“If you were pure and upright,
Surely now He would awake for you,
And prosper your rightful dwelling place…
Behold, God will not cast away the blameless,
Nor will He uphold the evildoers.” – Bildad (Job 8:6, 20)
“Truly I know it is so,
But how can a man be righteous before God?” – Job (Job 9:2)
When suffering befalls a person, we struggle to understand why. Is it because that person has sinned in God’s eyes? Well, sometimes yes. Sometimes no. The cause of suffering can’t be explained away as easily as that.
Nevertheless, it is true that sometimes, God allows suffering to befall us because of the sins that we’re unrepentant of. Bildad argued that if Job was “pure and upright,” God would deliver him from his suffering. Bildad’s logic was simple. Good people will not suffer, but bad people will suffer.
Of course, Job knew that well enough. He is familiar with the concept that God punishes evildoers, but delivers the blameless. Therefore, we will be spared from suffering if we are blameless.
However, if only those who are blameless will be delivered from suffering, who can escape from it then? “But how can a man be righteous before God?” Job retorted. How then, can anyone be spared from suffering?
The simple answer is, nobody. No man can ever be righteous before God. Therefore, nobody can be spared from suffering.
Very often, we hear the nagging question, “If there is God, how come good people suffer just as much – if not more – than bad people?” Well, it’s because there are no good people. There is no such thing in the first place.
Therefore, if everyone is considered bad before God, then every suffering that befalls us is, in that sense, deserved. Every good thing that comes our way is only by the grace of God. It is an undeserved favour from a gracious God.
So, how does God deal with us when we sin? God chastens us in our sin. However, even in dealing with our sin, God is still merciful. Zophar said, “Know therefore that God exacts from you less than your iniquity deserves.” (Job 11:6)
When we deserved none of His goodness, God is good to us. Even when we are punished, He punishes us for less than what we deserve.
How then, can God not be good?
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Attention Seekers Anonymous
“What is man, that You should exalt him,
That You should set Your heart on him,
That You should visit him every morning,
And test him every moment?
How long?
Will You not look away from me,
And let me alone till I swallow my saliva?” (Job 7:17-19)
Have you ever felt as if your life was under the scrutiny of a microscope? Have you felt as though you have too many eyes watching your every move, judging your every action? Have you felt as though God, in His omniscience, is applying all His knowledge and attention on you, to see how you react in certain circumstances?
It is normal human behaviour to crave for attention. We want attention from our parents, from the people we look up to, from our friends and loved ones. We continually wish that God will shower all His attention on us, so we can be totally sure that every prayer we utter and every word we say is heard by Him. We want to feel that we are worth God’s attention every single minute of the day, despite His daily cosmic affairs.
But listen to the words of a suffering man. Job is one person who, in a way, got “more attention” than other people. Satan came “from going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” And God said to him, “Have you considered My servant Job?”
If we were someone like Job, who was “a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil,” we would be glad that God finally took notice, isn’t it? For all the unjust evil and suffering in this world, wouldn’t it be a welcome break to see that God can, at least, recognize the good guys? “Finally, it’s about time that God acknowledges my efforts to be righteous,” we may think to ourselves.
God granted Job His special attention and put him under a microscope. After a while, instead of celebrating every moment of His undivided attention, Job started to hate it. He started to feel like he couldn’t take it any longer. “Will you look away from me?” He cried. “How long?” He exclaimed. “Why do you test me every moment? Who am I to You, that You should set your heart on me and give me so much attention?” Clearly, Job was starting to feel stifled.
We long for more and more of God. But sometimes, our motive of wanting “more of God” is more selfish in nature than it is applaudable. We want more of God for His good things. But we don’t want more of God for the things that make us feel uncomfortable.
Which brings me to think about heaven. Why do we want to get to heaven so much, that we preoccupy ourselves with what we must do to get there? Why do we long for heaven so much, that we want to do whatever it takes to make us sure of it? Do we want heaven for the infinite comfort it offers us, or do we want heaven because God is there?
Even while we are on earth, have we been longing for the gifts, or the Giver? When we say that we “desire God”, do we desire Him, or the things He is able to offer?
Something is not quite right if our motivation for walking with the Lord is not to find delight His presence. “The chief end of man is to know God, and to enjoy Him forever.” It is the joy of being in His presence, of having Him in our lives, that brings any genuine meaning in our relationship with God. God's real, personal presence is the desire of every Christian's heart.
Heaven is the ultimate fulfillment of that desire. In heaven, we will have Him in the closest proximity possible. If we only like what God is able to give us, but we don’t like Him too much, we’d better not wish for heaven. Because if we do get there, we’re gonna be stuck there with Him forever and ever.
Will you like it that way then? To be stuck with an all-powerful, all-knowing, thrice holy God for all eternity? You’ll be wondering if you’re in heaven or in hell.
That You should set Your heart on him,
That You should visit him every morning,
And test him every moment?
How long?
Will You not look away from me,
And let me alone till I swallow my saliva?” (Job 7:17-19)
Have you ever felt as if your life was under the scrutiny of a microscope? Have you felt as though you have too many eyes watching your every move, judging your every action? Have you felt as though God, in His omniscience, is applying all His knowledge and attention on you, to see how you react in certain circumstances?
It is normal human behaviour to crave for attention. We want attention from our parents, from the people we look up to, from our friends and loved ones. We continually wish that God will shower all His attention on us, so we can be totally sure that every prayer we utter and every word we say is heard by Him. We want to feel that we are worth God’s attention every single minute of the day, despite His daily cosmic affairs.
But listen to the words of a suffering man. Job is one person who, in a way, got “more attention” than other people. Satan came “from going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” And God said to him, “Have you considered My servant Job?”
If we were someone like Job, who was “a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil,” we would be glad that God finally took notice, isn’t it? For all the unjust evil and suffering in this world, wouldn’t it be a welcome break to see that God can, at least, recognize the good guys? “Finally, it’s about time that God acknowledges my efforts to be righteous,” we may think to ourselves.
God granted Job His special attention and put him under a microscope. After a while, instead of celebrating every moment of His undivided attention, Job started to hate it. He started to feel like he couldn’t take it any longer. “Will you look away from me?” He cried. “How long?” He exclaimed. “Why do you test me every moment? Who am I to You, that You should set your heart on me and give me so much attention?” Clearly, Job was starting to feel stifled.
We long for more and more of God. But sometimes, our motive of wanting “more of God” is more selfish in nature than it is applaudable. We want more of God for His good things. But we don’t want more of God for the things that make us feel uncomfortable.
Which brings me to think about heaven. Why do we want to get to heaven so much, that we preoccupy ourselves with what we must do to get there? Why do we long for heaven so much, that we want to do whatever it takes to make us sure of it? Do we want heaven for the infinite comfort it offers us, or do we want heaven because God is there?
Even while we are on earth, have we been longing for the gifts, or the Giver? When we say that we “desire God”, do we desire Him, or the things He is able to offer?
Something is not quite right if our motivation for walking with the Lord is not to find delight His presence. “The chief end of man is to know God, and to enjoy Him forever.” It is the joy of being in His presence, of having Him in our lives, that brings any genuine meaning in our relationship with God. God's real, personal presence is the desire of every Christian's heart.
Heaven is the ultimate fulfillment of that desire. In heaven, we will have Him in the closest proximity possible. If we only like what God is able to give us, but we don’t like Him too much, we’d better not wish for heaven. Because if we do get there, we’re gonna be stuck there with Him forever and ever.
Will you like it that way then? To be stuck with an all-powerful, all-knowing, thrice holy God for all eternity? You’ll be wondering if you’re in heaven or in hell.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Can The Real Nehemiah Please Stand Up
This picture was googled up under the name cohabitation. "Nooo, that's not what necessarily happens in cohabitation!" One may protest. Granted the benefit of the doubt. But tell me if this image does not appear in people's minds when we say two people are cohabitating. This is exactly why defensive explanations always arise whenever cohabitation is discussed among those who practice it. This is exactly why Christians shouldn't be found in it. This is precisely the picture I'm trying to paint.
What I find most disappointing is this: When people appeal to a higher authority for advice, sometimes we get really bad answers. Or when look up to someone older to model after, sometimes the older ones are not of exemplary behaviour.
While cohabitation is not as explicitly stated as the warning against murder, the consistency of the Bible points against it. The prompting of the Holy Spirit is the best guide that one can have when Scriptures is opened to guide our lives. But at times, we feel a great lack of human guidance.
What do pastors have to say about the issue of cohabitation? Has the issue of unmarried couples living together become a “private family matter” that cannot be interfered with by the church? If a church has “marriage counseling” programs, what are the counselors saying? If two people are behaving unbecomingly towards one another before marriage, are pastors still marrying them in “holy matrimony” in their own church? Has turning to hasty marriages become the most convenient way to reduce pre-marital sin?
I'm hoping that in the heart of every godly leader, there has always been a desire to be a prophetic mouthpiece of God. I’m hoping that the lack of opportunity (or permission) for encounter is the only factor that is holding them back.
But then, when we look to Nehemiah, what did he do? He pulled off people’s hair, whether or not people allowed him to. Who would allow their hair to be pulled off anyway? It is needless to say that nobody really wants to hear corrective rebuke. Jesus did not ask permission from the temple synagogue to overturn the tables, did He? Neither did He see it wrong to interfere with other people’s business. He just went and put them out of business.
