracles, and healing) ceased (and I would amend) with the close or shortly after the Apostolic age.

Generally, there is no definite time of when the gifts ceased. It varies depending who you ask. However, with the death of the last apostle there is no need to validate new revelations because the Faith has been delivered (2 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 2:20; Hebrews 2:3-4; Jude 3). A quick scan through my mind of redemptive history, it seems these extraordinary gifts were given during times where new revelation was given. Hence, the "400 years of silence" between the two Testaments.

In saying that the gifts have ceased, I mean we should not be expecting it as a norm for today. It pleased the Lord to stop bestowing the gifts after the Apostolic age. But perhaps from time to time in church history He decides to give it to some, but that is not a norm. Some would argue we should never expect it. I would not hold that though. How my view plays out is that I would be skeptical to test that gift before concluding it is actually the real gift. Which, I believe, is a biblical thing to do (1 Corinthians 14:29; 1 John 4:1).

"Cessationists are putting God in a box!"
Am I putting God in a box if I say He cannot lie? Of course not! The Bible sets the parameters and if He says He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), then He cannot lie. It wouldn't be putting God in a box if in fact, in His word, God shows how He works in redemptive history. Admittedly, it's not as obvious and clear as "God cannot lie", but those who argue against must understand that from the Cessationist's point of view, God defined the parameter.

"Holding to Cessationism would mean to deny the experience of millions who experienced miracles."
Experience is important and must subject itself to the word of God. But that's not the point here. I find that most who claim to have experienced miracles would jump to conclude that the gifts are present. Here's where the terms must be defined. Cessationists believe God works miracles, but they would deny that God still bestows the gift (as a norm) to people today. That means, whatever miracle the millions experienced, it would probably not be the gift of miracle/healing. If anything, it would be God working a miracle through the person in answer to his prayer.

I have some notes on the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 in an earlier post.
For more resources on Cessationism, here's "The Ultimate Cessationism Resource".

Lessons from Ashley Madison

In light of the whole Ashley Madison news, I came across two posts that I really liked because I learned something from each one.

1. Pastor Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church's Facebook post
   
2. Tim Challies' wife's appeal to all Christian men

One taught me to balance God's grace and God's standard toward other brothers and sisters in Christ. The other encouraged me to continue to mortify sin because it is important.

For this is the will of God, your sanctification

1 Thessalonians 4:3

Peter's Logic

I'm currently reading through an amazing book by Dr. Michael Kruger that I bought from the Shepherds' Conference. The Question of Canon is a book that pokes holes in the extrinsic model of the canon. Before I explain the models, "canon" must be defined.

Canon comes from a Greek word meaning "measuring rod", "standard", or "rule". In regards to the Bible, the term canon refers to the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments because they act as the authoritative standard (canon) for the Christian.

In his book, Kruger gives two models for the development of the New Testament canon:

1. The Extrinsic Model:
   
   “[T]he canon was, to some degree imposed upon the Christian faith.” (p. 18)
   
   
2. The Intrinsic Model:
   “[The canon was] not something imposed from the outside but develops more organically from within the early Christian religion itself.” (p. 21)

In raising some problems with the extrinsic model, Kruger paves way for the intrinsic model. One way in which he does that is his argument against the claim that the NT writers did not know they were writing Scripture, therefore there is no evidence of an authoritative source other than the OT until later on in history.

One of the examples given was that Peter* knows he is writing Scripture. Here's the flow of thought summarized from pages 150-151:

1. Claims apostolic texts to be authoritative (2 Pt. 3:16)
2. His readers should submit to apostolic authority (2 Pt. 3:2)
3. Calls himself an apostle (2 Pt. 1:1)
4. Recounts his own apostolic credentials (2 Pt. 1:16-18)
5. Therefore his letters are authoritative

*There are scholars who do not believe in Peter's authorship of 2 Peter and a different author for 1 Peter. But as noted in the book, authorship is irrelevant here. The point is whether the writer of this epistle is aware that he is claiming apostolic authority and therefore is writing, what we call, Scripture.

Shepherds' Conference 2015 - Day 3

It's been over a month since Shepherds' Conference at Grace Community Church (March 3-8, 2015). Around 5000 men flew from all over the world to attend this historic event. Historic because it is different than the past conferences in that it was a summit. The conference was 4 days (when it was 3 before), the number of people that attended doubled from before, the number of General Sessions doubled also, there were many more speakers than before, and the topic was Inerrancy. That is, the inerrancy of Scripture. The Scripture does not have any errors in its original writings.

My two highlights from day three:

Dr. Steve Lawson opens up the morning with the sermon titled The Invincible Power of the Inerrant Word. In it, he goes through 7 symbols/analogies that the Bible refers to itself as, giving the listener a greater reverence and confidence in the inerrant Scripture. 

"It is an inerrant word that gives infallible guidance."

Dr. Derek Thomas then preached later that day on 2 Peter 1:16-21. Expounding from this text, Dr. Thomas gives an amazing message on the doctrine of Scripture. The sermon is structured around three questions.

1. What does Peter say the Bible is?
2. How is the Bible written by human instrumentality?
3. To what extent can we be certain that the Bible is God's word written?

Worship

I grew up thinking that worship is the time at church where we sing songs to God. When I walk into a church service we worship, then it's scripture reading, and then the sermon, sometimes communion, response, announcement, doxology, and then silent prayer and dismissal. During our fellowship gatherings, we may have worship, the program, announcement, and then go home.

That thinking didn't stick with me for too long. When I was around 12 or 13 years old, I decided to join the youth fellowship worship team. It was mandatory to attend worship training. And in that training, an older sister in Christ taught us the theology behind worship from the passage in John 4. From verse 23 and 24 I learned clearly that worship is not just singing songs. It is a lifestyle expressed by our spirit in light of the truth. I thank God that He has corrected my thinking about worship since then.

