Piper on Prayer

I squirmed, but I needed this.

The telos of Christmas

..."though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,  but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,  so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


- from Phillippians 2 (emphasis mine)


____________________________


As we celebrate Christmas this year, let us rejoice in the birth of our Saviour and his coming, so many years ago, to our rescue.  Let us rest in the peace that comes when we realize that he is as present with us today, thru the Holy Spirit, as he was to the shepards on that night.


Mostly, let us look now to Easter and to the cross, because as wonderful as Christmas is...it is the Easter celebration which should remain the unclouded focus of our faith.  Jesus came into this world for a purpose.  Let us not forget that purpose as we rejoice in his coming.


Merry Christmas

Ice Cream and Free Will

I was recently asked what I thought of autonomy.  I replied...

It does not exist on the macro level.

At the core, autonomy means self-determination.

The idea that we make rational, unbiased, intelligent, free choices is
untrue.  Our destinies are controled by one of two outside forces.

We are always making choices influenced by either our pre-disposed depraved nature or our
regenerated ontological being.

That is, we are either doing what we do under the lordship of
Original Sin
or
under the Lordship of Christ.

Its like ice cream (to paraphrase Greg Koukl)...

When you go to a creamery and choose a flavor, you ARE making a "free
will" decision. However, your will is dictated by your nature. If you
have a positive disposition towards chocolate and a massive aversion
towards vanilla - you will awlays choose chocolate.

What flavor you like wasn't a free will decision, it was an already
established fact of who you are, outside of any choice. Your choices in
the creamery included vanilla or chocolate - but you could really only
choose the one you have a taste for.
 
For your preference to change from chocolate to vanilla, that would require something outside of yourself - something you are not in control of.
 
This is the parallel of our salvation.  We are born drenched in sin according to Psalm 51 and unable to choose fellowship with God.  We do exercise our free will everyday, our free will unto sin. 
 
The good news is that God in his mercy comes and changes our desires, he changes our heart.  After that intervention, we still exercise our free will - free will in accordance with our new preferences for the things of God.
 
I know this isn't perfect as an illustration.  We could dig into it and find problems - but, I hope you get the general point.  Free will is not thrown out by the Reformed view, it is simply seen in its proper context - that is, subservient to our nature.

Jesus Storybook Bible

We got this for our little ones this Christmas.  Several people (including our pastor) recommended it.

If you have little ones, and don't have this, make buying one a priority today.

This kids bible is the best around at presenting the bible stories in a Christ-centered, faithful manner.

Cartoons

A friend helped me locate some funny Calvinist cartoons this morning.  Enjoy.

What I'm reading...

Recently I read a good book on apologetics that really influenced the way I see that discipline. Adam let me borrow:

I also have been looking back thru my favorite book in the 7th grade...

Awhile back I read a historical fiction about Cicero...

Finally I have recently re-read Chapter 11 of this:

What have you been reading?

Comment Response

Recently I posted a few thoughts entitled "Was Adam a Literal Man?" Yesterday, I received a comment on that post. Here was the comment:

Slippery slope.... The theology doesn't matter? Really??? So are you saying that it would be ok to go out and evangelize with some Mormons if you are both talking about Jesus? Who cares that they believe Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, thats not the point. You need to stop relying on your own flawed wisdom and rely fully on God and the council provided in the inspired Word of God, i.e. the Bible.

To be honest I was abit put off by the tone of the comment and I immediately responded with:

Respectfully, you should probably man (woman) up enough to fill all of us in on your identity if you want to be so critical of my post. I will post my response tomorrow.

That was probably not the most charitable way to handle my angst, but it is a good lead in as I type a few points of reply to the comment...
______________

I don't mind challenges to my beliefs - I welcome them. I may be wrong about YEC or any number of things - I have been before. However, this comment was a great example of exactly how NOT to dialogue about important issues. Here are some rules that I have drawn up after looking over the comment for future reference as "anonymous" or anyone else decides to make comments on my (or any other) blog.