When pastors are short of hands to provide sound counsel to young couples, we hope that other people will have good examples to show to those who seek them. But sometimes, we use the wrong examples as our reference point. It is the non-exemplary, cohabitating couples who set models of justification for cohabitation. And people silently look up towards them as a source of encouragement or assurance in what they are doing. I can count the number of such examples that I know of in one hand. I'm hoping that I won’t need two hands to count them.
Even sadder is, when couples who struggle in the issue of cohabitation look towards their own families, they get even more confusing ideas. It becomes near impossible to convince someone otherwise if “family business” is already approved by family.
Is cohabitation a matter of culture? Let’s take a look at culture then. Even secular culture that holds on to some sense of morality tells us that physical proximity with the opposite sex is improper. What more for unmarried couples to live together.
Take a look at the hostels in our universities and colleges. Students of different genders are housed in separate blocks. Residents are not even allowed to walk along the corridors in the opposite gender’s block. Any entry into the opposite gender’s rooms, however brief, is forbidden. Whenever there is any form of governance, people from opposite genders are always prevented from being close to one another in private places. Even the police patrol public places to curb overly-amorous behaviour.
And we Christians revel in our God-given liberty by living together, without a single pang in our conscience. It is us Christians who should be the most ashamed.
Let’s take a look at the matter of personal taste. Yes, what we choose to do is indeed a matter of personal taste, if we do not hold on to an absolute standard of truth. If we reason without any reference to an absolute truth, pre-marital sex is a matter of personal taste. What’s so wrong with having sex with the one we love, if we are already going to get married soon anyway? So is drinking. What’s so wrong with consuming as much liquor as we want, as long as we do not cross the line of getting drunk? So is smoking. Aren’t medical reports about smoking directly linked to lung cancer flawed, since some people have chain-smoking grandmothers who lived to a ripe old age? So is gambling. What’s so wrong with placing bets with my own hard-earned money, as long as the bets are not too high?
So is cohabitation.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Harmless and Blameless?
“…That you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world…” (Philippians 2:15).
Is it harmless to cohabitate? I believe not. Cohabitation is proven to be harmful, instead of helpful, for healthy relationships.
But many people contend that it is harmless. But even if it is harmless, it is not blameless. Here's why:
A non-Christian couple happily announces that they are moving in together. They are “taking their relationship to another level.” I’m sure you know well enough what that means, so I’m not going to elaborate.
A Christian couple moves in together. “Oh no, it’s not what you think,” they will try to explain. “We don’t sleep together in the same room.” Or, “We don’t sleep together on the same bed.” Or, “We don’t do anything else when sleep together on the same bed.” See if people bother to listen to lengthy explanations.
It’s not a matter of whether or not the couple is sleeping together in the same room, or on the same bed, or whether or not they are having sex on the bed. The fact that a couple is “staying together” in the same house already means they are living together! Living together is a privilege of a married couple. When two people cohabitate, they are already behaving as a married couple even before they have “become one flesh.” That alone, is improper Christian conduct.
Is living together a need, or a privilege? For a married couple, sharing a life together in the same house is a need, and also a privilege. For an unmarried couple, living together is not a need, and it is far from being a privilege that is permissible to be enjoyed before the Lord.
“But we live so far away from each other. Living together will save costs of travel. We can also spend less on food because we can cook our meals together.”
Is convenience a license for sin? Assuming a couple starts a relationship in his/her twenties. For the past 2 decades of their lives, food and accommodation has not been a problem. How come it becomes a need to live together after they have started a relationship? Living together at this stage is not a need. It is a want. If both could survive fairly well before they were together, how come they can’t live apart from each other now? What has happened to healthy restraint in a respectable relationship? Living together at this point is a luxury that people desire, but it cannot be rightfully enjoyed before marriage.
Couples who still believe that it is alright to live together will be able to come up with all kinds of explanations to justify their conduct. But here’s the rationale: If the act of living together needs so many explanations and justifications, it means that behaviour is highly questionable! Nobody will even raise an eyebrow if that behaviour is fully wholesome, pure, and acceptable by Christian norms in the first place. Nobody raises an eyebrow when a married couple lives together. But when an unmarried couple lives together, eyebrow are raised.
So why stigmatize yourself if you are “presumably innocent?” When another person asks you, “Hey, you both live together izzit?” What will your answer be? Your answer will be a yes. Then you’ll have to try filling in the blanks that follow as fast and as well as you can.
We can see that even if we think cohabitation is harmless, it still doesn’t mean it’s ok to be practiced. Even if cohabitation is harmless, how can such a conduct be blameless? How can the children of God behave this way? Can we say we are truly without fault if we cohabitate? Is this the right thing to do in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom we are supposed to shine as lights in the world?
“But as Christians, as long as our conscience if free from guilt, aren’t we free to do as we wish as long as we do not sin?”
"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another" (Galatians 5:13).
"But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak" (1 Corinthians 8:9).
Is it harmless to cohabitate? I believe not. Cohabitation is proven to be harmful, instead of helpful, for healthy relationships.
But many people contend that it is harmless. But even if it is harmless, it is not blameless. Here's why:
A non-Christian couple happily announces that they are moving in together. They are “taking their relationship to another level.” I’m sure you know well enough what that means, so I’m not going to elaborate.
A Christian couple moves in together. “Oh no, it’s not what you think,” they will try to explain. “We don’t sleep together in the same room.” Or, “We don’t sleep together on the same bed.” Or, “We don’t do anything else when sleep together on the same bed.” See if people bother to listen to lengthy explanations.
It’s not a matter of whether or not the couple is sleeping together in the same room, or on the same bed, or whether or not they are having sex on the bed. The fact that a couple is “staying together” in the same house already means they are living together! Living together is a privilege of a married couple. When two people cohabitate, they are already behaving as a married couple even before they have “become one flesh.” That alone, is improper Christian conduct.
Is living together a need, or a privilege? For a married couple, sharing a life together in the same house is a need, and also a privilege. For an unmarried couple, living together is not a need, and it is far from being a privilege that is permissible to be enjoyed before the Lord.
“But we live so far away from each other. Living together will save costs of travel. We can also spend less on food because we can cook our meals together.”
Is convenience a license for sin? Assuming a couple starts a relationship in his/her twenties. For the past 2 decades of their lives, food and accommodation has not been a problem. How come it becomes a need to live together after they have started a relationship? Living together at this stage is not a need. It is a want. If both could survive fairly well before they were together, how come they can’t live apart from each other now? What has happened to healthy restraint in a respectable relationship? Living together at this point is a luxury that people desire, but it cannot be rightfully enjoyed before marriage.
Couples who still believe that it is alright to live together will be able to come up with all kinds of explanations to justify their conduct. But here’s the rationale: If the act of living together needs so many explanations and justifications, it means that behaviour is highly questionable! Nobody will even raise an eyebrow if that behaviour is fully wholesome, pure, and acceptable by Christian norms in the first place. Nobody raises an eyebrow when a married couple lives together. But when an unmarried couple lives together, eyebrow are raised.
So why stigmatize yourself if you are “presumably innocent?” When another person asks you, “Hey, you both live together izzit?” What will your answer be? Your answer will be a yes. Then you’ll have to try filling in the blanks that follow as fast and as well as you can.
We can see that even if we think cohabitation is harmless, it still doesn’t mean it’s ok to be practiced. Even if cohabitation is harmless, how can such a conduct be blameless? How can the children of God behave this way? Can we say we are truly without fault if we cohabitate? Is this the right thing to do in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom we are supposed to shine as lights in the world?
“But as Christians, as long as our conscience if free from guilt, aren’t we free to do as we wish as long as we do not sin?”
"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another" (Galatians 5:13).
"But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak" (1 Corinthians 8:9).
Sunday, October 15, 2006
And They Lived Together Happily Ever After...
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24)
Here’s the problem. Today, some people have already left their father and mother, and are already living as one flesh with their other half even before they are married.
Cohabitation between unmarried couples have become so rampant, society has actually come to believe that it is a norm. Is cohabitation wrong? Here’s what I contend:
1. If cohabitation is a natural progression of culture, and
2. If cohabitation is a matter of “personal taste”
Then it is completely alright. If otherwise, then it is wrong.
So, is cohabitation a natural progression of culture? Let’s examine it with a comparative analysis:
Going to the cinema, when it first became commercially attainable, was considered carnal and worldly. Today, it is a norm. Is it wrong to go to cinemas?
A few centuries ago, listening to music that has any syncopated rhythm is considered chaotic, sinful, and of the devil. Today, there are as many genres of music as there are languages in African tribes. Is it wrong to listen to music that has drums and electric guitars in it?
I think the answer to both cases is no. It is not wrong to go to cinemas or listen to music that is not Beethovenly because both cases are a natural progression of culture.
What about cohabitation? It’s not a natural progression of culture. It is a natural progression of disobedience.
Moving on to the second point. Is cohabitation a matter of “personal taste” then?
When we talk about issues like going to cinemas or music, sometimes the question of “personal taste” gets mixed up with the question of “right and wrong.” We may have certain reservations about going to a certain place, or about a particular type of music. And just because we don’t have a personal taste for it, we become naturally prejudiced against it and say that it is wrong.
But the case of cohabitation is different. It is not a matter of “personal taste”. When something is black, it is black. When something is white, it is white. There is no accounting for “personal taste” when something is as clear as black and white.