My thinking was changed but I still referred to the people leading the songs as a worship team. When I was 17, I served on the worship team as a guitarist at a conference. At my university, we had a worship cell group where we meet together, learn, jam, and talk (I didn't attend a lot of the meetings). In my life, whenever there is a worship team, there will always be an A/V team that would help with the audio when the sound gets fed through the mic to the speakers.

When I talk about worship, I realize there is a broader meaning than just music. But sometimes I don't want to appear too picky, since this is just a semantics issue and everyone refers to the music stuff as worship, so I would use that term when I converse and understand that when people say "worship" they mean the music most of the time (depends on the context).

However, I don't know what in me finally clicked. I never bothered changing that terminology before because I was so used to calling it worship, or worship team. Something finally clicked in me and it became my pet peeve. It bothers me that worship is so often used synonymous to singing and/or music. I don't like to call it worship team anymore. If I want to call something a worship team, then everyone serving at that service (music, A/V, ushers, preacher, etc.) is the worship team.

For those leading us in music, I feel more comfortable calling that a praise team, leading us in a time of praise to God. Music team? Musical aspect of worship? That still sounds better than worship team. That word is too broad to be narrowed down to one of its many aspects. So whoever is reading this, maybe you should consider changing the way you use the term worship, too.

Some may say it's just semantics, so it doesn't really matter. Maybe. But ask yourself, are you holding onto tradition or are you convinced from Scripture that this is the best way to refer to the people who lead you in singing praises to your God?

Shepherds' Conference 2015 - Day 2

Two weeks ago (March 3-8, 2015) was Shepherds' Conference at Grace Community Church in California. Around 5000 men flew from all over the world to attend this historic event. Historic because it is different than the past conferences in that it was a summit. The conference was 4 days (when it was 3 before), the number of people that attended doubled from before, the number of General Sessions doubled also, there were many more speakers than before, and the topic was Inerrancy. That is, the inerrancy of Scripture. The Scripture does not have any errors in its original writings.

Day two were full of highlights. 

Dr. Miguel Núñez started the day off speaking on Inerrancy and the Great Commission. Preaching from Matthew 28:16-20 with a focus on inerrancy. A great resource for those who are mission-minded. 

Dr. Carl Trueman then gave a lecture, Inerrancy from the Reformers. With great examples of the saints before us who affirmed inerrancy even before the term "inerrancy" was coined. This was a very informative session.

Ian Hamilton and his tender preaching on John 10:22-39. Like a grandfather, he reminded us firmly to hold to the truth of inerrancy and submit to it. That is, to work it out in actions, not just our heads.

"We need to be careful lest we drift into reformed pharisaism."

Dr. Mark Dever closing the night with the reading of the whole Psalm 119 and preaching through this amazing passage. Teaching us about the word of God and the Word of God.

Shepherds' Conference 2015 - Day 1

The past week (March 3-8, 2015) was Shepherds' Conference at Grace Community Church in California. Around 5000 men flew from all over the world to attend this historic event. Historic because it is different than the past conferences in that it was a summit. The conference was 4 days (when it was 3 before), the number of people that attended doubled from before, the number of General Sessions doubled also, there were many more speakers than before, and the topic was Inerrancy. That is, the inerrancy of Scripture. The Scripture does not have any errors in its original writing.

Anyway, I will be sharing my highlight sessions from each day. Everything can be accessed on the Shepherds' Conference website:

Day 1

Alistair Begg's sermon was titled Let the Lion Out, taken from a quote from Charles Spurgeon. In it, he preaches from 2 Timothy 4:1-5 encouraging everyone in this conference (comprised of pastors and leaders) with the charge of preaching (and teaching) the word of God to the end.

Ligon Duncan preached from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 reinforcing the Scripture's inspiration (God-breathedness) and therefore its inerrancy. He goes through the text and expounded on the purpose of this inspired text, and the effect thereof. The sermon ended with a call to be doers of the word: 

"O brothers, let us not old to the word in word, let us hold to the word in what we love and how we live."

Listening to Sermons

How did God speak to you? Has always been a question I hear when we discuss a sermon from church or somewhere else. Generally people (and I tried too) to rephrase the question to, "Did anything from the sermon jump out or stick out to you?".

I mean, that's not a bad question to ask because the Holy Spirit does work in our hearts and sometimes only one thing from the sermon really speaks to us. But the more I think about it and how people struggle to give a response to a vague and general question like that, the more I realize I may not be asking a very helpful question.

If the pastor is faithful in preaching the word of God, then God will be speaking through the pastor on every point he makes, so long as it is consistent with the scripture (The Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter 1). And if that is the case with the preaching I hear, then what I hear from the preacher is what God is speaking to me about, whether it is immediately relevant or not.

So maybe the better questions are:

• What did God say? (i.e. What was preached in the sermon?)
• This is to refresh the mind with the contents of the sermon.
• What did you learn?
• Similar to the "anything jump out?" thing, sometimes the person may say "nothing new" and to that you can ask...
• What did the sermon exhort you to do?
• To recall the "application" part.
• Are you doing it?
• Many hear the application but it doesn't "jump out" at them because it's nothing new, but if God has told us what to do and we're not doing it, then we're merely hearers of the word (James 1:22-25) and we're disobedient.

Thats it. Perhaps this is one of the less general/vague ways to approach a sermon discussion. Truth is important and the content should be examined, but we cannot merely be hearers of the word.

What is Love

A good reminder on love. Lord, help me love.



http://www.paultripp.com/articles/posts/23-things-that-love-is