Rule 1
Reveal yourself

Posting anonymously is lame and appears cowardly. If you have the answers and I am mixed up, why not tell us who you are. Why be afraid to give your identity. Walk in the light so to speak. Generally, only bellicose blog trolls who are trying to stir up trouble hide behind the curtain of Oz. It also implies a lack of confidence in your own argument IMO. Perhaps it was an accident and you meant to give your name - if so, let us have it and disregard rule 1.

Rule 2
Fallacy Follow Thru

The first words of the comment accuse me of a logical fallacy in my argument. However, the subsequent breakdown of how my argument is a slippery slope is missing. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact. My argument was that overemphasis on a literal 6 day creation and/ or a 100% uber-literal reading of Genesis 1-3 will, more often than not, have a more negative affect on evangelism than if we only require a person to assent to the underlying principles and then push ahead to the Gospel itself. If my argument is a slippery slope then my first premise (we should abandon uber-literal interpretations of creation as a requirement for initial faith) must lead to some major negative impact. How? I don't see that spelled out. It is implied that my thoughts might lead to an abandonment of the deity of Christ. If thats the point that anonymous is making, where the beef? That is to say, where are the connecting points that take my argument from point A to point B and how do they relate?

Rule 3
Don't misquote people

I never said that "theology doesn't matter." I said that "...making secondary issues the forefront of one's evangelical convictions can be far more harmful than helpful."

Rule 4
When you disagree with someone, that doesn't necessarily make them a heretic.

Then, in the middle of the post I get questioned (feels like an accusation) about my agreement with the Mormons. How this comes up...??? We went from my argument regarding Genesis 1-3 to talking about the nature of Christ and his relationship to God. It looks sorta like a minor ad hominem since it doesn't get flushed out with any explanation, but instead simply comes out of left field.

Rule 5
Learn abot someone before you assume their beliefs

If the question about my willingness to go knock on doors with Mormons is a serious one (as opposed to a theological insult) then anonymous didn't do their homework about me very well. A 10 minute browsing of my blog would indicate that I am fully committed to the tenets of Reformed Faith, which certainly include a far different view of Jesus than Mormons and a rigidity about holding firm to the penal substitutionary atonement of the god-man Christ as the Gospel message.

Rule 6
Don't try and be super-spiritual

The last sentence in the comment informs me that I rely too much on my own reason and that that I need to get with the program (as anonymous is, I persume) and only trust in the Word of God. Of course, I thought I did hold to revelation pretty well. I actually thought that my quest to bring both natural and special revelation in agreement so that we can get to the Gospel was God-honoring. It always seemed more God-honoring and Christ-centered to me to work with Jesus at the core of evangelism than to try and convince non-believers that all science is false and the world is 6,000 years old before I could tell them the Good News. Using the "you are not spiritual enough" argument is a last ditch effort when one realizes that they don't actually have a counter-point.

FINALLY, the comment by anonymous is truthfully a perfect example of what I said in my original post "Why I am not a YEC." Too many believers get hung up on uber-literal Genesis interpretations and they make them of equal weight with the essential aspects of the faith. When clear-thinking is abandoned for knee-jerk reactions, structured arguements are dropped and baseless critical remarks ensue.
_______________________

I hope that anonymous reads this reply and that he/ she will know that I love them as fellow members of the body as they seek to defend truth even as I think that they are deeply confused about theological priority and thoughtful debate. I also hope that they will use the suggested rules to compose another response that more accurately explains why my thoughts are unbiblical and how they contribute to a low-Christology.

I also hope that my other readers will benefit from this exchange as they seek to study Scripture, pray about truth, and trust in God's grace.

My apologies if anything in this reply has been antagonistic towards anonymous. I really don't intend to slam the individual, just to critique the comment that was made. However, I know that I struggle with my own argumenative nature and how I can best express what I believe is truth "in love." I am usually somewhat aggressive in my manner (thanks to the Marines) and I have a hard time being pastoral with my advice.  Hopefully, I have not been rude in this post.  I look forward to more (hopefully helpful) discussion.

5 Hard Questions

The following 5 questions are the ones that I have had the most difficulty with in life.  Several were questions that I had before I came to faith, some are things I still struggle with.

I didn't get near satisfactory answers to these until I came to the Reformed understanding of biblical truth.  I have attempted to provide the answers as I have now grasped them, in the case that my thoughts might help you or spark new thoughts.