Why do I confidently assert that cohabitation is not a result of a natural progression of culture? Why am I adamant that cohabitation is not a matter of “personal taste”? Well, first of all, the Bible strongly implies so. And secondly, even secular institutions that hold on to some idea of morality explicitly says so too.
Here’s the problem. Today, some people have already left their father and mother, and are already living as one flesh with their other half even before they are married.
Cohabitation between unmarried couples have become so rampant, society has actually come to believe that it is a norm. Is cohabitation wrong? Here’s what I contend:
1. If cohabitation is a natural progression of culture, and
2. If cohabitation is a matter of “personal taste”
Then it is completely alright. If otherwise, then it is wrong.
So, is cohabitation a natural progression of culture? Let’s examine it with a comparative analysis:
Going to the cinema, when it first became commercially attainable, was considered carnal and worldly. Today, it is a norm. Is it wrong to go to cinemas?
A few centuries ago, listening to music that has any syncopated rhythm is considered chaotic, sinful, and of the devil. Today, there are as many genres of music as there are languages in African tribes. Is it wrong to listen to music that has drums and electric guitars in it?
I think the answer to both cases is no. It is not wrong to go to cinemas or listen to music that is not Beethovenly because both cases are a natural progression of culture.
What about cohabitation? It’s not a natural progression of culture. It is a natural progression of disobedience.
Moving on to the second point. Is cohabitation a matter of “personal taste” then?
When we talk about issues like going to cinemas or music, sometimes the question of “personal taste” gets mixed up with the question of “right and wrong.” We may have certain reservations about going to a certain place, or about a particular type of music. And just because we don’t have a personal taste for it, we become naturally prejudiced against it and say that it is wrong.
But the case of cohabitation is different. It is not a matter of “personal taste”. When something is black, it is black. When something is white, it is white. There is no accounting for “personal taste” when something is as clear as black and white.
Why do I confidently assert that cohabitation is not a result of a natural progression of culture? Why am I adamant that cohabitation is not a matter of “personal taste”? Well, first of all, the Bible strongly implies so. And secondly, even secular institutions that hold on to some idea of morality explicitly says so too.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Frequently Asked Questions
Isn’t Christianity all about God’s love? So isn’t it a good thing to share God’s love to an unbelieving boyfriend/girlfriend? To say that it’s wrong to be involved in a loving relationship with a non-Christian is double standards.
Yes, Christianity is all about God’s love. Yes, it’s a good thing to share God’s love to an unbelieving person. But no, it is not double standards to say a Christian shouldn’t get involved in a relationship with a non-Christian.
Showing God’s love to an unbeliever is one thing. But getting into a relationship with an unbeliever is another thing. Loving your neighbour and loving your enemy is a universal call for everyone. That is called outreach. But getting involved in a romantic relationship with an unbeliever is totally different. That is called compromise.
“And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:15) The love of Christ wins over the children of Belial. But Christ does not become one with Belial.
There are many ways of evangelism. Isn’t evangelism through a romantic relationship one of the best ways to show God’s love?
Yes, there are many ways of evangelism. But evangelizing through a way that causes sin is not an idea that God approves.
Let me draw an analogy. Suppose the government can take active action in evangelism. For example, maybe the government can grant special privileges to professing Christians. They will be given tax exemptions of a certain percentage, housing privileges, lenient business loans, and free education. (Does that sound like a familiar modus operandi?) It is a splendid way to “show God’s love” to encourage people to come to Christ. Yes, the motive is pure. But does God approve of such a method?
“But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9).
Same goes for evangelizing through romantic relationships. Yes, the motive may be pure (although I highly doubt it to be so), but it doesn’t mean it is not a sin. As much as the Great Commission is very important to God, so is His children’s sanctification. “For you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
Anyway, if I may be blunt. I don’t think evangelism through a romantic relationship works. Justify it all you want. Firstly, God won’t be pleased in the first place. And secondly, if your motives are really pure, win him/her over to Christ first… Then start the romantic relationship under God’s blessings. That’s real obedience. Don’t hide behind the call for evangelism to pursue your own selfish motives.
But I have seen real-life examples when a Christian dates a non-Christian, and eventually the unbeliever is won over for Christ and both turn out to be strong Christians. If they can do it, why can’t I?
Let me put it this way. When something evil turns out to be something good in the end, it still does not justify the wrong doing that caused evil in the first place. We cannot follow someone's example of doing wrong, and hoping that good will result as well.
Let me draw another analogy. Suppose a man gets involved with drugs. After many years of addiction, he finally broke out of it. And today, he goes around to schools and colleges, telling young people to say no to drugs.
That man managed to break free from his addiction to drugs. So, is it ok for us to take drugs? Just because there are real-life stories where drug addicts can come clean, does it justify taking drugs at all? Countless people never broke out of it.
But some people do break out from drug addiction. What shall we say then? This is because God has been very gracious to them. By God’s grace alone, they did not get what they deserve. Their lives were not ruined by drugs.
Same goes for following models of “successful” unequally yoked relationships. Just because an unequally-yoked relationship worked out well for some people, does that justify our disobedience to God’s call to sanctity? Just because it worked well for other couples, does it mean it will work out well for you too? Countless unequally-yoked relationships have resulted in the worse.
But some unequally-yoked relationships do work out for the better. What shall we say then? It is solely the grace of God. By God's grace alone, He has delivered some unequally-yoked relationships from plumetting towards a downward spiral and saved them from their sin.
But shall we test God’s grace? “And why not say, 'Let us do evil that good may come?'... Their condemnation is just” (Romans 3:8).
To be continued…
Yes, Christianity is all about God’s love. Yes, it’s a good thing to share God’s love to an unbelieving person. But no, it is not double standards to say a Christian shouldn’t get involved in a relationship with a non-Christian.
Showing God’s love to an unbeliever is one thing. But getting into a relationship with an unbeliever is another thing. Loving your neighbour and loving your enemy is a universal call for everyone. That is called outreach. But getting involved in a romantic relationship with an unbeliever is totally different. That is called compromise.
“And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:15) The love of Christ wins over the children of Belial. But Christ does not become one with Belial.
There are many ways of evangelism. Isn’t evangelism through a romantic relationship one of the best ways to show God’s love?
Yes, there are many ways of evangelism. But evangelizing through a way that causes sin is not an idea that God approves.
Let me draw an analogy. Suppose the government can take active action in evangelism. For example, maybe the government can grant special privileges to professing Christians. They will be given tax exemptions of a certain percentage, housing privileges, lenient business loans, and free education. (Does that sound like a familiar modus operandi?) It is a splendid way to “show God’s love” to encourage people to come to Christ. Yes, the motive is pure. But does God approve of such a method?
“But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9).
Same goes for evangelizing through romantic relationships. Yes, the motive may be pure (although I highly doubt it to be so), but it doesn’t mean it is not a sin. As much as the Great Commission is very important to God, so is His children’s sanctification. “For you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
Anyway, if I may be blunt. I don’t think evangelism through a romantic relationship works. Justify it all you want. Firstly, God won’t be pleased in the first place. And secondly, if your motives are really pure, win him/her over to Christ first… Then start the romantic relationship under God’s blessings. That’s real obedience. Don’t hide behind the call for evangelism to pursue your own selfish motives.
But I have seen real-life examples when a Christian dates a non-Christian, and eventually the unbeliever is won over for Christ and both turn out to be strong Christians. If they can do it, why can’t I?
Let me put it this way. When something evil turns out to be something good in the end, it still does not justify the wrong doing that caused evil in the first place. We cannot follow someone's example of doing wrong, and hoping that good will result as well.
Let me draw another analogy. Suppose a man gets involved with drugs. After many years of addiction, he finally broke out of it. And today, he goes around to schools and colleges, telling young people to say no to drugs.
That man managed to break free from his addiction to drugs. So, is it ok for us to take drugs? Just because there are real-life stories where drug addicts can come clean, does it justify taking drugs at all? Countless people never broke out of it.
But some people do break out from drug addiction. What shall we say then? This is because God has been very gracious to them. By God’s grace alone, they did not get what they deserve. Their lives were not ruined by drugs.
Same goes for following models of “successful” unequally yoked relationships. Just because an unequally-yoked relationship worked out well for some people, does that justify our disobedience to God’s call to sanctity? Just because it worked well for other couples, does it mean it will work out well for you too? Countless unequally-yoked relationships have resulted in the worse.
But some unequally-yoked relationships do work out for the better. What shall we say then? It is solely the grace of God. By God's grace alone, He has delivered some unequally-yoked relationships from plumetting towards a downward spiral and saved them from their sin.
But shall we test God’s grace? “And why not say, 'Let us do evil that good may come?'... Their condemnation is just” (Romans 3:8).
To be continued…
Thursday, October 12, 2006
A Little Less Conversation
“A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain’t satisfactioning me…” – Elvis Presley.
Contrary to what Elvis Presley says, less conversation does not necessarily lead to more action. When God cannot be present in our conversations, we cannot expect any healthy progress in our spiritual lives.
Sometimes, we wonder why Christians come down hard on people who have romantic relationships with unbelievers. Christians are accused of labeling people who have non-Christian boyfriends or girlfriends – judgmentally tagging them as “unequally-yoked”. A justification is demanded.
Let’s go back to my last post, where Nehemiah kicked up a fuss about losing the “language of Judah”. Let me try to explain the biblical position against unequally yoked relationships, without using the New Testament.
