Re-Prioritizing Your Life

In our study of Haggai 1 we emphasized the following points:
- The fault of the returned exiles in Jerusalem was their neglect of their greatest priority (ie. the rebuilding of the temple) and their preoccupation with their most urgent priorities (ie. housing, food, clothing, etc.)
- God was not so much concerned with having his own physical home, but he was concerned for what the temple represented, namely his own glory manifested on earth.
- Note that God was actually the one frustrating their pursuits so that they would see the futility of pursuing their urgent needs without prioritizing God first.
- But when they prioritized God he blessed them, implying that he met the urgent needs they were so anxious about.

So what does this mean for us today? You don't have to feel guilty about pursing things on earth like good grades, good friends, godly entertainment, awards and recognitions. These things are not sinful in themselves, but they can become idols if we prioritize them over our pursuit of God. To live for God's glory does not mean you have to drop everything in your life that is not "God-related" (aka. religious, spiritual, churchy), but rather it means you relate everything in your life around God and his glory. So this does not mean you should love God only, but you ought to love him the most! You glorify and honor God when you attribute all your lesser loves to him and love them passionately for his sake. St. Augustine put it well when he once prayed to God, "He loves you less, who together with you, loves something which he does not love for your sake."

PS. When we prioritize God first, he is fully capable of satisfying our urgent needs, but this is not always his will. The Apostle Paul prioritized God, but his urgent need of safety was often not met as he faced much persecution and finally martyrdom. He may not meet all your urgent needs, but if you trust him, he will meet your greatest and most important need - that being a Savior to reconcile you to God and secure your inheritance in heaven.

Having Faith with Doubt

Tonight we talked about the relationship of doubt in the Christian life. The main thing we should take away with us is that doubt is a normal experience for a Christian. I would actually be concerned if a young Christian told me they never doubt or question their faith. The reason is because there is a good chance they have been spoon fed their faith by their parents or Sunday school teachers without really considering why they believe what they believe. We need to question and explore the things we are taught about God and Christianity so that we are not believing simply in our parent's faith or our pastor's faith but in our own faith.

I think doubts can actually draws us into a closer relationship with God - granted that we seek out the truth rather than sit back, content not knowing. If the questions push us to know God more, then that is "good" doubt. But if the questions come from a hardening heart of unbelief that prefers to live in sinful ignorance, then that is what we would call "bad" doubt. The difference can sometimes be a fine line so it takes a prayerful and contemplative heart to distinguish the two.

We also talked about the statements:
1) Faith does not equal Feelings. We were cautioned not to let our emotional ups and downs be the gauge of the level of our faith in God. A strong faith in God is not synonymous to a constant positive emotional feeling towards God. But we also warned that a negative (or neutral) emotional stance towards God is not the norm of the Christian experience, and we should never be content to remain in that state. Here is an article that gives some tips on what to do when the "ought to's" of the Christian life don't match up with our "want to's".
2) Faith does not equal Lack of Doubt. I wrote about this in a previous post so read it here.

Questions about Hell

In our last bible study, we talked about hell and its use as an objection against the Christian belief of a good, loving God. The tendency in our modern day is to avoid the topic of hell altogether, or if we do address it, we prefer to soften the concept by either 1) seeing hell only has a natural consequence of bad choices or 2) denying the eternal torment of hell.

In the first case, some people prefer to see hell as simply a result of a cause-effect scenario. If you chose to reject God in this life (cause), then the natural consequence is hell (effect). On one hand this is true. But on the other hand, it is not some impersonal force that oversees this cause-effect situation (ie. karma). According to the scriptures, it is a personal God who holds sinners accountable for their rejection of Him and who personally condemns them to hell. That is the picture we find in Rev 20:11-15 and in many of Jesus' parables where someone is cast out into utter darkness. People don't just naturally find themselves in the darkness. They are sent there by God. Now you may wonder why it is so important to stress the punishment aspect of hell (along with the consequence aspect). The reason is because if you neglect the punishment aspect of hell then you neglect the true nature of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. He did not die simply to inspire us to live lives of selfless love and sacrifice. His death had an objective effect on our relationship with God. God's holy wrath was removed from sinners and absorbed by the body of Christ in death. Therefore, those who trust in Christ have a reconciled relationship with God where there is no more condemnation or threat of punishment. That aspect of the gospel is gone if we fail to see that hell is a punishment from God.