1)  Who made God?

"Noone.  Its a category error.  You can't classify an eternal and timeless being in the same terms with the temporal state that he has created.  God is outside time, thus there was noone or nothing 'before' him."

2)  How did people before Jesus get saved?

"By grace thru faith in Jesus, just like us.  God elected them and they subsequently exhibited faith.  We both  have the same object as our faith - the promise of God to redeem his people. The difference is that we (of the post New-Testament era) have seen that promise in the flesh as Jesus.  Those in the B.C. world looked forward to the incarnation, but they still had faith in God's promise."

3)  What about people who never hear of Jesus?

"They will sadly perish in their sins, as we all deserve.  God doesn't save everyone - if he did so, his justice would be eclipsed by his love and both must be displayed.  If one never heard of Jesus they cannot be saved.  We should be affected by this news to take up the banner of the Great Commission and bring the good news to all people."

4)  Why does God allow horrific crimes to occur?

"Well...this one is hard.  We do know that he has subjected the world to this fallen state, but he has done so in hope.  We also know that he works the evil acts of men for ultimate good.  These things tell us that he has a plan and its the best plan to show his glory and draw his elect to himself.  Not very satisfying in the midst of great loss perhaps, but true and worth holding firm to."

5)  How can I be sure that I am saved?

"You intellectually believe biblical truths, your actions begin to look more and more like those of Jesus, the ultimate joy of your heart becomes glorifying Christ, others observing you confirm your redemption, and an inward testimony of the Holy Spirit brings you peace."

Paul was married!

A new and profound exegetical Biblical Study has now proven that the Apostle Paul was actually married.

See HERE

(I kid, I kid)

The Right-Hand Side...

I am not a great writer.  I write in far too conversational a tone, I do not proof read before I post, and I tend to ramble.

However, I see my blog as a two part entity.  Yes, I try and provide my thoughts to those of you who care - but, I also try and provide resources to you (my reader) of people far better at this than I am.

If you haven't yet, be sure and navigate to my actual blog.  On the right hand side of the page I have over 50 links to various blogs that are great reading.  The title of the most recent post is also there for each one.

I also have a small section of webpage links to some interesting sites further down on the right.

Finally, be sure and check out our other blogs:

http://everettandean.blogspot.com/
Our boys blog (I have been remiss at updating this)

http://simplyyoursphotography.blogspot.com/
Tiffany's photography
...better yet,
http://www.simplyyoursphotography.net/

http://mmaandmore.blogspot.com/
My blog on Mixed Martial Arts

http://ureact.blogspot.com/
A starter blog to introduce my new self-protection system
coming in 2010

Was Adam a literal man?

Back in October, I posted this blog "Why I am not a Young Earth Creationist."

The point of my post was to say that too many evangelicals plant a flag on YEC and then stand willing to make it of first importance (or so it seems to me.)

I wrote to say that making secondary issues the forefront of one's evangelical convictions can be far more harmful than helpful.

Ultimately, how long it took God to create the world is not an essential point of doctrine.  Maybe it was 6 days...although natural revelation seems to suggest otherwise.  However, if it took 14 billion years - so what?  The emphasis is that GOD created.  I'm even willing to concede theistic evolution if it gets me past the issue and on to the Christian nucleus.

That is, I want to clearly point out that I refuse to make creation an issue because I want to be able to stay off the rabbit trails and get right to the Gospel (which is the core of our faith).  I want to talk with people about Jesus instead of explaining my view on if men and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously.

Recently, Ben posted a comment/ question to my post:
If you have non-literal days, was Adam a literal man?

Let me say a quick word about my thoughts on that here.

YES, Adam was certainly a literal man.

How was he created...???  The Bible says that God made him from dust and breathed life into him.  Pretty vague.  Maybe it was special, independent, supernatural creation.  Maybe God used natural processes to bring forth the first homosapiens and then "breathed" a soul/ spirit into that flesh. 

I am not sure on how, but I definately believe that Adam was literal.  Even though I don't think God made all things in 6 human days, I do think that God made all of creation.  Likewise, even though I am unsure of how God made Adam, I think he did make him.

