Well as it seems I have thought about writing on the blog again after 2 years of absence. If you happen to follow I will be working on a research project into the "Fear of the Lord" understanding. if you would like to participate with me that would be great. So next Blog will begin to show the references that we find in Scripture for our investigation. If you have something that you have read that would be helpful, please send it along.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Monday, September 3, 2012
Let God be God
Do you find it somewhat odd how people seem to think that God needs help? That if He needed they would help Him to order the world or in the least they could sure help God know what is best for themselves!
...Or more likely have you found that at times peoples view of God is actually defined by their understanding.
We know that God is infintely and uniquely different than we are... and that truly we only know anything about God because He chose to reveal Himself to us. Step back from the discussion for just a moment and think, "what would you know about God if he chose to remain silent and un-involved.
However, because our culture has been saturated with all kinds of "God-talk" over the past several decades we have begun by our own motives and agenda to actually put together our own god. Like someone who takes a jig-saw puzzle and creates for themselves a picture that shows no relationship to the original intended picture. We have become adept at forcing pieces together that never were meant to be together and in the end our cardboard picture is our own creation. As spiritual people both Christians and non-Christians we have formed a god of our own, a god that fits what we want, expect or desire. While this god will almost never take physical form it is a form of idolatry nontheless. Where we run into trouble is when this creation of ours fails to live up to our created expectations, or wishes, or it flat just doesn't work. Chances are at this point we give up on any form of god; ours or the True One. We shake our heads and proclaim " that we have had it with anything conceptually or real that resembles deity".
Is this not the hieght of foolishness that Jobs three friends display in their sermons found in the book of Job. If you read well and carefully you will find that they have God figured out and pinned down. But many of their conclusions are in fact in error. In Job 4:7 Eliphaz maintains that God always blesses the righteous and in Job 20:5 Zophar speaks that God always punishes the wicked. However, there are many many instances when God does quite the opposite, at least temporally. Job is in fact a case where the righteous is found to be "afflicted" but not for sin. God just stepped out of Eliphaz's and Zophar's proverbial box. Abraham is a case whereby God bestows tremendous wealth on him while he is dancing about from his lie about his wife Sarai. (Gen. 12:10-20)
Devotional interaction: Read Job 4:7 & 20:5 Here you find Job's 3 "friends" telling him without variation that God punishes the wicked and the innocent are never afflicted. (this world view is not biblical)
Now notice God's view of Jobs 3 friends in Job 38:1-2 and 42:7-9.
Notice finally that God declares that He will not be confined to the simple games of men. That He is in control of all things and administers them as he wishes. Read Job 38:1-41 List the attributes that God reveals about himself to Job.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
...Or more likely have you found that at times peoples view of God is actually defined by their understanding.
We know that God is infintely and uniquely different than we are... and that truly we only know anything about God because He chose to reveal Himself to us. Step back from the discussion for just a moment and think, "what would you know about God if he chose to remain silent and un-involved.
However, because our culture has been saturated with all kinds of "God-talk" over the past several decades we have begun by our own motives and agenda to actually put together our own god. Like someone who takes a jig-saw puzzle and creates for themselves a picture that shows no relationship to the original intended picture. We have become adept at forcing pieces together that never were meant to be together and in the end our cardboard picture is our own creation. As spiritual people both Christians and non-Christians we have formed a god of our own, a god that fits what we want, expect or desire. While this god will almost never take physical form it is a form of idolatry nontheless. Where we run into trouble is when this creation of ours fails to live up to our created expectations, or wishes, or it flat just doesn't work. Chances are at this point we give up on any form of god; ours or the True One. We shake our heads and proclaim " that we have had it with anything conceptually or real that resembles deity".
Is this not the hieght of foolishness that Jobs three friends display in their sermons found in the book of Job. If you read well and carefully you will find that they have God figured out and pinned down. But many of their conclusions are in fact in error. In Job 4:7 Eliphaz maintains that God always blesses the righteous and in Job 20:5 Zophar speaks that God always punishes the wicked. However, there are many many instances when God does quite the opposite, at least temporally. Job is in fact a case where the righteous is found to be "afflicted" but not for sin. God just stepped out of Eliphaz's and Zophar's proverbial box. Abraham is a case whereby God bestows tremendous wealth on him while he is dancing about from his lie about his wife Sarai. (Gen. 12:10-20)
Devotional interaction: Read Job 4:7 & 20:5 Here you find Job's 3 "friends" telling him without variation that God punishes the wicked and the innocent are never afflicted. (this world view is not biblical)
Now notice God's view of Jobs 3 friends in Job 38:1-2 and 42:7-9.
Notice finally that God declares that He will not be confined to the simple games of men. That He is in control of all things and administers them as he wishes. Read Job 38:1-41 List the attributes that God reveals about himself to Job.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
On the blog again....