In the second case, some people think the concept of eternal punishment is too harsh and unfitting in the character of a good, loving God. But if we understood the true nature of sin then the true nature of hell is understandable. If sin is simply an immoral act or a crime against society or another person, then an eternal punishment may not "fit the crime". But if sin is ultimately an insult, a rebellion, and slap-in-the-face to God's worth, sufficiency, goodness, holiness, glory, etc...then an eternal punishment fits. The greatness of the person you sin against determines the greatness of the punishment. No one argues that to slap a king deserves a greater punishment than to slap your sibling. So if we truly see and savor the infinite value and worth of God our King, then the concept of an infinite punishment in hell seems only fitting. This does not mean we cannot still struggle emotionally with the thought of eternal punishment for loved ones, but it does mean we cannot claim eternal punishment as illogical or unjust.

Christianity and Tolerance

Here are some additional thoughts from Monday's lesson from The Case for Faith:

1) How would you respond to claims that Christianity is intolerant because it claims Jesus is the only way to God?
It is important to remember that Christianity is not the only religion to make exclusive truth claims. Islam would say you are wrong if you deny that the Koran as God's word. Hinduism would say you are wrong if you deny karma or reincarnation. Even atheists make exclusive truth claims by claiming that all religions are wrong. So any person or religion that makes any truth claim of any kind is being exclusive because they are implicitly saying that the contrary is wrong. If A is true, then not-A is implicitly false.

2) How is it fair that a pious non-Christian like Gandhi does not go to heaven because he does not believe in Jesus?
Think of it this way, if going to heaven is simply dependent on piety and being a good person, then how is it fair that some people are born into peaceful, stable societies (ie. Canada, USA) that are conducive for living peaceful, stable lives (ie. they wont have to steal to eat or fight to survive) BUT others are born into hostile, impoverished societies (ie. Baghdad or Darfur) where death, violence, and pain are the norms of life? Those growing up in the latter are presented with daily temptations we in the comfortable West cannot even fathom. So even if salvation depended on simply living "good" lives, God could still be accused of unfairness for not starting everyone off on equal grounds with equal opportunities. That is why the Gospel of Jesus Christ says that piety and good works will save no one. All are equally sinners and equally undeserving of salvation BUT God in his grace offers it to those who stop trusting their own piety and start trusting his Son, Jesus Christ.

Here are some more questions to think about:
- What is unique about the Christian faith compared to other world religions?
- Why does secular society have no problem with a scientist being adamant about the 2nd law of thermodynamics but get offended when a Christian is adamant about Jesus being the only way to the Father? Is there a difference in the two claims?

To Die is Gain

Here is a sobering account of martyrdom that recently took place. Just to warn you, parts of the article are a bit graphic.

Phil 1:21 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

Evolution: a step of faith?

Here is an overview of Monday's lesson:

We started by testing ourselves in our memory verse challenge and books of the bible challenge. Everyone did a good job with the verses (keep trying your best to memorize it word-for-word), but some of us struggled with the books challenge. Keep at it and we'll try again next week. Remember the acronym I came up with for the first 7 minor prophets:
Hosea-Joel-Amos-Obadiah-Jonah-Micah-Nahum
(H)osea (J)ust (A)dores (O)range (J)uice (M)orning & (N)ight

The last five just need to be memorized but notice that there is a slight pattern:
Habakkuk-Zephaniah-Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi
Hab-Zeph, Hag-Zech, Malachi

Here are some highlights from our discussion:
- It was significant to note that there is currently no agreement among the scientific community concerning life's origin. It is still an open issue for debate and discussion. Evolution may explain differentiation within species but does not explain life's origin.

- When Darwin was developing his theories, scientists did not realize how complex even a single-celled organism can be. So they assumed the jump from inanimate chemicals to a living organism was not very big. But now we realize that one single cell is far more advanced and stores more information than our most advanced computers.

- The Miller experiment which supposedly re-created the elemental environment of primitive earth and created life (amino acids) from non-life by an electrical charge was successful but had a huge scientific flaw. The elements used in the experiment were not present in primitive earth in any significant amount, but rather the actual elements (inert gases) in primitive earth would not have reacted to form life.

- Some scientists have finally acknowledged that no natural explanation can be given to explain the origin of life on earth, so they have suggested that life spores must have come from outer space - either riding on a meteorite or another civilization actually "seeded" our earth by intentionally sending life here. Okay - if you are willing to turn to little green men to explain life's origin, then why would you not consider the possibility of the supernatural, ie. a Creator God? This goes to show that being a secular, naturalistic scientist can require more faith than being a believer of God.

