God the Risk Taker

Have you ever thought of God as a risk taker?  Because He is.  God took a risk when He created you.  He took a risk when He created human beings in general.  If you believe in the concept of Free Will, that each of us have the ability to make our own choices, then you must understand that because of that God took a risk on you when He created you.  You were a risk to Him. 

Then, you failed Him.  You sinned.  Oh, He knew that you would but you did nonetheless.  So, God took a second risk - a risk to save you.  When God sent Jesus into the world, He knew that not all would believe in His Son.  He knows right now whether or not you have chosen Jesus and also whether or not you will choose to follow Him throughout your life.

However, His knowledge of the future doesn't mean that He didn't take a risk in attempting to save you.  God knew that He would have to punish you if you continued on your own path towards destruction.  Thus, in His mercy, He sent His Son into this world and took a chance on you.  At Christmas, we remember the chance that He took and the risk that was taken.

Why?  What did He hope to gain?  What would be the reward for such a risk?  True worship in love from His creation.  That's what He hoped to receive.  True worship, because as His creation, He deserves to be praised for what He has done and true love because He wants you to do so not out of obligation but your own desire.

God took a risk on you.  He put His reputation on the line.  You, who call yourself "Christian", are you?  You, who claim the name, do you live up to it?  Are you a true follower of Christ?  Are you a true child of God, a servant to King Jesus?  Are you also a son to God?  Not the Son of God but a son to Him?

He took a chance on you.  Will you do the same for Him?  Here's some ways that you can…

1.  Step out in faith and begin reading His Word every single day.  Make it your goal to finish the Bible every single year.

2.  Practice the truths found within it and teach others to do the same.  Apply what you read and learn.  Take radical steps when necessary.

3.  Set yourself up as an example to follow, a leader who points others to Christ.  Get discipled and disciple others.
4.  Speak boldly for Christ, taking the risk of humiliation and/or harm for the Gospel.  Pray for opportunities to do so.

5.  Serve others in everything that you do.  Take the form of a humble servant and wash the feet of others.

There are many ways to take risks.  For each of us it is different.  If you've never accepted Christ as Lord then you've not taken the initial step of faith.  It's a risk.  It will mean putting your face, reputation, and life on the line.  It will mean sacrificing and changing.  It will mean leaving your former way of life and pressing on towards what Paul calls the upward call of God (Phil 3:14).

It's a risk.  Take it.  I did.  So have many others.  God took a risk in creating you.  God took a risk in saving you. 

Will you take the risk of turning to Him?

Joshua

Calling All Men

Recently I began reading a book called “Why Men Hate Going to Church” by David Murrow.  In it, he speaks about why men hate church and one of the reasons he gives is what he calls the “feminization of the church”.  In other words, much of the church is geared toward females.  The language used, the programs offered, the studies available, all seem geared primarily to the ladies.  All seem based upon the development of relationships, family, and how to properly grow in each area.

All of these things are important and good.  The problem is that when that is the only message given to the church it leaves out a great deal of men.  Why?  Because men do not respond well to such language.  It bores them.  They simply cannot relate.  What this book is teaching me is the importance of language.  Men need to be given a calling in life and a call towards goals, accomplishments, and adventure.

Throughout my life, this has always been the case.  I played football because I wanted to be good at it.  I worked hard throughout high school and college to prove to myself and many others who thought it couldn't be done, that I could play college football.  Then I stepped into the workforce and wouldn't you know it, I sought accomplishments there too.  I entered into computer programming because it was such a challenge, especially because when I graduated college my degree was in Marketing!  Later I completed a marathon and went to seminary.  Why?  Because at each stage of my life I needed and wanted adventure.  I wanted to go against all odds and complete something that no one else thought I could do.  I wanted to accomplish something that even I wasn't sure I could do. 

Erwin McManus said that “If your dreams do not scare you, they are not from God.  God will not give you a dream that you can accomplish alone.”  This is at the heart of every man.  A desire for adventure and accomplishment.

And this is the language of men.  If you want to change the heart of a man, you’ve got to call him to a life of adventure and sacrifice, a life in which he will risk it all for a greater purpose.  And Christianity is such a call.  Jesus called 12 ordinary men, primarily fishermen, to become radical followers of his.  He called them to leave their lives of catching fish and to catch “men” (Mk 1:17).  He called them to go to war and advance what He referred to as the Kingdom of God.  He called men to dream big, risk it all, and find fulfillment in adventures and accomplishments that can only be achieved when the God of the Universe is on your side.

This is the call that all men need to hear.  This is the language that speaks to their heart and mine.  This is the upward call of Christ Jesus and the fulfillment of the deep, inner, longing that every man has to become something greater and achieve something incredible.  This is the life that Jesus calls each of us to and this is the language He uses to call all men homeward to Him. 

True Love

Many people have a warped view of love.  Formed by romantic movies, novels, and stories they wrongfully assume that love is based upon feelings, emotions, or responses to them.  For example, the high school teenager who falls madly in love with her boyfriend finds out at some point in the future that her feelings for him have changed and chooses to break up with him because she is no longer "in love with him."  The husband, who is unsatisfied sexually in his relationship with his wife, decides to have an affair and later a divorce due to "unreconcilable differences" because he has "fallen out of love with her".

These responses, due to Hollywood facades about what love is and how love works, are far from its true definition and in no way should be considered reality.  True love is a commitment to the betterment of another person.  It is a deep desire for what's best for that person.  It is not a feeling and it is not a direct result of things done for us.  Rather, true love is a response of the will.  Therefore, it will not be found in romance novels or movies.  It will not be cultivated in an environment in which another person constantly does something for you.  Why?  We might see the demonstation of love in such actions but it will not necessarily evoke love because love cannot be based upon the reception of such responses. 

Love is not based upon either emotions or actions received.  If it were, love would end once those feelings left or good deeds received stopped.  No, love is something much greater.  This applies to our understanding of God as well.  If God's love for me were based upon my response to Him at all times then I would have a claim to have "earned" His love and His love for me would rather be simply a response to the good things that I have given to Him.

Yet, the opposite is true.  Scripture tells us that "while we were still sinners Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8)  It was while we were opposed to God, that He demonstrated His love for us.  Therefore, God chose to love us and His love was not based upon anything done by us to earn it.  It was His inherent will to love those whom He had loved that brought Jesus to the cross.

Therefore, my love for my God, my wife, my children, or my friends must be greater than the feelings I currently possess about them or their individual responses to me.  To love my neighbor must be greater than his actions toward me or my feelings toward him.  Moreover, the great commandment to love God and love others requires, no it demands, that I remove my preconceived notions of love as a response to another and begin to see it as a choice.

True love for my children requires that if my son chooses to deny me, curse the day that he was born and refuse to speak with me that I still love him.  True love requires that the high school girlfriend not identify courting relationships as being in love and that the husband who is contemplating adultery reconsider and seek the betterment of his wife which implies the opposite of such a decision.  True love forces me to love my wife when she offends me or chooses not to love me in return.

True love is a response of the will and is demonstrated in actions done towards another regardless of their response toward us.  This is what makes Jesus' sacrifice so significant and this is what is behind the term "Grace".

That, and that alone, is true love.

Joshua

Purpose in Life

I sought out purpose at school day one,
And much to my surprise,
I did not find it in my grades,
Or in the thought “I’m wise.”

So I sought out purpose on day two,
And hoped to find it still,
In sports, and football, basketball too
Or in the thought “I will.”