I didn't talk about this issue in my post because there is no evidence to suggest that God making Adam in a one time act of imagination or thru natural means would go aganist natural revelation, as one faces in the creation debate.  One choice is simply unproveable, the other could be fairly consistent with humanistic fossils.

T push further, I am also unclear about how exact the Eden story is.  Could parts of it be simplified or embellished for literary flare...yeah, they could.  Moses could have conveyed the creation story (which I believe he was inspired to write about) in a narrative that isn't 100% literal...does that necessarily impact the truth therein...no.

The early chapters of Genesis tell us 6 main things:

1)  God DID make man (and woman).
2)  God made them in His image
3)  God made them in fellowship with Himself
4)  Through their own volition (at the temptation of Satan), they chose to leave the fellowship of God
5)  This choice impacted all their descendents and we are therefore born into the curse of sin
6)  God promised and planned to restore that broken relationship

The whole rest of the Bible tells the story of His love and our redemption at His hands.

Those 6 things listed above MUST be literally true in their content (even if the account is overly-colorful) or else the rest of the story means nothing.

If Adam wasn't literal, or if the fall wasn't real - we wouldn't need Jesus.
We do need Jesus.
Therefore, Adam was literal and the fall was real.

Try that syllogism with other stuff:

If a 6 day creation isn't literal - we wouldn't need Jesus.
We do need Jesus.
Therefore, the 6 day creation is literal
NO

Does the thing we are debating about impact the reality or importance of Christ's death on the cross and subsequent ressurection? - Will our debate topic actually impact whether or not a person understands their own personal need for redemption? If not, I call it secondary and I ask that we not get hung up on it, lest we lose track of our ultimate joy in Jesus and our ultimate mission in spreading the Good News.

Thats my message about YEC and the literalness (is that a word) of the early Genesis accounts.

My testimony

I was raised in Atlanta in a nominal Christian home.  When I was very small we attended a local Southern Baptist church.  The "old people in power" at that church ran off the pastor that my mom liked and we quit going.  My parents never went to church regularly again.

Occasionally, I would go to church with my grandmother.  She attended another SBC in the area.  I remember listening to Charles Stanley on her tape player when I was young.  When I was about 13, I went with her to a Billy Graham Crusade.  I walked the aisle and said the "Sinners Prayer."  I figured I was good and my "ticket out of hell was purchased!"

I had no subsequent discipleship, growth, or passion for God.  I doubt now that I was ever saved.

I was a moral enough teenager.  I did some bad things but the outside world would have thought I was a "good boy."  When I joined the Marines, that changed.

I spent my military years in a bad place...sin upon sin.  During this time I would study Christianity and the other religions, I would have identified as Christian if someone asked, but I was really just a Moralistic Deist.

When I left the military, I came back to GA and moved in with my family.  Shortly after that I met a girl who loved God and she introduced me to her friend, a pastor who was able to answer my serious questions about Jesus and the ressurection.

In April 2005, I came to faith and I was baptized.  I got married to that girl who loved Jesus and we were attending a local neo-charismatic church.  I was all about some tongues and some Holy Spirit!  Slowly, it clicked for me that the things I was learning at that church were different than what I was reading in Scripture.

I was hurt, we left that church and began attending a SBC.  To counter-balance my initial charismatic side, I delved into evidential apologetics.  I became filled with a head knowledge of what the Word said, but I was still in a selfish and sinful place as I resisted the power of the Gospel in transforming my heart.

I was brash and arrogant.  I used my new understanding of Reformed teaching the same way I used apologetics...to hit people over the head with doctrine and truth.  I had little love.

My wife and I went through a rough patch.  I was a poor leader and a poor father.  We had divorce papers drawn up when God spoke to her.  She showed me grace and we reconciled. 

Through the difficulties of my marriage, I came to understand the Gospel.  I came to see how all that we do for truth must be rooted in love.  I came to a realization of the things that had to die within me so that I could be a biblical man.

We left the SBC church to get a new start.  We attended a PCA church for a year before finding our spiritual home, Momentum Christian Church.

I have spent the last 3 years in a phase of slow growth.  Over time, and by the grace of God, I am maturing in my wisdom, my compassion, and my role as a leader for my wife and kids.