- The next time you study for a science test, specifically a biology test remember...as you see the detail and beauty inherent in all animals, plants, water, rocks, amebas, viruses, biological processes, and even evolution itself...allow it to lift your heart in worship of our Infinitely Wise and Creative Creator God.


Some interesting questions and links:
- Adrian brought up the huge question about homosexuality and a genetic link. If we found a link how would it impact our theology of God's fairness, of sin, of moral accountability? Here is a response to those question by Dr. Al Mohler.

- Jessica also asked about cloning and its moral implications. Is human cloning and genetic engineering - for the purpose of creating "healthy" babies - a morally or theologically right thing to do? Are we playing God? Mohler strikes again...and again.

Trusting Your Bible

Here is a recap of Monday's lesson:

What is the Bible?
The Word of God. God's special revelation to humanity recorded in words (in contrast to general revelation, ie. nature, providential acts in history, moral consciences)

What is so unique about the Bible?
Compared to the holy books of other religions usually written by one person in the span of one lifetime, the Bible stands in a class of its own. It was written over a span of 1600 years by over 40 authors spanning over 60 generations. The authors came from different social backgrounds and wrote in different settings under different circumstances and in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek). One would expect to find chaos and contradictions when you compile all the 66 books together, but instead we find continuity and an overarching narrative weaved throughout all the books.

Where did the Bible come from?
The Bible is a divinely inspired book given to us through human authors (1 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21). We believe that all (plenary/full) the words (verbal) of Scripture and not just the ideas are from God, and that what is written is without error (inerrant). Hence the label: verbal, plenary, inerrant inspiration. According to 2 Tim 3:16, God breathed out his words through the human authors using their perspectives and personalities. The divine-human nature of the Bible is often compared to the divine-human nature of Christ. Jesus is both God and man united in a single person. In the same way, Scripture is one book with both a divine and human element.

Does the Bible really have no errors?
If God is true (1 Jn 5:20) then anything he breathes must also be true. When we say the Bible is inerrant we mean that the Bible does not communicate falsehood/lies but truthful statements without error. Every word down to the last letter in the Bible (in the original writings) can be trusted as coming from God. This was Jesus' view of the OT (Jn 10:34 - every word; Mt 5:18 - every letter; Mt 22:32 - every tense).

Now when we say "without error" that cannot be interpreted in a purely scientific or strictly literal way. Inerrancy simply means that - b/c the Holy Spirit carried them along - the human authors made no mistakes in communicating what it was they meant to say. Remember that our claim of the Bible inerrancy must be qualified. We can allow for...
1) Different literary genres (ie. dont read poetry as literally as you would history),
2) Ordinary language of everyday speech (ie. figures of speech, approximations, imprecision)
3) Loose or free quotations from the OT (authors usually quoted ideas and not exact words)
4) Grammatical mistakes ("Jason be an man from America" is still a true statement)
5) Limited or general accounts of a story (explains why one Gospel mentions 2 blind men while another only mentions one man in the same story)
6) Transmissions error as the books were copied down

If inerrancy is limited to the original writings, then how can I trust my Bible?
We can trust our Bibles because we have very reliable copies to compare against. For example, before 1947 the earliest OT manuscript we possessed was dated back to 895 AD called the Masoretic text. Unfortunately that is a long time since the last book of the OT was written (Malachi ~ 5th century BC). But when we found the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 we now possess copies of all the OT books (expect Esther) that date back to the 2nd to 1st century BC. And after comparing, we discovered that the Masoretic text (that all our OTs are based off of) is high accurate and reliable.

As for the NT, there is more evidence supporting its reliably than all the other ancient literature in its day (books that most people just take for granted as reliable!). There are over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the NT in existence today, ranking first in manuscript evidence among books of antiquity. The Iliad by Homer comes in second with a measly 643 surviving manuscripts.

WORK	WHEN WRITTEN	EARLIEST COPY	TIME SPAN	# COPIES
Homer (Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500 years	643
New Testament	40-100 A.D.	125 A.D.*	25 years	24,000+

Note that the time span from "when written" to "earliest copy" is only 25 years for the earliest surviving copy of the NT compared to 500 years for the earliest surviving copy of Iliad. What that chart is saying is that if you buy a copy of The Iliad from Chapters and read it trusting that what is written in your book accurately reflects what Homer wrote and communicated, then how much more should we trust that the Bible is God's word communicated to you as you read it?