Wow it has been almost 3 months since my last post... now wonder no one looks at it much. But here is a quick update. We are now living in Centennial (east of Cherry Creek Resevoir, the worst fishing lake I have ever met...). I have started a new semester at Horizon College Denver teaching Theology. Vicki and I are working and planning on a trip to Africa in November so getting ourselves prepared for that. Life in the city is not so bad (but at times I sure miss the mountains.) Send me a note and let me know what is going on and what I can pray for, for you. By the way, we should be grandparents today... Tara and Ryan are at the hospital as I type this.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
response from World Religions Conference ONLY ONE GOD?
Last weekend I attended the World Religions Conference at Horizon Christian Fellowship in Denver. It was a good day and well worth the investment. The speakers included Bill Honsberger of Haven Ministry, Dr. Darrell Ferguson of Summit Ministries Int'l, Bill McKeever of Mormonism Research Ministry and Sammy Tanagho a converted Muslim. Each of these men are worth hearing and well educated in their area of expertise. They detailed for us clearly many of the tenents of the particular religion or belief system. Mark these guys to memory.
However, as I sat there I felt that a basic pre-amble or pre-requisite was missing from the seminar. For in our modern world rift with its post-modern world view and pluralism, what seemed lacking was a discussion of the very nature of divinity, the very basic concepts of any deity that would garner our attention. For any discussion other than atheism, that posits a divine being shouldn't there be some basic principles that are understood for any discussion? Let me clarify, it is my contention that there can be only ONE GOD. There cannot be 2 COMPETING GODS. This immediately smacks against any post-modernist understanding whereby they hold competing views even contradictory opinions as equally valid, thus making my case... can there truly be any discussion about a supreme being without explaining the basic definition of "SUPREME". So let me state for the record and for discussion this precept:
God: the discussion of any eternal being, a supreme being, any being outside of our selves that we must recon with.
by definition: here is the critical juncture, to define God as any of you might, as stated above as something "outside of ourselves" must be defined in terms of greatness. For God to be anything like a God we would define, he must be outside of, greater than, different than, older, wiser etc than us. When you begin to define God with those concepts he/she/it becomes to some degree greater than us. Greater begs the question to be qualified as greatest. An Illustration: If someone where to ask you who is a great something... say Basketball player, the answer wouldn't really matter much because great is nothing unless compared to a lesser or greater But if someone asked you who was the greatest...wouldn't you by natural cause begin to compare attributes of various players until you arrive at an answer you feel is satisfactory? Wouldn't it seem strange to say well "all basketball players are the greatest"? Or even the following five players are the greatest... Wouldn't you ask again that they further define their answer to come up with the greatest? Someone might say well Jordan was the greatest shooter and Abdul Jabar the greatest rebounder, but that changes the question. I did not ask which was the greatest shooter or rebounder. I asked for your opinion of the greatest basketball player ever.
So if we are going to speak of a god, any god, are we not asking which is the greatest? To worship a lesser god knowing that there is a greater, would be foolishness. For sake of argument lets say that there could be more than one god, there are two. We will call them Bill and Bob. In our considerations of these two beings wouldn't we want to worship the one who is greater? but let's say that Bob is good at loving and Bill is the most powerful. Which attribute do you consider more worthy of worship and being called the "supreme" being the "weak lover" or the "unloving power"? Scary to think about isn't it. We desire a God that is greatest at everything and has no limits. Well at least that is what I would worship. More next time. (if there is only one what is He like?) Give me some feed back!
However, as I sat there I felt that a basic pre-amble or pre-requisite was missing from the seminar. For in our modern world rift with its post-modern world view and pluralism, what seemed lacking was a discussion of the very nature of divinity, the very basic concepts of any deity that would garner our attention. For any discussion other than atheism, that posits a divine being shouldn't there be some basic principles that are understood for any discussion? Let me clarify, it is my contention that there can be only ONE GOD. There cannot be 2 COMPETING GODS. This immediately smacks against any post-modernist understanding whereby they hold competing views even contradictory opinions as equally valid, thus making my case... can there truly be any discussion about a supreme being without explaining the basic definition of "SUPREME". So let me state for the record and for discussion this precept:
"GOD BY DEFINITION CAN ONLY BE ONE".