I still fail alot.  I struggle with internal sin much more now, as I have cut out the most of the external behavioral aspects of my depravity.  I fight against pride as I gain more knowledge and more recognition within my local body.  I struggle against selfishness as I try and juggle work, a wife, and three small children.  I struggle with lust as all men do.

I need your prayers and your recognition that anything good I do is only because of our merciful and loving Father.  He deserves all the glory for who I have become and am becoming.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Jason

National Satan Awareness Day

I didn't know...

From Stuff Christians Like

20 Best Theological Works

From Feeding On Christ

From 1 down to 20
_________________________

Geerhardus Vos Biblical Theology

Geerhardus Vos The Pauline Eschatology

Geerhardus Vos The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews

Geerhardus Vos The Eschatology of the Old Testament

Jonathan Edwards A History of the Work of Redemption

T. Desmond Alexander From Eden to the New Jerusalem

John Fesko Last Things First

O. Palmer Robertson The Israel of God

O. Palmer Robertson The Christ of the Covenants

O. Palmer Robertson God’s People in the Wilderness

G. K. Beale The Temple and the Churches Mission

Theophilus Herter The Abrahamic Covenant in the Gospels

William J. Dumbrell Covenant and Creation

O. Palmer Robertson Christ of the Prophets

Ray Ortland Jr. God’s Unfaithful Wife

T. Desmond Alexander From Paradise to Promised Land

Michael Horton Covenant and Eschatology

Meredith G. Kline Kingdom Prologue

Dennis Johnson Him We Proclaim

Edmund Clowney Preaching Christ in All the Scriptures
_____________________
 
I imagine that Fites is digging this list. 

I signed it...

WHAT:
The Manhattan Declaration:
A Call of Christian Conscience

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
 
WHY:
To quote Ligon Duncan:
"I believe that it is important for individuals from the major quadrants of the historic Christian tradition to speak on these pressing matters in solidarity.  Furthermore, I believe that the explicit assertions and emphasis of the documents relate only to areas of principled social-ethical agreement between evangelicals and non-evangelicals."
 
HOW:
Go HERE
________________________________
 
There has been lots of controvery regarding this declaration and men I respect have come down on both sides of the issue.  I completely understand the concern that many have regarding this document and the potential for it to be seen as an agreement on the Gospel. 
 
To be clear, I do not agree with the Arminian, the Catholic, or the Orthodox views on what the Gospel is or on what Justification is.  However, I do find agreement with these "believers" regarding the 3 things expressed in the Manhattan Declaration and I think it is vital to fight for such values - even as I understand that the true mission of Christians is not to subdue the world with good morality, but to transform the world by the message of Jesus' death and ressurection as a penal substitutionary atonement.
 
I feel that I can both focus on the Great Commission as my first priority and still stand united with those whom I disagree for the sake of proclaiming the biblical truth about pressing moral issues of our day.
 
Thats why I signed it...how about you?

Krampus

At least this weird Christmas tradition hasn't caught on in America yet. 

Meet Krampus, the companion of St Nicholas.  He is responsible for scaring the "bad" kids while Santa gives gifts to the good kids.

Europe has issues...

Santa?

What do you do about about balancing Santa with the Nativity during this holiday season?

I have friends who hold different views ranging from not telling their kids about Santa at all (cause they don't want to lie to the kids) and not talking about Santa (cause they think he is a secular invention that overshadows Christ) to those who run with all things Santa (and put Jesus at a distant second place).

I grew up with the Santa myth. I don't remember thinking that my parents were horrible lying monsters when I found out the truth. I also have no reason to believe that their advocacy of the jolly old elf caused me to be less likely to trust in Christ. I didn't come to faith as a child but that was due to my parents lack of engagement with the faith in general, not because I was disillusioned by the falsehood of Santa.

Therefore, I have decided (with my wife) that we would carry on the Santa tradition in our house. We have a couple of conditions though...

- Santa is always secondary to the birth of Jesus. Thus we keep our Little People Nativity right next to the tree, this allows us to actually play out the nativity story with our boys on a regular basis, thus opening the door for conversation about who Jesus is.

- We never stress the "better be good" aspect of Santa. I think that notion is pure legalism that actually could impact a childs understanding of grace in later years. For us, Santa brings presents regardless of behavior.