I sought out purpose at work day three,
And still could not discover
The projects, success, and fulfillment needed
To form the thought “I’m better.”

So I sought out purpose on day four,
And looked for it in family
In children, parenting, and my roles
To form the thought “I’m happy.”

I sought out purpose on day five,
And finally passed the quiz
That purpose is defined by God
And formed the thought “I’m His.”

Joshua

Fearful Worship

As a Christian am I really supposed to fear God? Isn't He all-loving and thus no need to fear Him? Many today think so. However, as I read Luke today I came across 2 interesting verses: 5:26 and 7:16. They state the following in the NASB:

5:26 - The were all struck with astonishment and began glorifying God; and they were filled with fear, saying, "We have seen remarkable things today."

7:16 - Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying "A great prophet has arisen among us!" and "God has visited His people!"

From these two verses, I see a connection between both fear and worship. In other words, its not unusual when we come into the presence of God to fear Him - even in the midst of our worship of Him! That's an amazing thing. To be giving God worship while still done in "fear".

There is a sense in which a "healthy fear of God" is expected and even encouraged. Jesus, Himself, of course told us to fear God too when He said, "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into Hell; yes, I tell you fear Him!" (Lu 12:5). This could not refer to Satan because he has no such authority.

Therefore, I think we can safely say that even as a Christian not only is it a healthy thing to have a fear of God but that even in our worshipping of Him we may at times sense a fear and awe of Him that was similar to those mentioned in 5:26 and 7:16. Our worship of God should be that of amazement and wonder as we ponder His character, goodness, mercy, and love. In our praise of God, we should never lose our fear of Him.

My prayer is that we will learn to do just that.

Setting an Example

As the oldest of five children, I have always felt a responsibility to set an example for my younger brothers and sister. I have three younger brothers and a younger sister. Each of them grew up often being identified as "Josh's little brother" or "Josh's little sister". This is to be expected and was a duty that I regarded as very important.

It was important for me growing up to demonstrate to my younger brothers and sister the decisions in life that they should make. I wanted them to avoid the party scene. I wanted them to respect their parents and teachers. I wanted them to see how to do the right thing and to have had a good example to follow. This morning I read Mark 5 and 6. In Mark 5:37 I was struck by a simple phrase within this verse. The verse says "And He allowed no one to accompany Him, except Peter and James and John the brother of James." (NASB)

This is what is referred to as the Inner Circle. These three men and Andrew represented the 4 men closest to Jesus and thus were priviledged to have seen and heard things from Jesus that the other disciples were not previed to. In this verse the phrase "John the brother of James" caught my eye. It reminded me of a younger brother who was known by his identification to the older brother. So I looked it up and this is what I found out: Of the 17 times in which James and John are mentioned together in the same verse in the synoptic gospels, James is always mentioned first (Matt 4:21; 10:2; 17:1; Mk 1:19; 1:29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35; 10:41; 13:3; 14:33;Lu 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28; 9:54). The only occurrence in all of Scripture which he is not listed before John is Acts 1:13.

Thus, he was the older brother. People knew John because they first knew James. They made assumptions about John's character based upon James. They assumed that John was probably in some way very similar to James. And in fact they were - both being called the "Sons of Thunder" (Mk 3:17) for their quick temperments and high level of energy.

However, I also recalled something else significant. In Acts 12:2 we learn about the death of James where it simply says "And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword." (NASB)

Thus, even in death James set a precedence for his younger brother. He showed John how to live his life so courageously that he would even choose to become martyred for his faith in Jesus.

What an incredible example he set! And his younger brother would need it. Later John penned the book of Revelation only because he had been exiled to the island of Patmos. James was a leader. He was a man of integrity who raised the bar and invited his younger brother to join him and to live up to the calling that Jesus had given to both of them in their lives.

"Heavenly Father, I thank you for the example of James. I pray that I too may demonstrate to my own brothers and sister how to live their lives willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of Your Kingdom and their King - Jesus."

I pray that you will remember the example of James set as you set an example for your siblings and those who look up to you in the Lord.

Joshua

Are You Perfect?

"Are you perfect?" It's a fair question when you think about it. Are you perfect? Am I perfect? When asked this question, if we're honest with one another the answer is emphatically "No!". Our reasoning may be very different. You might say, "I'm not perfect because I have made mistakes in my life." I might say that I am not perfect because I have "sin" in my life.

However, at the end of the day, we can both admit that you are not perfect. Nor am I. Yet, is it not possible that you are perfect and that the standard of "perfection" simply includes the so-called mistakes that you have made? If you've said a lie before, is it not possible that under your own circumstances, stating the lie was in fact the correct thing to do and that because of it you're still perfect? Couldn't you apply this logic to any and every so-called mistake that you have made?

I suppose you could but then if I also applied that same logic we'd quickly find that your definition of perfection and mine vary because we have made different choices under different circumstances which each of us would say was wrong but in which we were attempting to prove as o.k.

Thus, it doesn't take us long to come to the realization that we are not perfect. Yet, how can this be? If you as an imperfect being are capable of recognizing that which is perfect, how is that possible? How can someone imperfect understand the concept of "perfection"?

You might say, "Hey, that's simple. I see things all around me that are wrong and thus I recognize them as such. The wrong things point to what is right." While its true that wrong things remind us what is right, they do not "prove" what is right. Why? Because such a statement is a logical fallacy. Knowledge of a concept always precedes proof of its existence. You must know what a car is before you can prove that a Honda Accord is a car.

Here's the point: "Knowledge of something must precede a test for it". In other words, "Knowledge of a standard must precede knowlege of compliance to it". A concept precedes evidence. A hypothesis must precede a conclusion made about it. If I drew two lines on a piece of paper and asked you if they were equal, could you tell me? You could. Why? Because your understanding of that which is "equal" preceded the question I posed to you.

Therefore, you and I can have a knowledge of perfection without even being perfect. How did this occur? Rene Decartes, a French Philosopher from 1506-1650, argued that it must have been given to us by another - namely God.

Thus, when you were born you were given an understanding of a being that was perfect in all ways. You understood that a perfect being must be all-powerful, all-knowing, holy, righteous, pure, just, all-loving, and many, many other things. You understood this even though you had never seen nor met God.

Thus, when Paul says in Romans 1:19 that "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them" he is saying that you and I were born with the capacity to know what God is and who He is. God is whatever is perfect. God is infinite. He is not limited in anyway. He is whatever your definition of perfection includes.

Therefore, you have been given a tremendous gift: Knowledge of God. It is an innate quality that all men possess. The next question is, "What are you going to do with such knowledge?"

Are you going to seek to know God? Or will you attempt to deny the very knowledge that you now know is already within you?

Joshua

Listening

Reason calls within the sky;
“Hey, stop and wait and listen nigh!
I have these stars and planets here;
I have these galaxies so clear.”

Think as you walk about me so vast;
And ask yourself if in time’s past
I could have developed on my own;
I could have derived myself alone.”

Reason calls within the tree,
“Hey, stop and wait and look at me!
I have these branches, but why it so?
I have these leaves, which yearly grow?

Think as you walk about my form;
And ask yourself, ‘Should be the norm?’
To have what seems such odd design,
And find within me more than time.”

Reason calls within my boy;
"Hey, stop and wait and find your joy!
I have these arms and feet and hands;
I have these fingers, perhaps by chance?

Think as you walk about me now;
And ask yourself both “Why?” and “How?”
These things are so and long have been,
And listen now to what’s within.

Joshua

The Bookends of Life

"Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him." - Matthew 2:2 (NASB)

Simple observation. Simple application. Simple question.