Here is the simple rationale: The Israelites are rightly afraid of losing the presence of God in their lives along with the disappearance of the Hebrew language. Similarly, we should be afraid of losing the presence of God in our souls, if God is absent even in our everyday language. It all boils down to the issue of conversation.
To the Israelites, language was a barrier. God cannot be present in a husband-wife or parent-child relationship if the Hebrew language was not shared. Rightfully so. How can God be in the picture of such a relationship, if even reading of His Word together is not possible? How can the unbelieving spouse come to know God? How can the non-Hebrew speaking children learn about God?
For us, language is not a barrier. God’s Word is available today in English, Malay, and Chinese. But the question is, is God present in our relationships, romantic or platonic, even if both are speaking the same language? Consider the following questions:
1. If it is already hard for God to be talked about in the conversations of Christian families, how much harder will it be in families with unequally-yoked parents?
2. If it is already awkward for God to be mentioned among Christians friends of the same gender, how much more awkward will it be to a non-Christian person of our interest from the opposite sex?
3. If it is already strange for God to be preached in evangelism, how much stranger will it be in a romantic relationship?
4. If it is already hard for Christian parents to tell their children about God, how much harder will it be when you have an unbelieving spouse?
5. If it is already difficult to have meaningful conversations about God among Christians, how much harder will it be to live with an unbeliever for life?
The answer to all of the above, I believe, is: Impossible. Or, if I may say, by the grace of God… Near impossible.
Why is being unequally-yoked such a big issue? Because in an unequally-yoked relationship, God-talk is not possible. And why is God-talk so important in a relationship? Because it is similar with the problem of Israelite inter-marriages. When God is dropped out from our conversation, He is dropped out from our lives.
"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:9-10).
Monday, October 09, 2006
No More Mr. Nice Guy
So I contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by their God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves”… Remember me, O my God, for good! (Nehemiah 13:25; 31)Such an account leaves quite an impression on us. Nehemiah saw a great evil in his eyes. The Israelites were intermarrying women from foreign nations. It became so bad, that “half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and could not speak the language of Judah, but spoke according to the language of one or the other people" (Nehemiah 13:24).
It wasn't really a problem of having children with different shades of pigmentation. It was not just a problem of cultural corrosion. Nehemiah singled out what he was unhappy about: It was a problem of losing their mother toungue.
During those times, the Word of God did not have the luxury of multiple translations in different languages. The Word was written in Hebrew, taught in Hebrew, studied in Hebrew, and spoken in Hebrew. The Word was bound as a sign on their hands. Placed as frontlets between their eyes. Taught to their children when sitting in their houses, when they are walking by the way, when they lie down and when they rise up. Written on the doorposts of their houses and their gates (Deuteronomy 11:18-20). The presence of God was lived out and transmitted through the “language of Judah”.
If someone does not know the Hebrew language, there was no way for that person to know God, or learn about Him. Even if there was a way, it would be very difficult. Imagine trying to talk to your children about God in a language that you are not familiar with. The subject of God is already not easy in itself. Talking about it in French isn’t going to help.
Nehemiah saw what was happening. He saw that the passing away of the Hebrew toungue will also mean the passing away of the presence of God in their lives. And he did not just declare an edict or make a policy from the palace to remedy the situation. He made it personal and took it upon his own hands.
Sometimes, we want to take it easy on people, especially those in the family of God, out of compassion and humanitarian reasons. Even when we see our brothers and sisters erring greatly against the Lord, we feel that is more convenient to play Mr. Nice Guy. The Bible begs to differ. Sometimes, being Mr. Nice Guy is not being nice at all. How can allowing evil for the sake of being nice be considered any good at all? It's not even good for the brother himself.
The next time we feel like playing nice in the face of erroneous sin among our brethren, we can look to Nehemiah. He contended with them. He cursed them. He struck some of them. He pulled out their hair. He made them swear. And in the end, he turned to God and said “Remember me, O my God, for good!” He wasn't ashamed of what he did. Because he knew he was doing the right thing.
If the kingdom of God matters to us more than our label as a non-offensive guy, then we will do the right thing. Check out what Jesus said to the hypocritic scribes and Pharisees:
“Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33)
Jesus abandoned the Mr. Nice Guy tag to do what needed to be done. Nehemiah did too. What about us?
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Zh'ng My Car
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law (Galatians 5:22-23).
Today, I set out from my house at 6:45 a.m. My car refused to start. I dunno why. I’ve already sent it to the mechanic for the umpteenth time. It has an undiagnosed disease. Sometimes, it can start. Sometimes, it cannot start. The problem is, whenever I send it to the mechanic, it can start (but of course what. If the car cannot start, how can I get the car to the mechanic in the first place?) I’ll need a live-in mechanic to figure it out.
Great. Now, I cannot go to school. What would Jesus do?
Love: I lovingly picked up my handphone, lovingly called my father, and lovingly asked him to tell the school that I won’t be coming. Even if I come, I will be late.
Joy: I can hear other people’s cars around me, joyfully coming alive at the first try. I sit in my car with joy. I have a valid excuse not to go to work. The other fellows have to go to work. Poor fellows.
Peace: I walked back to my house, took off my shoes, read old newspapers, and watched tv. Peace.
Longsuffering: I wish I can get a new Myvi… Like, tomorrow. But, I may not be in Penang permanently. I don’t have a steady paycheck yet to foot the installments. I cannot find anyone to buy this car from me. So, what to do? Longsuffering.
Kindness: I saw a Hot Wheels Grand Prix toy car on the dashboard. I kindly ripped the wrapping open, and played with it. It’s a red racecar. A token of kindness from my father’s car.
Goodness: I remembered the email I read some time ago, about how some people’s lives were saved because some unforeseen circumstance happened to them, and they turned up late at the World Trade Center, and their lives were spared from the terrorist attack. My goodness.
Faithfulness: I still have faith that somebody, someday will buy my car. Faithfulness.
Gentleness: I gently popped the hood to check the air filter, gently opened the air filter’s cover, gently put the cover back, and gently closed back the hood. Gentleness.
Self-control: I said the word that I learnt from Adam Sandler’s Anger Management. “Goosefraba.” I sang the song I learnt from the same movie. “I feel pretty… Oh so pretty…”
Against such there is no law: I arrived at school at 8:10 a.m. No law.
Actually I very geram la... Sigh...
My Ford Laser. Besssst…
Today, I set out from my house at 6:45 a.m. My car refused to start. I dunno why. I’ve already sent it to the mechanic for the umpteenth time. It has an undiagnosed disease. Sometimes, it can start. Sometimes, it cannot start. The problem is, whenever I send it to the mechanic, it can start (but of course what. If the car cannot start, how can I get the car to the mechanic in the first place?) I’ll need a live-in mechanic to figure it out.
Great. Now, I cannot go to school. What would Jesus do?
Love: I lovingly picked up my handphone, lovingly called my father, and lovingly asked him to tell the school that I won’t be coming. Even if I come, I will be late.
Joy: I can hear other people’s cars around me, joyfully coming alive at the first try. I sit in my car with joy. I have a valid excuse not to go to work. The other fellows have to go to work. Poor fellows.
Peace: I walked back to my house, took off my shoes, read old newspapers, and watched tv. Peace.
Longsuffering: I wish I can get a new Myvi… Like, tomorrow. But, I may not be in Penang permanently. I don’t have a steady paycheck yet to foot the installments. I cannot find anyone to buy this car from me. So, what to do? Longsuffering.
Kindness: I saw a Hot Wheels Grand Prix toy car on the dashboard. I kindly ripped the wrapping open, and played with it. It’s a red racecar. A token of kindness from my father’s car.
Goodness: I remembered the email I read some time ago, about how some people’s lives were saved because some unforeseen circumstance happened to them, and they turned up late at the World Trade Center, and their lives were spared from the terrorist attack. My goodness.
Faithfulness: I still have faith that somebody, someday will buy my car. Faithfulness.
Gentleness: I gently popped the hood to check the air filter, gently opened the air filter’s cover, gently put the cover back, and gently closed back the hood. Gentleness.
Self-control: I said the word that I learnt from Adam Sandler’s Anger Management. “Goosefraba.” I sang the song I learnt from the same movie. “I feel pretty… Oh so pretty…”
Against such there is no law: I arrived at school at 8:10 a.m. No law.
Actually I very geram la... Sigh...
My Ford Laser. Besssst…
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Have You Heard Of Wawasan Open University College?
Mei Yee finally got a job! She is now a Communications Officer (cool name) for Wawasan Open University College, Penang. Where is that? What is that? Haaa… That’s where she comes in. Her job is to make it known to you, and to the ends of the earth.
I’m so excited and happy for her! I asked her, “Are you gonna blog about it? If you don’t then I will!” She probably won’t be as quick-fingered as I am. And since my blog has a bigger readership than hers (ranging from acquaintances to former students to friends to friends’ mums), I’m gonna steal her thunder and just do it :)
I feel so glad for her, as if I got the job myself! Maybe it’s because I’ve been with her throughout her job-hunt journey. I’ve been to every interview with her (except for the TV3 one) from Penang to Ipoh to KL and back. I dunno what kind of things people will think I am, following her around everywhere she goes, and hanging around until she’s done. So many people did double takes on me as I waited for her interviews. I can be so easily passed off as a convict who just escaped from jail, who kidnapped her and is now holding her hostage, but letting her go out once in a while to do her thing, as long as I get my ransom sooner or later. Or a possessive, obsessive, paranoid boyfriend who wants to keep her on a leash wherever she goes, whatever she does, and whoever she is with. Or a retarded cousin :)
I’m so proud of her! She finally found a job that she likes (mass comm line), in which she has a talent for (involving media skills, events management, writing, etc), in a learning institution (a field that I highly approve of), that functions as a non-profit institution (a cause that she believes in), that pays well (RM1750), for a steady Monday – Friday (she’ll still have her weekends to go back to Ipoh), 9-5 job (she will still have a life), in Penang (the best place to be)! There, I said it all in once sentence. Mei Yee always says that I can be a very good copywriter.