I have been pretty happy with this middle ground where we engage with the culture and also keep Christ central. I wonder how others view the issue and what basis they have for their take on it.

___________________

In a related note:

- We were watching "Santa Buddies" with Everett the other night and I got pretty upset inside. The whole movie is about a talking puppy who is the dog version of Santa Claus. He decided he doesn't want that job and he tries to go live a normal dog life. In his absence the North Pole falls apart. Elves and other dogs work hard to get him back to the Pole so that Christmas can continue. The moral of the movie centers on learning that the "true meaning of Christmas" is about selfless giving and not selfish receiving.

Uh...no. The true meaning of Christmas is the birth of Christ, which could be seen as God's great gift to us I guess. Unfortunately, the movie never mentions Jesus. It struck me wrong.

However, we did watch the "Nativity Story" movie as a family the other week. Everett liked the wise men and he is funny imitating Mary as she gave birth with squinted eyes and grunts.

- Lastly, I saw this commercial for something called "Elf on a Shelf." The premise is that Santa's elf sits on your mantle and keeps track of your behavior thru December. If you're good, he'll report that to Santa and you get gifts...obviously, if you are bad - nothing.

Holy mackrel. That is freaky to me regardless of the theological issues I have with it. I can see his elf eyes following me around the room now...

Afghanistan

Usually I write on theological issue and I leave politics at the door.

Please allow me a quick digression this time...

Pres. Obama sending more troops to Afghanistan is a mistake.

This is an unwinnable war which is costing far too much in both our soldier's blood and our nation's coffers.

When you look at the lack of preexistent infrastructure, the corrupt government, the incredibly harsh terrain, the guerilla nature of the enemy, the Pakistani location of the enemy leadership, the experiences of other major powers when they fought in Afghanistan, etc...

When you add up all of those factors, you get an impossible victory.  We can't nation build in that place (and Obama did agree to that), but we can't fool ourselves into thinking that we can hang around just abit longer and prepare the Afghans to run the country on their own either.

We should pull out all combat troops immediately, minus special forces.  We should leave the special forces there with air support to continue surgical strikes.  This will prevent the country from becoming a "safe haven" for terrorists again.

We can leave trainers in country as well if we want to try and lend the Afghan army/ police a helping hand.  We CANNOT continue to put our boys in the combat arms out on the front lines to be killed and wounded for a vague mission that has unattainable goals.

Afghanistan will make Iraq look easy.  We need to get out now.

Intervention

Sometimes people will balk at the Reformed doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election. 

These teachings can be summed up as "we are so addicted and entranced by sin that we will never exercise our will to turn towards God - thus, God must sovereignly act to elect and save those whom he will aganist their natural desires"

Those offended will argue that such beliefs equate to God raping our free will.  I would offer another way to look at it.

You ever see that TV show Intervention?  Its on A&E I think.  The premise revolves around drug and alcohol addicts who are far gone on a self-destructive road.  As a last resort, the family of the person turns towards psychologists and doctors to ask for an intervention.

The crew comes in and attempts to persuade the addict that they need help.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

It seems to me that we are all addicts.  We are addicted to sin and filth.  God is our loving Father who desires to see us "clean."  Who can't understand that?

The big difference is that God doesn't have a "sometimes" success rate.  By his nature, if he will it, it occurs.  Thus - God sees our need for intervention and he comes to us and makes us clean (the the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross)

Its not volitional rape, its overwhelming love and amazing grace.  Thank God that he saw fit to make him who did not knwo sin, sin.  That means we might become righteous in God's eyes and therefore able to enter his presence with a new, pure, heart.

Thanks Lord for intervening in my life.

Pope's Post

My friend Andrew, who was my first mentor in the faith, recently wrote a blog that I wanted to link to here.  I hope he is not offended by my distibution of his material, but I had to share his story.

Andrew and I will often disagree on secondary and tertiary issues in Christianity, but he is an excellent writer and an interesting chap.  This blog of his details how 2009 went for his family and what God has shown him through the year.

Take the time to read his post HERE!
__________________________________________

Hebrews 12: 3-11

Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.  In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.  And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?


“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
____________________________________________