First, the observation. Matthew chapter 2 is the story of the birth of Jesus. In this story "magi" come from the east traveling westward toward Judah to discover a new king that has been born. Magi were a caste of wise men specializing in astronomy, astrology, and natural science. These men were Gentile star gazers who had been staring up at the sky and had predicted a forthcoming king, the Messiah, the King of the Jews. This story is familiar to many but what struck me was the simple phrase "King of the Jews".

I had been studying Mark 15 at the time. In Mark 15:26 Jesus is crucified with an inscription written above His head. Do you remember what it said? "The King of the Jews." Thus, Jesus life was marked by this unique identity. This simple phrase represented a bookend to both the beginning and end of His life, His birth and His death, His entire life.

Second, the application. Jesus remained true to His purpose in life. The question is, "Have we?" When we were born we were created with a purpose in mind. We were designed for a specific reason. Conception occurs first within the mind of God (Jer 1:5). Therefore, at the beginning of our lives a bookend was placed. It represented a beginning that for our lives and was conceived first in the mind of God. When we die, our lives will also conclude with a final bookend. Thus, we will have to ask ourselves "Did my life fulfill its original purpose?". Did I achieve what God had planned for me? Did I fulfill my purpose and come into a relationship with Jesus? Did I make Him Lord? Did I serve Him as I should have? Or did I turn from Him never to return?

Third, the question. Fortunately, our lives are not over. Therefore, we have a simple question to answer: "How will your life be book-ended?" As a life of tragedy and a lifetime spent away from God? Or will you fulfill God's plan for your life and accept Jesus as Lord?

An ancient Indian proverb once said, "When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Live your life in such a way that when you die the world cries and you rejoice."

Live your life for Jesus and bookend your life with Him.

All Things Work Together

In the eighth chapter of the book of Romans, Paul writes in verse 28:

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love God, those who have been called according to His purpose." (NASB)

The NIV states it this way: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose."

There is a difference in manuscripts. One of the earliest states it as "we know that in all things God works for the good" and in another "we know that God causes all things to work together". Does God "cause all things to work together" or does He simply use what happens to work them together for good? What is God's real role in this verse? Are these two translations contradicting one another?

The answer really is no. Whether your version reads it as "God causes" or simply that "in all things God works" does not matter. Whether we see God as causing things to happen here or reacting to them should not concern us. God is the supreme Creator and Sustainer of all things. He is more than capable of both causing and reacting to all things that are brought about by mankind. He can both cause good to work and produce good out of the evil desires and consequences of man's actions.

Now that we've addressed that difference in translation, let's now examine the meaning of this often quoted and studied verse.

The verse begins by stating "And we know". The Greek word here is OIDAMEN. It is a Perfect Active Plural verb. The Perfect tense is one that simply refers to a "completed" action. More specifically, it usually refers to an event that was completed in the past and has ongoing ramifications. Thus, "we know" could be better translated "we have perceived". It is referring to events in the past which have been completed but now are showing the results.

We have all witnessed this phenomena in our own lives. Something awful will happen but God will somehow use it for good. God is amazing in His ability to take something awful and use it for something good. The word for "works together" is SUNEPREI which is a Present Active verb meaning "is working together". In other words, God is doing this right now. It is a present tense meaning that it is on-going. The completed past actions that we have made, those mistakes that we regret that we have done or have been done to us, are all being worked together to produce for God the desired results He wants within us.

This promise though comes with two conditions. It is only those who "love God" and who "have been called according to His purpose" who can expect to receive this blessing.

God asks all to follow but few do. He offers the free gift of salvation but it will require submission to the Lordship of Christ. When we accept Jesus as Lord, the master and ruler of our lives, we voluntarily give Him the authority to do with us as He pleases.

Therefore, let us say with Paul that we too have perceived or seen past completed events to be used together for good. We also love God and serve Him. We have been called and are following His calling to accomplish His purpose both in our own lives and in this world.

All things work together for good. It is a promise to remember and recite often to those who also meet these same two qualifications.

Really Useful Engines

"They're two they're four they're six they're eight
Shunting trucks and hauling freight
red and green and brown and blue
they're the really useful crew

All with different roles to play
Round Tidmouth sheds or far away,
Down the hills and round the bends
Thomas and friends"

I wish I knew how many times I've heard that theme song. Thomas and his friends. Thomas is a train or "tank engine" that lives on the island of Sodor. He and his "friends", other tank engines, are my oldest boy Will's favorite toys. Thomas is blue while his other friends are different colors. For example, Percy is green and Salty is red.

Thomas the Train was a creation of a minister from Great Britain named W.V. Awdry. The British children's television show was first broadcasted in 1984. However, what I want to focus on is the key component to the chorus listed above. It states that "they're the really useful crew, all with different roles to play".

I think that there is a Spiritual truth found here. Usefulness. What does it mean to be useful? Does it mean that we must be athletic, intelligent, or possess an uncanny giftedness in a particular field? Does it mean that we must all have the same sorts of gifts and abilities? I dont think so and I dont think God intended it to be that way. We all have "different roles to play." Not all of us are called to vocational ministry just as not all of us are called to teach preschoolers. Yet, all of us have been given a gift to be useful in the kingdom of God.

And I think for the most part we all want to be useful to God. We are constantly seeking out and determining what Spiritual Gifts that God has given to us. We get frustrated when we don't understand where we fit in and where we can be "useful." I know I do. I am in the pursuit of such usefulness too.

Fortunately, God knows this and desires for you and I to be useful. He designed each one of us to be useful for Him. In other words, you and I were designed for a purpose. Our lives are not mere mistakes of random probability. They are instead ordained by God and important to Him. You are important and useful to Him. However, it is only within the confines of a life spent with Him that we can come to understand what the concept of usefulness to God really means.

In Romans 9:17, Paul writes "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power within you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole Earth.'"

This is a quote from Exodus 9:16 where God spoke to Moses and told him to tell the Pharoah these words. Thus, even a person who is evil can be used by God for His purpose.

How much more, then can a person who has accepted Jesus as Lord be used by God to demonstrate God's power within his or her life and to proclaim His name throughout the entire Earth?

Give your life to Jesus and accept Him as Lord. In doing so, you will serve the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

You will also become one really useful engine for God's "island of Sodor", His kingdom here on Earth.

Objective Moral Values

On CNN's website today, there was an interview between a married couple and a woman who was representing the organization FRC (Family Research Council). The topic of discussion was the issue of "swinging". Swingers are those couples, married, who engage in sexual activity with other couples while remaining married to one another. In other words, adultery is unknown sexual activity outside of the marriage bed and "swinging" is known sexual activity outside of the marriage bed.

Arguments made in favor of swinging were that the "freedom" experienced enabled the couple to enjoy fantasies outside of the home that somehow strengthened their marriage. How this works, I have no idea. The argument made against such actions, however, was in favor of marriage being an institution that out to be held up, revered, and committed to by two people who have stood before God and chosen a monogomous relationship.

While I do not disagree with the points made by the FRC representative I think she missed the greater issue. Those in favor of swinging are similar to those in favor of homosexuality. They will often say, "Hey, it's not right for you but it is for me." In making such a statement, the person is arguing for a form of relativism. It's a postmodern view point that describes how all moral values are relative.