Plus, she gets to stay with her university friend (Siao Ping) at her apartment, she gets to drive one of the old cars from my father’s collection (transportation taken care of), traveling to her workplace takes only 15 minutes (along the Jelutong Expressway), her friends work nearby (Kimberley Chong and Jonathan Chen), working in Penang has a lower cost of living and a better, safer, cleaner environment (compared to KL), she gets to do something related to her field (how many people get a job of their choice nowadays), without virtually losing your life in it (like in full-fledged production houses), while working towards an honorable cause in mind (providing educational opportunities to underprivileged people), which will keep her from losing a sense of purpose in what she does everyday (unlike typical production houses, who are only out to churn money all day).
Furthermore, she has a superior that likes her (her resume was personally hand-picked by her superior among 200 others), her job gives her opportunities to further enrich her skills either on-the-job or during her free time (such as freelancing for Ian “Captain” Barbosa if she gets projects thrown her way), this will help equip her towards the direction of her long term goal (to take Masters in Mass Communication), so she can continually deepen her skills in learning something that she has a passion for (through real-life experience, or academic paper chase), and open up possibilities for different job opportunities in the future (such as making a career change to lecturing, perhaps).
Taking all those factors into consideration, coupled the splendid timing of the company that just employed her (Wawasan Open University College is just about to venture into a new, exciting phase this month), I can only think of one word to sum it all up: Perfect.
God be praised for the way that things are falling in place for her! Indeed, God is gracious and good! This is not something you call coincidence. It is providence.
She starts on Monday. A new Communications Officer is in the house!
“So, what is Mei Yee doing now?”
“Oh, she’s got a job already. She is now the Communications Officer for Wawasan Open University College.”
“Wow, that’s great! Where is that? What is that?”
"Haaa… That’s where she comes in. Her job is to make it known to you, and to the ends of the earth…”
I’m so excited and happy for her! I asked her, “Are you gonna blog about it? If you don’t then I will!” She probably won’t be as quick-fingered as I am. And since my blog has a bigger readership than hers (ranging from acquaintances to former students to friends to friends’ mums), I’m gonna steal her thunder and just do it :)
I feel so glad for her, as if I got the job myself! Maybe it’s because I’ve been with her throughout her job-hunt journey. I’ve been to every interview with her (except for the TV3 one) from Penang to Ipoh to KL and back. I dunno what kind of things people will think I am, following her around everywhere she goes, and hanging around until she’s done. So many people did double takes on me as I waited for her interviews. I can be so easily passed off as a convict who just escaped from jail, who kidnapped her and is now holding her hostage, but letting her go out once in a while to do her thing, as long as I get my ransom sooner or later. Or a possessive, obsessive, paranoid boyfriend who wants to keep her on a leash wherever she goes, whatever she does, and whoever she is with. Or a retarded cousin :)
I’m so proud of her! She finally found a job that she likes (mass comm line), in which she has a talent for (involving media skills, events management, writing, etc), in a learning institution (a field that I highly approve of), that functions as a non-profit institution (a cause that she believes in), that pays well (RM1750), for a steady Monday – Friday (she’ll still have her weekends to go back to Ipoh), 9-5 job (she will still have a life), in Penang (the best place to be)! There, I said it all in once sentence. Mei Yee always says that I can be a very good copywriter.
Plus, she gets to stay with her university friend (Siao Ping) at her apartment, she gets to drive one of the old cars from my father’s collection (transportation taken care of), traveling to her workplace takes only 15 minutes (along the Jelutong Expressway), her friends work nearby (Kimberley Chong and Jonathan Chen), working in Penang has a lower cost of living and a better, safer, cleaner environment (compared to KL), she gets to do something related to her field (how many people get a job of their choice nowadays), without virtually losing your life in it (like in full-fledged production houses), while working towards an honorable cause in mind (providing educational opportunities to underprivileged people), which will keep her from losing a sense of purpose in what she does everyday (unlike typical production houses, who are only out to churn money all day).
Furthermore, she has a superior that likes her (her resume was personally hand-picked by her superior among 200 others), her job gives her opportunities to further enrich her skills either on-the-job or during her free time (such as freelancing for Ian “Captain” Barbosa if she gets projects thrown her way), this will help equip her towards the direction of her long term goal (to take Masters in Mass Communication), so she can continually deepen her skills in learning something that she has a passion for (through real-life experience, or academic paper chase), and open up possibilities for different job opportunities in the future (such as making a career change to lecturing, perhaps).
Taking all those factors into consideration, coupled the splendid timing of the company that just employed her (Wawasan Open University College is just about to venture into a new, exciting phase this month), I can only think of one word to sum it all up: Perfect.
God be praised for the way that things are falling in place for her! Indeed, God is gracious and good! This is not something you call coincidence. It is providence.
She starts on Monday. A new Communications Officer is in the house!
“So, what is Mei Yee doing now?”
“Oh, she’s got a job already. She is now the Communications Officer for Wawasan Open University College.”
“Wow, that’s great! Where is that? What is that?”
"Haaa… That’s where she comes in. Her job is to make it known to you, and to the ends of the earth…”
Monday, September 11, 2006
Online Poll
I don't get it. What's so buruk / wat tatt / ugly with this picture?
Is it:
A) The bald head?
B) The glasses?
C) The pouch bag?
D) The parking attendant / reload card vendor / VCD seller / youth worker look?
E) The shorts?
F) The hairy legs exposed by the shorts?
G) The oversized slippers?
H) The V-shaped feet?
I) His shrunken skinny-ness?
J) All of the above.
Is it:
A) The bald head?
B) The glasses?
C) The pouch bag?
D) The parking attendant / reload card vendor / VCD seller / youth worker look?
E) The shorts?
F) The hairy legs exposed by the shorts?
G) The oversized slippers?
H) The V-shaped feet?
I) His shrunken skinny-ness?
J) All of the above.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
The Authority Of Scripture
The things I learned in Systematic Theology Chapter 4 - The Four Characteristics of Scripture: (1) Authority.
The authority of Scripture means that all words in Scripture are God’s words in such a way that to believe or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God.
A) All words in Scripture are God’s words.
1) The Bible claims for itself to be God’s words.
a) The Old Testament text frequently begins with “Thus says the Lord…”
b) Not every word in Scripture was audibly spoken by God Himself. But the quotations of other people are God’s reports of what they said, and rightly interpreted in their context, come to us with God’s authority.
c) The New Testament affirms that all of the Old Testament writings are God’s words (e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21).
d) The New Testament writings are put on the same level with Old Testament writings as “scripture” (2 Peter 3:16, 1 Timothy 5:18). Thus, once we establish that the New Testament writings belong to the special category called “scripture”, then we can correctly affirm the New Testament writings as part of the canon of Scripture (hence as God’s own words as well).
2) We are convinced that the Bible is truly God’s word as we read it ourselves.
a) Our ultimate conviction that the words of the Bible are God’s words comes only when the Holy Spirit speaks in and through the words of the Bible to our hearts and gives us an inner assurance that these are the words of our Creator speaking to us.
b) Although other evidence (e.g. historical accuracy, internal consistency, fulfilled prophecies, etc) is useful to help support the claim that the Bible is God’s words, the persuasion and convincingness of such evidence is nothing compared to “the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” It is incomparably the work of the Holy Spirit, through Whom “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority (of the Bible)” comes (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1643-46).
3) The words of Scripture are self-attesting.
a) Scripture cannot be “proved” to be God’s words by appeal to any higher authority, because it is already the highest authority in itself.
b) If we ultimately appeal to human reason, logic, historical accuracy, or scientific truth as the authority to prove Scripture to be God’s words, then we have assumed that those things that we appealed have a higher authority than God’s words itself, and that those things are more true or more reliable than Scripture.
4) The self-attestation of Scripture is not a typical circular argument.
a) E.g. We believe that Scripture is God’s Word because it claims to be that. And we believe its claims because Scripture is God’s Word. And we believe that it is God’s Word because it claims to be that. Etc, etc…
b) Even though this is admittedly a kind of circular argument, it does not make its use invalid. Because all arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to itself for proof. Otherwise, that authority would not be an absolute or highest authority.
c) Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending his own ultimate authority for belief anyway.
d) E.g. Logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so. And it is logical to make it so because logical consistency is my ultimate authority. And logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so. Etc, etc…
e) The argument for the Bible as God’s Word is more like a spiral instead of a circular argument, because the increasing knowledge of Scripture and increasingly correct understanding of God and creation tend to supplement one another in a harmonious way, each tending to confirm the accuracy of the other.