In other words you cannot have a god of one religion and a god of another and both exists in reality. We are not choosing whom to worship by vote of one candidate over another. We are asking whether the God we are choosing to "believe in" or "worship" is truly an existent being at all, and secondly worth our devotion or worship? For a moment let me unpack my statement that God can ONLY BE ONE. God: the discussion of any eternal being, a supreme being, any being outside of our selves that we must recon with.
by definition: here is the critical juncture, to define God as any of you might, as stated above as something "outside of ourselves" must be defined in terms of greatness. For God to be anything like a God we would define, he must be outside of, greater than, different than, older, wiser etc than us. When you begin to define God with those concepts he/she/it becomes to some degree greater than us. Greater begs the question to be qualified as greatest. An Illustration: If someone where to ask you who is a great something... say Basketball player, the answer wouldn't really matter much because great is nothing unless compared to a lesser or greater But if someone asked you who was the greatest...wouldn't you by natural cause begin to compare attributes of various players until you arrive at an answer you feel is satisfactory? Wouldn't it seem strange to say well "all basketball players are the greatest"? Or even the following five players are the greatest... Wouldn't you ask again that they further define their answer to come up with the greatest? Someone might say well Jordan was the greatest shooter and Abdul Jabar the greatest rebounder, but that changes the question. I did not ask which was the greatest shooter or rebounder. I asked for your opinion of the greatest basketball player ever.
So if we are going to speak of a god, any god, are we not asking which is the greatest? To worship a lesser god knowing that there is a greater, would be foolishness. For sake of argument lets say that there could be more than one god, there are two. We will call them Bill and Bob. In our considerations of these two beings wouldn't we want to worship the one who is greater? but let's say that Bob is good at loving and Bill is the most powerful. Which attribute do you consider more worthy of worship and being called the "supreme" being the "weak lover" or the "unloving power"? Scary to think about isn't it. We desire a God that is greatest at everything and has no limits. Well at least that is what I would worship. More next time. (if there is only one what is He like?) Give me some feed back!
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
could we move that far East?
Hey Team,
I promised an update. Here it is. We are looking very strongly at the east side of town near Piney Creek. I would never had thought that we would consider moving that far east, but the prices are good and the homes are functional and lovely. Keep praying that we make a good decision that will honor our Lord. Maybe the "eastern peoples" need some ministering too. Hey I will be updating you all soon on a possible trip to Sierra Leone, Africa in November. Save your pennies I will need to raise a lot of money.
I promised an update. Here it is. We are looking very strongly at the east side of town near Piney Creek. I would never had thought that we would consider moving that far east, but the prices are good and the homes are functional and lovely. Keep praying that we make a good decision that will honor our Lord. Maybe the "eastern peoples" need some ministering too. Hey I will be updating you all soon on a possible trip to Sierra Leone, Africa in November. Save your pennies I will need to raise a lot of money.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Absent again?
Hey team,
Just a quick note about where I have been. I have been to Kansas and back helping my mother-in-law move to Colorado. Sorry I have not posted recently. Hopefully, I will be able to a get back at it. Hey we are getting close to making a decision on a house to buy in Denver sooo Please PRAY. more tomorrow
Just a quick note about where I have been. I have been to Kansas and back helping my mother-in-law move to Colorado. Sorry I have not posted recently. Hopefully, I will be able to a get back at it. Hey we are getting close to making a decision on a house to buy in Denver sooo Please PRAY. more tomorrow
Monday, May 9, 2011
two types of "evil, bad, or suffering"
When we discuss the problem of evil, we must determine what kind of evil are we talking about. For there is one kind of evil we call "moral evil" in that it comes from the moral choice of human beings usually upon other human beings, but may also be exercised upon plants animals and the natural world. Moral evil then is from humans toward things or people outside of themselves, and at times against themselves.
There is a second kind of evil as well we call "natural evil" It is that suffering or evil that is not prompted by the will moral choice of humans but comes as a consequence of living on a broken earth. This would include all kinds of sicknesses, natural disasters (e.g. hurricanes, tsunamis etc) accidents etc. These "troubles" find no source in the moral choice of mankind but in random external events. They may find their source in the course of weather patterns. They may find their source in a stronger being (God) acting upon this finite world. The distinction is that you cannot trace the end of the matter to some willful act of man.
Now when we discuss the problem of evil and our all powerful, loving God we will discuss it from these two different angles.
As we have been looking at the life of Job and the Book of Job, we will need to first of all determine into which of these categories the problem or troubles that Job faces are suffering from the Moral or Natural category. I vie for the later. What about you?
There is a second kind of evil as well we call "natural evil" It is that suffering or evil that is not prompted by the will moral choice of humans but comes as a consequence of living on a broken earth. This would include all kinds of sicknesses, natural disasters (e.g. hurricanes, tsunamis etc) accidents etc. These "troubles" find no source in the moral choice of mankind but in random external events. They may find their source in the course of weather patterns. They may find their source in a stronger being (God) acting upon this finite world. The distinction is that you cannot trace the end of the matter to some willful act of man.
Now when we discuss the problem of evil and our all powerful, loving God we will discuss it from these two different angles.
As we have been looking at the life of Job and the Book of Job, we will need to first of all determine into which of these categories the problem or troubles that Job faces are suffering from the Moral or Natural category. I vie for the later. What about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)