The point that should have been made to this couple is the exact opposite. Morality is not subjective to one's conditions, environments, or culture. It's not relative. There is such thing as absolute truth and there is such a thing as objective moral values. Anyone who denies this principle cannot live within such a belief system. For as soon as this person has been robbed, beaten, or raped they will immediately claim to have been harmed. Yet, if objective moral values do not exist then although it might have been wrong to them it would not have been wrong to their assailant.

So it goes with all forms of immorality. Claiming that morals are dependant upon a person is a copout to the real issue that the person is looking for a loophole in their own definition of morality to permit the type of behavior that they desire to perform. It's been said that "a man's morality dictates his theology." Do you want to practice homosexuality? If so, you'd better find a way to eliminate the truth within the Bible or attempt to re-interpret passages that have been understood in the exact same way for over 2,000 years.

Paul said it this way in Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them."

In other words, Paul is saying that objective moral values do exist and those who do not want to live by them will attempt to suppress this truth by creating foolish speculations and re-defining terms in order to fit their immoral behaviors. There are moral absolutes. They are understood by all. They were given to us by God Himself.

The next time someone attempts to rationalize relativism, simply ask them where the source of their moral truths lie. Once confirmed that it originated with themselves, simply point out that morality cannot originate with the individual. It must originate with something greater than us.

That "something" or "someone" is Almighty God and the Moral Argument for God's existence is based entirely upon such a conclusion.

Origins of a Kingdom

In Exodus 19, we read about the origin of a kingdom, the Kingdom of God.  The context of this passage is the exiting of Egypt as Moses leads the Israelites towards the Promise Land.  Situated at the foot of Mt. Sinai, he proceeds to climb the mountain in order to meet God.  He will enter into a conversation with God and in verses 5-6 God speaks to him about the future of this roaming nomadic people:

"Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."

God has chosen to separate this people for a distinct purpose.  They will become His people.  The rejected people without a king, the wandering people who had been mere servants and slaves in Egypt are suddenly and dramatically given a divine purpose and calling.  In defining this kingdom, God establishes three qualities.

First, the Kingdom of God will be defined by its Conditions.  The kingdom was conditional.  It was not for everyone.  It was only for those who listen and obeyed.  God said that if they listen and "obey His voice" and "keep His Covenant" that they will be His people.  In verse 6, it states "to Me" and therefore indicates that He will be the possessor of it. 

Second, the Kingdom of God will be defined by its Conduct.  The kingdom was to contain only those people who lived out what they believed.  They were expected to act upon their decision to make God their king.  How were they supposed to do this?  Serve Him.  They were to be priests.  A priest is a mediator between people and a particular deity.  All religions including pagan religions had them.  The prophets of gods like Baal and Ashterah also had their own priests.  A priest was to serve their god by representing him to the people and serving him in their temple.This had serious consequences for the people.  As a kingdom of priests God expected the people to serve Him through their lives. 

Third, the Kingdom of God will be defined by its Character.  They were to become a "holy nation".  The term "holy" means to be separated for divine purposes.  God gave them a purpose and calling in life.  He also established a pattern of behavior that He expected.  He desired holiness because He Himself was holy. 

More important, and perhaps more profoundly, God demonstrated a desire to call this select people group His own.  By offering a kingdom to the people with Him as king, God demonstrated a love for these people.  He willfully sought them out and chose them out of all the peoples of the world to become His own.  In the process, He established a kingdom. 

Maybe more amazingly still, God desired to identify Himself with His creation.  He longed to be known by a select group of people who would be His representatives to the entire world.  He longed to establish the origins of a kingdom, a kingdom that would ultimately be ruled by a forth-coming Messiah.

God desired to be identified with those He loved.  The question for each of us just might be "Do we long to be identified with Him?"

Joshua

Veiled Deity

Veiled deity.  Its an odd concept.  For how can it be that someone who desires to reveal Himself is unable to do so?  How can it be that someone so personal and close would desire to reveal Himself so much as to come to Earth, even to take the form of the very creation He had made?

A God who desires intimacy with His creation but who cannot reveal Himself in His fullness because to do so would destroy all whom are not as Holy as He.  Yet, He desires to do so and to enable us to come to know Him.  Therefore, He must turn His back when Moses asks to see His face and permits just a glimpse of who He is (Exo 33:18-23). 

Later He will send forth the Messiah.  Jesus, the Anointed One, the Christ, a man without a physical description who was the true fulfillment of a personal God.  He was God veiled in human flesh.  Full of grace and power, strength and mercy, He walked this earth but the world did not know Him.  Though He had been the One to create all things, His handiwork had not recognized their Creator.

Veiled deity.  Hidden glory.  Covered majesty.  The world He came to save, the Kingdom He came to announce, the God He came to reveal was His greatest attempt to express the love that He has for all of mankind.

Joshua

I Hate This World

I recently received an email regarding a co-worker who had passed away. I knew this individual well and he had worked for the company for over 10 years.

Yet, in the email it was asked that his family would be kept "in your thoughts".

Why only "in your thoughts" and not "in your thoughts and prayers"? Why? Because somewhere someone would have been offended that the mention of praying at a time in which a person has just died would be brought up.

I hate this world. I hate its political correctness. I hate its compromises. I hate its morality.

I hate its desires to hide the only truth that needs to be proclaimed at an awful time like this that Jeus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and without Him you have no hope.

You have no reason to be happy, cheerful or even get out of bed in the morning. When will we we learn that refusing to speak truth never brings comfort? It brings a false sense of hope.

I absolutely hate this world. Yet, it is the very world that Jesus came to save.

Come Lord Jesus come. (Rev 22:20)

Joshua

The Exclusivity of Christ

They were emboldened fisherman.  Having spent the previous night in jail for preaching the resurrection of Jesus, they stood toe to toe with the religious elite.   Faced with accusations of false teachings and performing false miracles for healing a lame man, they were now asked to give an account for their actions.  Yet, in the midst of extreme difficulty, they spoke boldly, ferverently, and clear.  There was a sense of passion and disregard for "political correctness" in their speech.  The words they used were black and white.  They resounded loud and clear and penetrated even the hardest of hearts cutting to the core of every listener. 

"Who were these men?"  The people thought.  Uneducated and lacking in formal training.  Unpopular and poor, they represented the "lower class" and therefore should not have possessed the clear knowledge and insight that they in fact demonstrated as they spoke.  Who were these men?

Peter and John.  They had amazed both the uneducated peasants and skeptical rulers, elders, and scribes alike with their ability to expound upon Scripture and to perform mighty miracles in the name of God.  Their physical demeanor might have been questionable but their message and the results of their miracle certainly were not.

It is in Acts, Chapter 4, verses 5-12 that we learn about the boldness and confidence of Peter and John.  We find men who have been filled with the Holy Spirit and are willing to speak truth no matter what the consequence.  Their preaching had been powerful and effective.  Verse 4 states that now 5,000 men had come to believe in Jesus.  And remember that this is just a count of the men who were converted.

Yet, in verses 5-12 Peter addresses the very men who had put Jesus to death.  He speaks to the very people responsible for His execution.  Can you imagine the adrenaline that must have been flowing through his veins at the time?  Remember that it had been Peter who denied Jesus three times when his life had been put in danger.  He had been unwilling to plead allegiance with Christ to a small child and others in a courtyard.  He had never stepped up and spoken to the highest religious authority in the land.