5) Dictation from God is not the sole means of communication from God.
a) Sometimes, direct dictation is a means of communication from God as it becomes written as God’s word (e.g. John on Patmos Island, Isaiah). At other times, at the other end of the extreme, God’s words can come via ordinary historical research (e.g. Luke).
b) God’s providential oversight and direction of the life of each author was such that their personalities, their backgrounds and training, their abilities to evaluate events in the world around them, their access to historical data, their judgment with regard to the accuracy of the information, and their individual circumstances when they wrote, were all exactly what God wanted them to be, so that when they actually came to the point of putting pen to paper, the words were fully their own words but also fully the words that God wanted them to write – words that God would also claim as His own.
B) With all this in mind, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God Himself.
C) The truthfulness of Scripture.
1) God cannot lie or speak falsely (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). Therefore…
2) All the words in Scripture are completely true and without error in any part (Proverbs 30:5, Psalms 119:89, Numbers 23:19). Therefore…
3) God’s words are the ultimate standard of truth (John 17:17). Therefore…
4) It is impossible for any new fact to ever contradict the Bible. Therefore, whenever we are confronted with some “fact” that is said to contradict Scripture, we must not only examine the data that claims to demonstrate the fact in question; we must also reexamine the appropriate biblical texts to see if the Bible really teaches what we thought it to teach (e.g. the passage of the sun around the earth, the age of the earth).
D) We confidently conclude that the written Scripture is our final authority.
The authority of Scripture means that all words in Scripture are God’s words in such a way that to believe or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God.
A) All words in Scripture are God’s words.
1) The Bible claims for itself to be God’s words.
a) The Old Testament text frequently begins with “Thus says the Lord…”
b) Not every word in Scripture was audibly spoken by God Himself. But the quotations of other people are God’s reports of what they said, and rightly interpreted in their context, come to us with God’s authority.
c) The New Testament affirms that all of the Old Testament writings are God’s words (e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21).
d) The New Testament writings are put on the same level with Old Testament writings as “scripture” (2 Peter 3:16, 1 Timothy 5:18). Thus, once we establish that the New Testament writings belong to the special category called “scripture”, then we can correctly affirm the New Testament writings as part of the canon of Scripture (hence as God’s own words as well).
2) We are convinced that the Bible is truly God’s word as we read it ourselves.
a) Our ultimate conviction that the words of the Bible are God’s words comes only when the Holy Spirit speaks in and through the words of the Bible to our hearts and gives us an inner assurance that these are the words of our Creator speaking to us.
b) Although other evidence (e.g. historical accuracy, internal consistency, fulfilled prophecies, etc) is useful to help support the claim that the Bible is God’s words, the persuasion and convincingness of such evidence is nothing compared to “the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” It is incomparably the work of the Holy Spirit, through Whom “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority (of the Bible)” comes (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1643-46).
3) The words of Scripture are self-attesting.
a) Scripture cannot be “proved” to be God’s words by appeal to any higher authority, because it is already the highest authority in itself.
b) If we ultimately appeal to human reason, logic, historical accuracy, or scientific truth as the authority to prove Scripture to be God’s words, then we have assumed that those things that we appealed have a higher authority than God’s words itself, and that those things are more true or more reliable than Scripture.
4) The self-attestation of Scripture is not a typical circular argument.
a) E.g. We believe that Scripture is God’s Word because it claims to be that. And we believe its claims because Scripture is God’s Word. And we believe that it is God’s Word because it claims to be that. Etc, etc…
b) Even though this is admittedly a kind of circular argument, it does not make its use invalid. Because all arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to itself for proof. Otherwise, that authority would not be an absolute or highest authority.
c) Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending his own ultimate authority for belief anyway.
d) E.g. Logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so. And it is logical to make it so because logical consistency is my ultimate authority. And logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so. Etc, etc…
e) The argument for the Bible as God’s Word is more like a spiral instead of a circular argument, because the increasing knowledge of Scripture and increasingly correct understanding of God and creation tend to supplement one another in a harmonious way, each tending to confirm the accuracy of the other.
5) Dictation from God is not the sole means of communication from God.
a) Sometimes, direct dictation is a means of communication from God as it becomes written as God’s word (e.g. John on Patmos Island, Isaiah). At other times, at the other end of the extreme, God’s words can come via ordinary historical research (e.g. Luke).
b) God’s providential oversight and direction of the life of each author was such that their personalities, their backgrounds and training, their abilities to evaluate events in the world around them, their access to historical data, their judgment with regard to the accuracy of the information, and their individual circumstances when they wrote, were all exactly what God wanted them to be, so that when they actually came to the point of putting pen to paper, the words were fully their own words but also fully the words that God wanted them to write – words that God would also claim as His own.
B) With all this in mind, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God Himself.
C) The truthfulness of Scripture.
1) God cannot lie or speak falsely (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). Therefore…
2) All the words in Scripture are completely true and without error in any part (Proverbs 30:5, Psalms 119:89, Numbers 23:19). Therefore…
3) God’s words are the ultimate standard of truth (John 17:17). Therefore…
4) It is impossible for any new fact to ever contradict the Bible. Therefore, whenever we are confronted with some “fact” that is said to contradict Scripture, we must not only examine the data that claims to demonstrate the fact in question; we must also reexamine the appropriate biblical texts to see if the Bible really teaches what we thought it to teach (e.g. the passage of the sun around the earth, the age of the earth).
D) We confidently conclude that the written Scripture is our final authority.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Questions That Need Answering
There are some questions in my mind. Questions that need some answers. Questions pertaining to life...
Regarding pasar malams:
1) About ESP. How come the all the cars know when to evacuate the pasar malam area, when there is a pasar malam? Who tells them to move their cars? Is it a common understanding? How do they know?
2) About trouble shoot. How come nobody absent-mindedly parks his car there, when there is a pasar malam? What if someone actually does that? How do they solve the problem?
3) About geography. How come the pasar malam stalls know exactly where to pitch their stalls? How do they know the exact spot to do it? If one stall misses its mark by just 1 foot, cumulatively, in a long line of stalls, the poor fellows at the end of the line will not have a place to pitch their stalls. How come that never happens? If it happens, how do they deal with the situation?
4) About legality. Do pasar malam stalls have permits? If I decide one day to open a stall to sell nasi lemak at a pasar malam, can I just go ahead and do that? How do I negotiate which spot I can take to pitch my stall? Who do I talk to? Who holds the authority in pasar malam administration?
Regarding camera batteries:
1) About diagnosis. How come only one side of my battery charger’s indicator lights up, while the other indicator doesn’t? Is it because the indicator is not working, but the battery is still charging? Or is it because the battery is not charging at all?
2) About side effects. If only one of the batteries is charging and the other one isn’t (because of my assumedly faulty charger), when I put both batteries into my camera, will my batteries leak when I use them? Does using 2 batteries that are not equally charged at the same time cause detrimental effects to my camera or batteries?
3) About anomalous behaviour. How come the charger’s indicators never go off, no matter how long I charge the batteries? Aren’t the indicator lights supposed to go off once the batteries are fully charged? How come my charger’s lights never goes off, no matter how long I charge the batteries?
4) About comparative pricing. How come Energizer’s rechargeable AA, Ni-MH, 2000mAh batteries are so much cheaper than the rechargeable AA, Ni-MH, 2000mAh batteries sold in camera stores? The Energizer batteries (with charger) sold at Watsons cost only RM60. But the brands at camera stores (e.g. GP batteries) cost more than double the price. Why is that so?
5) About definition. What does mAh mean?
6) About quality control. Which kind of battery is better? The cheaper Energizer ones sold in convenience stores, or the more expensive ones in camera stores?
Why am I asking such questions? Or am I just thinking too much? Am I normal?
Life’s questions that need answering…
Regarding pasar malams:
1) About ESP. How come the all the cars know when to evacuate the pasar malam area, when there is a pasar malam? Who tells them to move their cars? Is it a common understanding? How do they know?
2) About trouble shoot. How come nobody absent-mindedly parks his car there, when there is a pasar malam? What if someone actually does that? How do they solve the problem?
3) About geography. How come the pasar malam stalls know exactly where to pitch their stalls? How do they know the exact spot to do it? If one stall misses its mark by just 1 foot, cumulatively, in a long line of stalls, the poor fellows at the end of the line will not have a place to pitch their stalls. How come that never happens? If it happens, how do they deal with the situation?
4) About legality. Do pasar malam stalls have permits? If I decide one day to open a stall to sell nasi lemak at a pasar malam, can I just go ahead and do that? How do I negotiate which spot I can take to pitch my stall? Who do I talk to? Who holds the authority in pasar malam administration?
Regarding camera batteries:
1) About diagnosis. How come only one side of my battery charger’s indicator lights up, while the other indicator doesn’t? Is it because the indicator is not working, but the battery is still charging? Or is it because the battery is not charging at all?
2) About side effects. If only one of the batteries is charging and the other one isn’t (because of my assumedly faulty charger), when I put both batteries into my camera, will my batteries leak when I use them? Does using 2 batteries that are not equally charged at the same time cause detrimental effects to my camera or batteries?
3) About anomalous behaviour. How come the charger’s indicators never go off, no matter how long I charge the batteries? Aren’t the indicator lights supposed to go off once the batteries are fully charged? How come my charger’s lights never goes off, no matter how long I charge the batteries?
4) About comparative pricing. How come Energizer’s rechargeable AA, Ni-MH, 2000mAh batteries are so much cheaper than the rechargeable AA, Ni-MH, 2000mAh batteries sold in camera stores? The Energizer batteries (with charger) sold at Watsons cost only RM60. But the brands at camera stores (e.g. GP batteries) cost more than double the price. Why is that so?
5) About definition. What does mAh mean?