How could he have been given such courage and ability to speak so powerfully?  Let's examine these verses:

Verse 5 begins "On the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of priesetly descent."  (NASB)

Stop for a minute and make sure you understand who these guys are.  John 18:12-14 gives us some background information about this story.  First, Annas was the former high priest.  He was the one who had been in charge before Caiaphas.  He is also the one who was the father-in-law to Caiphas.  Now, it was Caiaphas who had instituted the procedure to kill one of the convicts as apart of the Passover festival.  John 18:14 tells us that this was a practice created to expedite the charges brought against such a man.  He was the current high priest. 

Now if we back track to find out when he began to rule we see that it occurrs sometime during the lifetime of Jesus.  Annas ruled from 6-15 AD.  Caiaphas took over and ruled from 16-37AD.  Now, depending upon the date of the birth of Jesus (some say 2-3 BC and others 1 AD) we can find out that Jesus was between 16 and 19 years old when this happened for the first time.  He would have come to the Passover feast and for the very first time seen a man being executed.  He might even have known that this would become His own fate.  Can you imagine that?  That will just overwhelm you if you stop and think about it.  When I discovered that fact, I was in a daze for two days just thinking about what that might have been like.  Thinking about what Jesus must have thought and felt as He witnessed such an event for the very first time.  Anyway, Caiphas was married to Anna's daughter and through the tremendous influence of Annas had become the high priest. 

Annas had also had other children.  Two of them are mentioned here.  His sons were John and Alexander.  They too would someday rule the land.  Therefore, this is somewhat a "family meeting" to discuss what has been going on since Jesus' death.  It is the elite.  Verse 5 states that the rulers, elders, and scribes were all present.  Unable to keep the problem of Christianity from spreading, these men now want to question Peter and John who in Acts 3 had just healed a lame man who had been crippled from birth, a man that Acts 4:22 states was over 40 years old.

The crowds were amazed and rightfully so.  Let's continue in verse 7, "When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?"  Notice the intentions of the question.  The placement of the men tells us something.  They are placed in the "center".  They want to accuse them of wrong doing. 

The purpose of the question also tells us something.  By what power or name did “you” do this?  Did they believe that God had worked through these men to perform a miracle?  No.  Did they want to find out if these men were also from God in order to learn from them and seek God on their own?  No.  Did they suspect that God had done this?  Evidently not.  They insisted that "they", Peter and John, had done something.  Maybe they had used some form of trickery or magic to fool the people.  "What have you done?", they ask.

I believe that they could not see past the miracle.  They wanted to explain it away.  Certainly, God did not work through these men.  He only works through “us”, the religious leaders.  They felt that Peter and John had tricked the people and healed this man through an act of deception.  It was an illusion not a miracle and they were determined to get to the bottom of it.

There are those today who also deny miracles.  Some are Scientists, others Atheists.  Others hold to their beliefs of Naturalism and that everything we see in the universe must be explained by natural causes.  All evidence may point to the contrary but they will still refuse to accept it and instead look for any possible way to explain it.  These men fell into that same category.  The way they stated the question indicated their own motivations.

Then Peter says something truly radical.  He speaks directly to these men and accuses them of having killed the Messiah.  Not only that but he is going to explain how through their sinful deed, they actually fulfilled Scripture.  Their very own prophets had prophesized that they would do exactly what they did.  Amazing.

Talk about some guts.  Peter could never have said these things without having been filled with the Holy Spirit.  Let's take a look at what he say.  Starting in verse 8 we read,

"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health. "He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:7-12 (NASB)

First, Peter’s confidence is something to behold.  Verse 7 stated that he was “filled with the Holy Spirit”.  That’s where his confidence came from.  He knows he’s on trial.  “If we are on trial” means that he knows he has been brought in to be questioned intentionally.  Yet, he is unusually confident.  Jesus had told him before that he would receive the Holy Spirit at times such as this.  He stated is such in John 14:26 when He said, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”  Thus, the Spirit living within Peter enables him to speak boldly.

It reminded him of Scripture, here he quotes from Psalm 118:22, which states “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone.”  This message had been given to these same people before by Jesus.  He confronted the chief priests and scribes in Luke 20:17-19 and used the same words to condemn them and prophesize of how He would die.

Second, Peter’s convictions are also on display.  He states that he is on trial for healing a sick man.  The sick man he refers to is the lame man who has been healed.  That story was found at the beginning of Acts 3.  Its interesting that Peter tells us that he is being questioned for the "benefit done" to this sick man.  He's pointing out the obvious that they are upset at him for doing good.  He was "sick" but now stands here before you in "good health".  Yet, do they want to praise God for this?  No.  He is basically telling them, “You can deny the reason but you can’t deny the result.”

The man was lame but now “this man stands”.  It reminds me of the scene in Forrest Gump when Forrest says, “Lietenant Dan, you got new legs!”. 

Third, Peter’s confession is important.  Peter explains to them that they had killed Jesus.  He identifies them as guilty.  He also addresses their need to repent and accept Jesus.  Thus, he explains their own responsibility of sin and their need to accept Jesus as Lord. 

Moreover, by stating that Jesus is the “One by which we must be saved” he’s also saying “You’re not the one.  You’re not needed in the same way anymore.  You used to be the mediator for the people of God.  They had to come to you in order to have you make sacrifices to Him, to speak to Him, and it gave you great power.  Now, One has come who is greater than you.” 

It was an amazing confession and pronouncement of judgment upon them.

I think this story begs a few questions from us:

1.  What trials have you faced or are you facing as a direct result of your walk with Christ?   Have you faced any?  What does your abundance or lack of trials say to you this morning?  It's something to think long and hard about.

2.  Are you able to use Scripture to demonstrate your faith to others?  To help you in times of persecution?  Many of us know Scripture but are unable to quote it when put on the spot.  Why is this?  What prevents us from doing that?

3.  What are you building your life upon?  Is it your own knowledge or wisdom?  Is it Science and Technology?  Is it the wisdom of others?  It’s a question we must all answer.  It’s a question that we each do answer throughout the course of our lives.

4.  What are you placing your assurance of salvation upon?  Do you rest upon the laurels of your parents?  Friends?  Other believers?  Maybe you have never even thought through your own actions and what they say about who you serve.  Maybe you have not even considered the question or have never been confronted with the reality of your sin and the need for a Savior.

So, as I process this story I am confronted with a question, "Who do you and I relate to most in this story?"  Do I relate to Peter or to the Priests?  Am I willing to standing upon my own convictions and claim the exclusivity of Christ?  Or do I think that there are many pathways to God?  Where do I stand with regard to this all important issue.

Remember that it was Peter who repeated the Good Confession in Matthew 16:16 when he said “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”  It was also Peter who had failed Jesus by denying Him three times prior to His death and then had to be restored to Jesus in John 21.

Maybe you can relate to him in this way?  You’ve fallen away from your faith and need to recommit yourself to Christ.  You’ve removed your firm foundation and replaced it with something else.  If that’s you today, speak to someone about it.  Recommit yourself to Christ and His Kingdom. 

Maybe God has been speaking to you and you’ve realized that you relate more to the Priests than to Peter.  You’ve never accepted Jesus, never made a decision to follow Him, and have chosen time and time again to reject Him.  What’s holding you back from changing that right now?  What’s holding you back from not just making Jesus your Savior but recognizing Him as Lord and living a spirit-filled life like Peter’s? 

A life full of trials and hardships but a life built upon the firm foundation of Jesus Christ.

Destiny

This morning I want to begin by asking you a question. What is your destiny? What is it that you were made for? What is it that you were born to do? Can you remember a time in your life when you experienced something in which you said, "This is me. This is exactly what I am supposed to do. This is exactly what I was born to do."