6) About quality control. Which kind of battery is better? The cheaper Energizer ones sold in convenience stores, or the more expensive ones in camera stores?
Why am I asking such questions? Or am I just thinking too much? Am I normal?
Life’s questions that need answering…
Friday, September 08, 2006
New Testament Canon
The writing of Scripture primarily occurs in connection with God’s great acts in redemptive history. The Old Testament canon closed with an expectation of the Messiah to come (Malachi). Therefore, it is not surprising that the writing of Scripture resumed only after the Messiah came (Jesus Christ).
Apostles = The special status that Jesus’ 12 disciples attained after His ascension.
A) Apostolic Authority and the New Testament
1) The apostles wrote the New Testament.
2) The apostles were specially empowered by the Holy Spirit (as Christ promised) to be able to write Scripture.
3) The apostles have an authority equal to that of the Old Testament prophets.
4) The apostles (Peter and Paul) placed New Testament writings on the same level as Old Testament Scriptures as part of the canon of Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Timothy 5:17-18).
B) Any New Testament writing belongs to the canon of Scripture if:
1) It is written by an apostle (therefore, divine authority is automatically established).
2) It is preserved by the early church under the direction of the apostles (therefore, ruling out the irrelevant documents that the apostles have written, e.g. grocery lists, personal letters to friends).
3) Its teaching and doctrine is consistent with the rest of Scripture.
4) It is recognized as “God-breathed” by an overwhelming majority of believers.
C) Any New Testament writing that is not written by an apostle belongs to the canon of Scripture if:
1) The personal testimony of some living apostles affirm the absolute divine authority of the writings (e.g. the apostle Paul affirmed Luke and Acts, the apostle Peter affirmed Mark).
2) The writings are self-attesting, i.e. the contents of the writings itself bear witness to their own divine authorship as Christians read them (e.g. Hebrews).
3) It is written by a close and authorized companion of Jesus and His apostles (e.g. Jude).
D) Other evidence of the canonicity of the New Testament
1) The 39th Paschal Letter of Athanasius (A.D. 367) contained an exact list of the 27 New Testament books we have today.
2) The Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) agreed with the same list of New Testament books.
E) The completion and closing of the New Testament canon
“God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2).
God’s words to us “in these last days” (i.e. today) are spoken to all mankind “by His Son”. This means, that His Son (Jesus Christ) is the greatest and final revelation to mankind. While God revealed Himself progressively through His prophets in the past, the culmination of His revelation to mankind came through the person of Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ is God Himself who has come to the world in the flesh.
Therefore, God’s last authoritative speech to us is revealed in Jesus’ teachings, and in the apostles’ writings about Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Thus, once the New Testament writings by the apostles and their authorized companions are completed, we have in written form the final record of everything that God wants to communicate to us – things that have meaning and authority over all believers for all time. Therefore, with the passing away of the apostles and their authorized companions, the canon of the New Testament is closed.
It is only reasonable to conclude that the canonicity of the New Testament is closed with the ascension of Christ and the passing away of the apostles and their authorized companions. For how else is God’s speech of divine and binding authority spoken to us “by His Son”?
The completion and closing of the New Testament canon is also found in Revelation 22:18-19.
F) How do we know that we have the right books in the canon of Scripture we now possess?
1) Our confidence is based on the faithfulness of God. Even though the collection and compilation of the canon of Scripture was done through human hands, its historical progression as well as its mechanical process is caused by the hands of God. A God who loves His people will make sure that His every word, which are of utmost importance to us for life itself, is not denied from us.
The preservation and correct assembling of the canon of Scripture is not merely part of church history subsequent to God’s great central acts of redemption for His people. Rather, it is an integral part of the redemption history itself (i.e., just as God’s work in creation, the calling of His people Israel, and in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ are integral in redemption history, so is the assembling of the canon of Scripture).
2) The process of determining the right books are guided by the activity of the Holy Spirit. No other work of literature can speak to people’s hearts with an authority, a power, and a persuasiveness as the Bible, attesting to the work of the Holy Spirit.
3) The reliability of the assembling process is supported by historical data for our re-examination and consideration.
4) There exist no strong candidates for addition to the canon, up to today.
5) There exist no strong objections to any book presently in the canon, up to today.
G) Concluding quotes
The work of the early church was not to bestow divine authority or even ecclesiastical authority upon some merely human writings, but rather to recognize the divinely authored characteristic of writings that already had such quality. This is because the ultimate criterion of canonicity is divine authorship, not human or ecclesiastical approval.
The canon of Scripture today is exactly what God wanted it to be, and it will stay that way until Christ returns.
So, does that mean that after Christ returns, the canon of Scripture will be reopened again? Hmmm…
Apostles = The special status that Jesus’ 12 disciples attained after His ascension.
A) Apostolic Authority and the New Testament
1) The apostles wrote the New Testament.
2) The apostles were specially empowered by the Holy Spirit (as Christ promised) to be able to write Scripture.
3) The apostles have an authority equal to that of the Old Testament prophets.
4) The apostles (Peter and Paul) placed New Testament writings on the same level as Old Testament Scriptures as part of the canon of Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Timothy 5:17-18).
B) Any New Testament writing belongs to the canon of Scripture if:
1) It is written by an apostle (therefore, divine authority is automatically established).
2) It is preserved by the early church under the direction of the apostles (therefore, ruling out the irrelevant documents that the apostles have written, e.g. grocery lists, personal letters to friends).
3) Its teaching and doctrine is consistent with the rest of Scripture.
4) It is recognized as “God-breathed” by an overwhelming majority of believers.
C) Any New Testament writing that is not written by an apostle belongs to the canon of Scripture if:
1) The personal testimony of some living apostles affirm the absolute divine authority of the writings (e.g. the apostle Paul affirmed Luke and Acts, the apostle Peter affirmed Mark).
2) The writings are self-attesting, i.e. the contents of the writings itself bear witness to their own divine authorship as Christians read them (e.g. Hebrews).
3) It is written by a close and authorized companion of Jesus and His apostles (e.g. Jude).
D) Other evidence of the canonicity of the New Testament
1) The 39th Paschal Letter of Athanasius (A.D. 367) contained an exact list of the 27 New Testament books we have today.
2) The Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) agreed with the same list of New Testament books.
E) The completion and closing of the New Testament canon
“God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2).
God’s words to us “in these last days” (i.e. today) are spoken to all mankind “by His Son”. This means, that His Son (Jesus Christ) is the greatest and final revelation to mankind. While God revealed Himself progressively through His prophets in the past, the culmination of His revelation to mankind came through the person of Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ is God Himself who has come to the world in the flesh.
Therefore, God’s last authoritative speech to us is revealed in Jesus’ teachings, and in the apostles’ writings about Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Thus, once the New Testament writings by the apostles and their authorized companions are completed, we have in written form the final record of everything that God wants to communicate to us – things that have meaning and authority over all believers for all time. Therefore, with the passing away of the apostles and their authorized companions, the canon of the New Testament is closed.
It is only reasonable to conclude that the canonicity of the New Testament is closed with the ascension of Christ and the passing away of the apostles and their authorized companions. For how else is God’s speech of divine and binding authority spoken to us “by His Son”?
The completion and closing of the New Testament canon is also found in Revelation 22:18-19.
F) How do we know that we have the right books in the canon of Scripture we now possess?
1) Our confidence is based on the faithfulness of God. Even though the collection and compilation of the canon of Scripture was done through human hands, its historical progression as well as its mechanical process is caused by the hands of God. A God who loves His people will make sure that His every word, which are of utmost importance to us for life itself, is not denied from us.
The preservation and correct assembling of the canon of Scripture is not merely part of church history subsequent to God’s great central acts of redemption for His people. Rather, it is an integral part of the redemption history itself (i.e., just as God’s work in creation, the calling of His people Israel, and in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ are integral in redemption history, so is the assembling of the canon of Scripture).
2) The process of determining the right books are guided by the activity of the Holy Spirit. No other work of literature can speak to people’s hearts with an authority, a power, and a persuasiveness as the Bible, attesting to the work of the Holy Spirit.
3) The reliability of the assembling process is supported by historical data for our re-examination and consideration.
4) There exist no strong candidates for addition to the canon, up to today.
5) There exist no strong objections to any book presently in the canon, up to today.
G) Concluding quotes
The work of the early church was not to bestow divine authority or even ecclesiastical authority upon some merely human writings, but rather to recognize the divinely authored characteristic of writings that already had such quality. This is because the ultimate criterion of canonicity is divine authorship, not human or ecclesiastical approval.
The canon of Scripture today is exactly what God wanted it to be, and it will stay that way until Christ returns.
So, does that mean that after Christ returns, the canon of Scripture will be reopened again? Hmmm…
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Old Testament Canon
The things I learned from Systematic Theology Chapter 3 – The Canon of Scripture.
Canon of Scripture = the list of all the books that belong in the Bible.
Apocrypha = the collection of books included in the canon by the Roman Catholic Church, but excluded from the canon by Protestanism.
A) Historical development of the Old Testament canon
1) The Ten Commandments (God Himself wrote it).
2) Moses wrote the words of the law (the 1st human hand).
3) Joshua added to it (the 2nd human hand).
4) The prophets wrote additional words from God (e.g. Samuel, Jehu, Isaiah, etc).
5) The last prophet who wrote is Malachi (435 B.C.)
After 435 B.C., no more additions to the Old Testament canon.