Maybe its your career. You were in your teen years or early twenties and you found something that you were really good at. That interest grew and grew until you reached a point in which you said something to yourself that you had never thought before, "I think I could do this with my life."

Maybe it was more of an experience. You experienced an adventure or a person and you just knew that you wanted to follow that dream or become like that person.

Whatever that experience was in your life I want you to think back upon it. Remember what it was like the very first time you realized that you were destined for something. You were destined for somewhere. You were destined to become. Can you remember it? Keep that thought in your brain and process what that felt like as we take a look at this morning's passage.

It's found in John 18:12-14 where the apostle John writes:

"So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people." (NASB)

This is a strange passage. Admittedly, this is the type of passage that I typically overlook and read right through it without giving it much thought. Yet, recently as I read this passage of Scripture I was mesmorized for several days thinking about it. I could hardly work. I couldn't wait to talk about it to a friend. So, I emailed him right away. I told my wife about it when I got home from work. I simply could not stop thinking about it. It grabbed ahold of me and said something to me that I had never thought about before.

So, that's what I want to examine this morning. I want us to process these 3 verses of Scripture which lead up to the crucifixion of Jesus. So, let's set the stage. It is the final week of Jesus' life. More precisely, it’s the final few hours of the final week of His life. He has told His disciples that He would be arrested and crucified. He has been betrayed by one whom He had cared greatly for. A close friend. He has been taken away from His friends, bound up in chains. He is being taken to a group of people whom have been looking for a reason to kill Him for a long, long time.

He's taken first to a man by the name of Annas. Annas, we discover from outside texts, was the previous High Priest of Israel. He was the former leader of the Jewish religious party. He had been the highest ruling authority in their religion but now his son-in-law Caiaphas has taken over. Therefore, although he is no longer the "official" ruler he still has a great deal of power.

What caught my attention though, as I began to process these three verses, was verse 14. It stated that Caiaphas was the one to advise the Jews that they should kill one man each year during the Passover feast. This man was to die on "behalf of all of the people." Now, think with me for a moment.

At the outset this is a strange idea to use this festival to execute a criminal but the idea of sins being laid upon another was not strange at all. In fact, the Passover feast was a reminder of how God had passed over them and punished another - namely the nation of Egypt. There was also the practice of a scape goat in which was let out into the wilderness after having placed the sins of the people upon it. Therefore, the practice itself, although odd, didn’t strike me. What did was the timeframe in which it had started.

If Caiaphas was the one to begin this practice, what John is implicitly stating here is that it had not always happened. So, it begs the question "How long had Caiaphas been in office?".

Some research into his reign tells us that he was basically put in charge in 18 CE and finished in 36 CE. Therefore, his reign was about 19 years. I'm not sure about this but I did read that this was an unusually long period of time for reigning as High Priest and some think that it was because he had such a good relationship to the Roman authorities.

But what really struck me was how this played out in Jesus life. Process this with me for a moment. If Caiaphas had only been in office for 19 years then this practice began during the lifetime of Jesus. Jesus would have grown up as a boy going to the Passover feast each year. Year after year he would have gone. Then, somewhere around the age of 18-20 something different would have occurred. The Jewish authorities would have crucified a man for the very first time.

Imagine what must have been going through Jesus' mind. Whether He knew at that time or would learn about it in the future, He saw for the very first time His own destiny. Someday, He would come to Jerusalem and suffer and die on a cross! He saw in front of Him the very same thing that would happen to Him someday. He saw the pain, He saw the agony, He saw the man as He inhaled and exhaled with His body heaving up and down, He might have seen it hang limp and naked after having already died upon the cross.

He saw Himself that day and He saw His own destiny. There are a couple of things that I want you to process this morning as you think about that day. First of all, recognize God's perfect timing in all of this. It was God who had altered the course of history and known that when Caiaphas takes office that this practice will begin. It was God who knew that He must use this evil act that occurred at this specific period of time in history to bring hope to a lost world. It was God who sent His Son at the very specific time that He did in order to fulfill all prophecies including the type of death that Jesus must endure.

So, here's the first question, "What is it about the timing of God that speaks to you today?" What is He trying to do in your life in this very moment? Why has He allowed you to have the experiences you have had in order to bring you to the point in your life that you find yourself today. What is it about the here and now that God may be trying to get your attention about?

Second, and even more important, "What is Your Destiny?". Jesus came to Jerusalem on a festival week and saw the horrific crucifixion of someone whom had been ordered to die by the highest level of authority in the Jewish religion. He saw His own destiny. What is yours?

What is it that God has designed you for? What giftings has He entrusted you with? What expectations must He have for that which He has given? How does He want you to use them? We often think of this as a very hard question. Maybe youre not sure. But maybe you are and you're just not willing to deal with it.

Maybe God has given you a destiny and you have been unwilling to follow it. Today is the day to make that decision, to step out and to declare that God has given you meaning and purpose and a plan for how you are supposed to live your life.

He's given to you... a destiny.

Is God a God of 3 Persons?

Once we understand the definition of personhood (see “What is Personhood?”) we must now examine the issue of the doctrine of the Trinity.  So, does Scripture state that God is a being of three "persons"?  If so, we cannot argue against it because we would be arguing against the very definition of God Himself.  God defines who He is in Scripture.  We simply need to understand what it says.

What Does Scripture Say?

1.  God is a person.  We see throughout the OT and NT that God is a being which makes rational, intelligent, and moral decisions.  Thus, if He exists, He must be a person.

2.  Jesus was also a person.  Very few would also question this fact.  He was capable of making rational, intelligent, and moral decisions.  His words are found throughout the 4 Gospels.

3.  The Holy Spirit is a person.  Many would argue this fact.  Thus, we must examine the evidence:

- He has a name, the "Helper" (John 14:26). The same Greek word PARAKLETOS can be translated "Counselor" or "Comforter".

- He “thinks” and “knows” (1 Cor 2:10).  Thus, He has a mind and will.

- He has a specific job - "to teach" (Luke 12:12; John 14:26; John 15:26; 1 John 2:27), and to "comfort" us.  He also brings words of wisdom in times of need (John 14:26).

       
- He acts independently but according to God (John 16:13; Acts 15:28)

- He makes independent decisions according to His will (1 Cor 12:7-11).

- He is said to "hear" and then "speak" (John 16:13).  Jesus also heard and spoke according to God (John 12:48-50)

- He has emotions.  He can be grieved (Eph 4:30).

- He “intercedes” for us, or speaks on our behalf (Rom 8:26-27).

- He “inspires” (2 Pet 1:21) and sanctifies (or cleanses us) (1 Pet 1:21)

- He “strives” with men (Gen 6:3).

- He brings conviction upon all men (John 16:8).

- He distributes Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor 12:11).

- He directs church affairs (Acts 13:2).

- He “dwells” in believers (Rom 8:11).

- Additionally:

1.  4 times in John 14:17 it refers to the Holy Spirit as a "He" or "Him".  The Greek word is AUTOS and is only translated as "it" in the NWT.  The Greek word for Spirit is a neuter noun.  A neuter noun is simply one without gender connotation.  Thus, the NWT translators have chosen to use the pronoun "it".  However, later in John 16:13 they change to "he".  This is because the Greek text requires it.  Thus, personhood is implied and in the English language we refer to persons with the pronouns "he" and "she".

2.  7 times in John 16:13 it refers to the Holy Spirit as "He" or "Him".  Notice here that the NWT does refer to the Holy Spirit here as a "he".

Are All Three Persons the Same?

Yet, if all three are persons are they all the same?  The following is evidence that supports the fact that they are all three separate but the same:

Evidence for Jesus as God:

        1.  God never changes (Mal 3:6) and Jesus never changes (Heb 13:8).

2.  God is the only Savior (Isa 43:11; Jude 1:12; Titus 2:10; 1 Tim 4:10) and Jesus is the only Savior (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:4; 2 Pet 1:1; 3:18; 1 John 4:14; Heb 2:10; 5:9)

3.  God created the Universe and Earth by Himself (Isa 44:24; Gen 1:1) and Jesus created the Universe and Earth (Heb 1:10; Col 1:16; John 1:3)

4.  God is the first and the last (Isa 41:4) and Jesus is the first and the last (Rev 1:17).

               
5.  God forgives sins (Psa 103:2-3; Mark 2:7) and Jesus forgives sins (Mark 2:5).
               

6.  God is our redeemer (Isa 63:16) and Jesus redeemed us (Titus 2:13-14).

7.  God is the Holy One (Psa 16:10; 71:22; 78:14; 89:18; Isa 10:20) and Jesus is the Holy One (Acts 3:13-14; 13:34-35).

               
8.  Only God is worshipped (Matt 4:10) and Jesus is worshipped (Matt 9:18).
               

9.  God is Messiah (Isa 9:6) and Jesus is Messiah (John 4:25-26).

10.  God is from everlasting (Psa 93:1-2) and Jesus is from everlasting (Micah 5:2).

               

11.  Only God is glorified (Isa 42:8) and God glorified Jesus (John 5:23; Heb 1:8).

               
12.  God is I AM (Exo 3:14) and Jesus is I AM (John 8:58).
               

13.  God heals all diseases (Psa 103:2) and Jesus heals all diseases (Matt 8:16).

               

14.  God is the Judge of the whole Earth (Gen 18:25; Psa 94:1-2) and Jesus is the Judge of the whole Earth (John 5:22).

               
15.  God has life in Himself (John 5:26) and Jesus has life in Himself (John 1:4).
               

16.  God raises the dead (John 5:21) and Jesus raises the dead (John 5:21).

               
17.  Additionally:
                - Jesus was One in the Father (John 10:30)

- Jesus was in the form of God and equal to God (prior to incarnation) (Phil 2:5-8)

                - God called Jesus "God" (Heb 1:8, 10)
                - God is said to have killed "Himself" at the cross (Acts 20:28)
                - God is said to have "laid down His life for us" (1 John 3:16)

- God is said to have manifested in the flesh as Jesus, believed upon, and received up in glory (1 Tim 3:16)
- Stephen as he is stoned calls out to God by calling Him the "Lord Jesus" (Acts 7:59)

                - Thomas confessed that Jesus is both Lord and God (John 20:28)
                - Seeing Jesus is seeing God (John 14:8-9)
                - Jesus is called "Emmannuel" which means "God with us" (Matt 1:23)

- John tells us explicitly that the people did not believe that Jesus was God (John 10:33).  Thus, they crucified Him because He "made Himself God".

                       

Evidence for the Holy Spirit as God:
       

1.  God is love and the Holy Spirit is love (Rom 15:30).

2.  God is life and the Holy Spirit is life (Rom 8:2).

3.  God is truth and the Holy Spirit is truth (John 16:13).

4.  God is forever and the Holy Spirit is forever (John 14:16).

5.  God is Creator and the Holy Spirit is Creator (Gen 1:2; Job 33:4; Psa 104:30)

6.  God is Omnipotent and the Holy Spirit is Omnipotent (all-powerful) (1 Cor 12:11) 

7.  God is Omnipresent and the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent (everywhere) (Psa 139:7-8).

8.  God is Omniscient and the Holy Spirit is Omniscient (knows everything) (1 Cor 2:10).

Additionally, the promise of the Holy Spirit is at the heart of the New Covenant that God promised (Eze 36:26-27).  Thus, when He came at Pentecost He was viewed as God.  The early Church, then, went on to view Him as God (Acts 5:3-4).

Are All Three Ever Mentioned Together?

All 3 Persons are referred to together in several verses.  Some of these verses are as follows:  Gen 1:1-3; Isa 48:16; Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14.

Conclusion

Thus, we can conclude that the definition of the Trinity, though difficult if not impossible to understand, is true.  It is not true because the concepts are logically true but because God has defined Himself as such.  He is, by His own definition, three persons in one.

What is Personhood?

What is "personhood"? What is it that makes a person a "person"? Is it the clothes they wear? Is it the physical characteristics of him or her? Is a person a person because they look different from another person? Are they a person because they may act or behave differently? Is it the actions of a person that "personifies" them?

What is it exactly that makes a person a person?

Maybe you've never actually thought about this before. Dictionaries define persons as "humans" or "individuals". Is this true? Does a dog or a cat have personhood? Does a lion or tiger have personality?

To examine the idea of personhood, we must begin with a definition of personhood. My presupposition and definition is that personhood is a label used to describe the idea of a being that is capable of making rational, intelligent, and moral decisions. Thus, to determine the validity that such beings exist, we can make the following 4 arguments:

Argument #1: Does Personhood exist?

1. If personhood exists, beings that make rational, intelligent, and moral decisions must exist.
2. Such beings do exist.
3. Thus, personhood exists.

Argument #2: Is God a person?

1. If personhood exists, beings that make rational, intelligent, and moral decisions must exist.
2. God makes such decisions.
3. Thus, God is a person.

Argument #3: Is a human being a person?

1. If personhood exists, beings that make rational, intelligent, and moral decisions must exist.
2. Humans make such decisions.
3. Thus, a human being is a person.

Argument #4: Is an animal a person?

1. If personhood exists, beings that make rational, intelligent, and moral decisions must exist.
2. Animals do not make such decisions.
3. Thus, animals are not persons.

Therefore, we conclude that God and humans are both "persons". Animals are not. The Scriptures teach us that human beings are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26). Thus, we can also conclude that the personhood that is found in God is also found in us. We can extend this logic to also say that spiritual beings capable of making rational, intelligent, and moral decisions also have personhood. Thus, angels, the Devil, and demons can also be said to have personhood.

When we apply this logic to the Trinity we run into a problem. For the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is "three persons in one". Thus, He is Triune or a unity of three "persons". Yet, in order to create such a doctrine it must be proved that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each individual persons and not simply the same being. In this sense, it is impossible to prove because you are attempting to prove something by arguing against the very definition of it. You cannot argue that a dog is a dog by stating that a dog is not a cat because by its very definition a dog is not a cat. Or suppose that you tried to argue that the color blue is blue because it is not red. By its very definition its not red so you can't argue for something by stating that it is simply not something else. You cant try to prove a thing to be something by arguing the opposite. I cannot therefore prove the Trinity by using evidence contrary to itself to prove it.

Thus, if the doctrine of the Trinity is true it must be what Philosophers describe as a "basic belief". It must be necessarily true. The color blue is blue because its blue and not red. It is a basic understanding that I start with and do not attempt to re-define it as something other than blue. By its very definition, it's blue. Thus, if the Trinity is true it must be true because God by His very definition is three in one.

Scripture cannot prove that God is Triune, it can only state it. If it states it without attempting to prove it then it is assumed to be true. It is a "basic belief" and the definition of God. If it does not state it, then it is not true. It is not a basic belief. Therefore, if we can find within the Bible evidence that each of the 3 (God, Son, Holy Spirit) are in fact persons then they must be so because God Himself is defined as three in one. The Scriptures never prove God exists. They simply state it. The same must be true with the definition of God. If Scripture states that He is Triune then the doctrine of the Trinity is true.

Is the Holy Spirit a Person?

"that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." - John 14:17 (NASB)

"the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither beholds it nor knows it. YOU know it, because it remains with YOU and is in YOU." - John 14:17 (NWT - New World Translation)

Is the Holy Spirit a person?  Is it a personal being?  Some believe so and others do not.  In a recent conversation with a Jehovah's Witness follower, I was again confronted with the notion of the Trinity.  It is difficult if not impossible to explain that God is One God but that, as Scripture teaches us, He is also three in one.  How can this be?  Where do we find such a church doctrine supported in Scripture?

The Trinity is often described as God who is in 3 persons.  He is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  There are three distinct personhoods in the Godhead.  Yet, how do we come to grips with this fact?  Where else in nature do we see three in one?  Some have suggested water.  It can be liquid, solid, or a mist.  Others suggest lemonade.  It is the combination of three ingredients:  Lemon, Sugar, and Water.  Without the three, the one is not the same.

Yet, all of these analogies fail.  In this afternoon's passage of Scripture, the NASB states that the Holy Spirit is a person.  No less than four times in this one verse do we see Jeus referring to the Holy Spirit as a person.  He uses the noun "He".  No inanimate object is ever referred to with a personal pronoun. 

Jehovah's Witnesses define God's Holy Spirit as His "active force in the universe".  They believe that God acts through this force but that it is not separate from God Himself.  It has no identity and can do nothing on its own.  Therefore, they do not see the Holy Spirit as a person.  It is not a "He" but rather an "it" (see the bolded words above).  Thus, the New World Translation is purposefully mistranslating the original Greek in order to maintain its theological bias.  It has to translate the Greek Word AUTOS to be "it". 

Yet, the word literally means "he, same, or self".  The English word "automobile" means a "self-propelling vehicle".  It is a distinct thing used to carry passengers.  It is an individual, unique, and separate vehicle.

The Greek word AUTOS is similar but refers to a unique individual person.  Thus, this word refers to a "He" - a distinct person.  When the meaning of "same" is used, it implies that the two are one in the same.  Thus, it implies that Jesus and God are the "same" in essence.  When used to mean "self", it is a way of emphasizing such as saying "I myself".  This same word is used in John 16:27 when it says "the Father Himself (autos) loves you".  Thus, it is an emphatic expression of identity.

The point here is that it is uncommon if ever translated as "it".  Nor should it be.  The normal and most common translation is "He".  Therefore, Jesus is referring to a He.

Moreover, we can conclude that in fact the Holy Spirit is a person and that the doctrine of the Trinity is correct - even if we don’t quite understand it fully.

Joshua
 

What is Perfection?

The concept of perfection is a difficult one. As humans, we often speak of perfection in the sense that "Last night's dinner was perfect" or "my summer vacation was just perfect". Yet, of course, we don’t mean such statements literally. Perfection is a concept that all people understand and believe to be true. We all strive for perfection. We all seek to achieve something greater and more perfect.

Yet, how is it that we even know what the concept of perfection is? Some might argue that perfection is known because imperfection is seen. There is a sense in which this is true. We see children born with birth defects and know that they were born with an imperfection. We answered 9 of 10 right on a spelling bee or math test and realize that we were almost perfect. Perfection could be defined as achievement of expectation as in the case of birth defects or mathematically by equating it to 100%.

However, this can also be just a matter of semantics or definition. If we define perfection in the human body as being a person born with two arms and two legs with five fingers and toes respectively then by definition those born with these features were born "perfectly". However, if we change the definition then we can allow others who were born without five fingers or perhaps with six fingers to become our new definition of perfection.

Perfection, therefore, can become for us a moving target. It can become only what we have defined it to be. Why is it, then, that everyone seems to have a certain definition of perfection that so often agrees? While not all will attest to the fact that a perfect human body has four limbs, most will. While not all will say that 100% accuracy is perfection, most will. Why do most people agree upon the definition if by that very definition perfection is defined?

Why am I willing to admit to the fact that my eyes are not perfect because I need contacts or glasses to see? Why don’t I just change the definition and claim perfection? Why don’t others as well claim to be perfect, unflawed, and as designed?

Why don’t I also apply this to my own actions? I could just as easily say that although I lied to my friend that its o.k. because my definition of perfection allows for it. Yet, I do not use this standard and neither do so many others.

When Jesus was asked by His disciples why the man was born blind, He replied that it was in order that the works of God might be revealed within him (Jn 9:1-3). What did that mean? Was Jesus saying that this man was born perfectly or flawed? I don’t think that Jesus was implying this at all. He was not saying that this man was ordinary or typical. He was instead saying that the imperfection in him pointed to what true perfection really was. By seeing the flaw, we come to know the ideal. Thus, Jesus restores His vision to what was the norm. Moreover, God is revealed to us through the imperfections of those born with such defects.

Maybe stranger still is that the Scriptures teach us to be perfect. Yet, how do they expect us to know what "perfection" is? In Matthew 5:48, Jesus said "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Jesus expects perfection. He also expects us to know what perfection is by knowing that God is perfect. Thus, God, by His very definition, is perfect. Yet, how am I supposed to know what perfection is? I cannot see God. I cannot reach out and touch Him.

An illustration of this I believe is helpful. Suppose that I were to hand you a set of pencils. This set included only pencils. There were red ones, green ones, number 2 and number 7 lead pencils, but all pencils. Then, suppose that I were to hand you a pen. How would you know that the pen was not to be apart of the set of pencils? You might say that "its because the pen is not a pencil". But how do you know that the pen is not a pencil?

You might then reply, "Because a pencil must have lead and an eraser. Pens do not have these. They use ink to write. Therefore, they are not apart of the set of pencils." I might reply, "Yes, but both are used to write. They might write differently but they both are used to write on paper. Therefore, anything that writes should be included in that set of pencils."

Your reply should then attack my definition of a pencil. For any set of something, must have at the very least one perfected example. A set of pencils must have an ideal pencil. A set of horses must have an ideal horse. A set of Ford Thunderbird cars must have an ideal one. This necessitates that an ideal pencil is not a pen. The definition of a pencil does not permit the ability to have ink.

Such is true in human beings as well. In order to truly know perfection, we must know the ideal or perfection of the set. Jesus was the perfect example of a human being. He was God incarnate. He Himself said that in order to be perfect we must know perfection. We must know God the Father. We come to know God explicitly through Jesus. While we can know about God and His perfection through nature or other means, we come to truly know the personality of God through the personality of His Son. We better understand the actions of God through understanding the actions of His Son. We see the true love of God through the love of His Son.

What is perfection? It is the ideal that is only expressed in the fullness of God the Father and the revelation of Him through His Son Jesus Christ.

God is Perfection. Therefore, "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".

Image of God

A poor widow, a worthless soul,
What value can she achieve?
She cannot contribute significance
To modern society.

An evil man, a blood stained hand,
Why do we allow to live?
He chose to break the rules
And thus hath nothing to give.

A woman for sale, fresh out of jail,
What value can she derive?
Her lot in life is hopelessness,
That is if she stays alive.

An unwanted sperm, close to full term,
Why do we allow remain?
He will grow up to be fatherless,
And search for his namesake in vain.

Unwanted life, of pain and strife,
What glory can you truly bring?
Yet, you are the image of God Himself,
Bringing glory and praises sing.

Joshua