B) Authorship of the canon
The authors of the Old Testament canon consists of:
1) God Himself (e.g. the Ten Commandments).
2) God’ prophets (e.g. Israelite history, prophetic books).
3) Some "special people" who wrote during the times of the prophets when the Holy Spirit “has not yet departed from Israel” (e.g. David, Solomon).
C) The completion and closing of the Old Testament canon
1) Extrabiblical Jewish literature attests that the divinely authoritative words from God had ceased since 435 B.C.
2) 1 Maccabees records that there was no one who could speak with the authority of God as a prophet during the time of its writing (after 435 B.C).
3) Josephus states that what is now known as the Apocrypha “has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets”.
4) Rabbinic literature states that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the death of the latter prophets (e.g. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi), therefore divine authority (or inspiration) to write Scripture has stopped.
5) The Qumran community awaited the authority that came from a prophet to supersede any existing regulations, hence the writings after 435 B.C. were not accepted as having equal authority with the rest of Scripture.
6) Jesus was in full agreement with the Jews over the extent of the Old Testament canon.
D) The rejection of the Apocrypha
1) The books in the Apocrypha were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture.
2) The inclusion of various Apocrypha in the canon of the early Christians was not done in any agreed way or at the earliest period, but occurred in Gentile Christianity, after the church’s breach with the synagogue, among those whose knowledge of the primitive Christian canon was becoming blurred.
3) Jerome included the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, but Jerome himself said that they were not “books of the canon” but merely “books of the church” that were helpful and useful for believers.
4) Melito, the bishop of Sardis (A.D. 170) named the earliest Christian list of Old Testament books, and none of the Apocrypha was mentioned.
5) Eusebius quotes Origen as affirming that none of the Apocrypha is canonical.
6) Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 367) wrote his Paschal Letter listed all the books of the Old Testament. He mentioned the Apocrypha, and said they were “not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.”
7) None of the early Latin and Greek church fathers who quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture knew any Hebrew.
8) The Apocrypha contains doctrinal and historical inconsistencies.
E) The Catholic-Protestant conflict over the Old Testament canon
At the Council of Trent (1546), the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon. Roman Catholicism holds that the church has the authority to constitute a literary work as “Scripture.” However, Protestanism holds that the church cannot make something to be Scripture, but can only recognize what God has already caused to be written as His own words.
Analogy of the Catholic-Protestant conflict
You can recognize genuine money as genuine money, and you can recognize counterfeit money as counterfeit money. But you cannot make counterfeit money to be genuine, no matter how many people you can get to agree to say so with you. Only Bank Negara can make genuine money. The only thing we can do is recognize them from the counterfeit ones.
Similarly, only God can make words to be His very own words and worthy of inclusion in Scripture. We merely recognize what are God’s very own words when they indeed are God’s very own words. We cannot make something to be God’s very own words by declaring it to be so, any more can you make a piece of cardboard paper to be genuine money by declaring it in a meeting.
F) Factors for disqualification from the canon
Any written document (such as the Apocrypha) is not regarded as part of Scripture if:
1) They do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the Old Testament writings.
2) They were not regarded as God’s words by the Jewish people from whom they originated.
3) They were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus and the New Testament authors.
4) They contain teachings that are inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
G) The status of the Apocrypha
They are merely human words, not God-breathed words like the words of Scripture. They have value for historical and linguistic research, but they have no binding authority for the thought or life of Christians today (the same way a history book by Ranjit Singh Malhi can be accurate and useful, but it has no authority over our lives the way the Bible has).
Canon of Scripture = the list of all the books that belong in the Bible.
Apocrypha = the collection of books included in the canon by the Roman Catholic Church, but excluded from the canon by Protestanism.
A) Historical development of the Old Testament canon
1) The Ten Commandments (God Himself wrote it).
2) Moses wrote the words of the law (the 1st human hand).
3) Joshua added to it (the 2nd human hand).
4) The prophets wrote additional words from God (e.g. Samuel, Jehu, Isaiah, etc).
5) The last prophet who wrote is Malachi (435 B.C.)
After 435 B.C., no more additions to the Old Testament canon.
B) Authorship of the canon
The authors of the Old Testament canon consists of:
1) God Himself (e.g. the Ten Commandments).
2) God’ prophets (e.g. Israelite history, prophetic books).
3) Some "special people" who wrote during the times of the prophets when the Holy Spirit “has not yet departed from Israel” (e.g. David, Solomon).
C) The completion and closing of the Old Testament canon
1) Extrabiblical Jewish literature attests that the divinely authoritative words from God had ceased since 435 B.C.
2) 1 Maccabees records that there was no one who could speak with the authority of God as a prophet during the time of its writing (after 435 B.C).
3) Josephus states that what is now known as the Apocrypha “has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets”.
4) Rabbinic literature states that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the death of the latter prophets (e.g. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi), therefore divine authority (or inspiration) to write Scripture has stopped.
5) The Qumran community awaited the authority that came from a prophet to supersede any existing regulations, hence the writings after 435 B.C. were not accepted as having equal authority with the rest of Scripture.
6) Jesus was in full agreement with the Jews over the extent of the Old Testament canon.
D) The rejection of the Apocrypha
1) The books in the Apocrypha were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture.
2) The inclusion of various Apocrypha in the canon of the early Christians was not done in any agreed way or at the earliest period, but occurred in Gentile Christianity, after the church’s breach with the synagogue, among those whose knowledge of the primitive Christian canon was becoming blurred.
3) Jerome included the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, but Jerome himself said that they were not “books of the canon” but merely “books of the church” that were helpful and useful for believers.
4) Melito, the bishop of Sardis (A.D. 170) named the earliest Christian list of Old Testament books, and none of the Apocrypha was mentioned.
5) Eusebius quotes Origen as affirming that none of the Apocrypha is canonical.
6) Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 367) wrote his Paschal Letter listed all the books of the Old Testament. He mentioned the Apocrypha, and said they were “not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.”
7) None of the early Latin and Greek church fathers who quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture knew any Hebrew.
8) The Apocrypha contains doctrinal and historical inconsistencies.
E) The Catholic-Protestant conflict over the Old Testament canon
At the Council of Trent (1546), the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon. Roman Catholicism holds that the church has the authority to constitute a literary work as “Scripture.” However, Protestanism holds that the church cannot make something to be Scripture, but can only recognize what God has already caused to be written as His own words.
Analogy of the Catholic-Protestant conflict
You can recognize genuine money as genuine money, and you can recognize counterfeit money as counterfeit money. But you cannot make counterfeit money to be genuine, no matter how many people you can get to agree to say so with you. Only Bank Negara can make genuine money. The only thing we can do is recognize them from the counterfeit ones.
Similarly, only God can make words to be His very own words and worthy of inclusion in Scripture. We merely recognize what are God’s very own words when they indeed are God’s very own words. We cannot make something to be God’s very own words by declaring it to be so, any more can you make a piece of cardboard paper to be genuine money by declaring it in a meeting.
F) Factors for disqualification from the canon
Any written document (such as the Apocrypha) is not regarded as part of Scripture if:
1) They do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the Old Testament writings.
2) They were not regarded as God’s words by the Jewish people from whom they originated.
3) They were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus and the New Testament authors.
4) They contain teachings that are inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
G) The status of the Apocrypha
They are merely human words, not God-breathed words like the words of Scripture. They have value for historical and linguistic research, but they have no binding authority for the thought or life of Christians today (the same way a history book by Ranjit Singh Malhi can be accurate and useful, but it has no authority over our lives the way the Bible has).
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Do Baldies Have More Fun
What have I been up to nowadays? Lemme see…
I read my portion of Systematic Theology for the day. Then, I read the Bible. After that, I read Systematic Theology again. In between reading those two, I read Tuesdays With Morrie. I write in my blog. And I wait for my posting.
Last night, I was unable to sleep. It must be the prolonged “afternoon nap” that I took. I suddenly realized that I have a severe lack of entertainment. What has happened to me? When was the last time I played sports? When was the last time I sweated it out in the great outdoors? When was the last time I watched a no-brainer movie? When was the last time I indulged myself at some eating place?
Hmmm… I can hardly remember. What have I become? I have become… A book-reading, blog-writing, theology-studying nerd! My muscles are atrophying. I’m getting skinnier by the day. I’m turning into a Cicak Man. Oh no… How come I never saw this coming?
My father must have watched Remp-it. Even my Baby Boomer generation father watched a movie like Remp-it! And what was the last movie I watched? An international movie about mail-order brides. Oh no… What am I turning into?
It’s like, I’m breaking out from a larvae. But I’m not morphing into a butterfly. I’m turning into a moth!
As I’m perplexing myself over how come I didn’t notice the things that are coming over me, I ran my fingers through my head. Aaaaah… My bald head. What comfort and solace it brings…
The female staff at Methodist Boys’ School said I look like Mawi. Chek Boon said I got a torpedo head. His Malay friend said I look like a Smashing Pumpkins band member. Mei Yee said I look like an alien. Some people said I look like a prisoner that just came out. The teachers in Convent Green Lane asked me what’s the message behind it. “To show that we should be bebas dari taklukan minda,” I’d say.
You know what’s missing? I think my bald head and new glasses will go well with a black t-shirt that says in white fonts, “Don’t censor me.”
I feel my bald head with my fingers again. “Yeah,” I tell myself. “I’m still cool…”
I read my portion of Systematic Theology for the day. Then, I read the Bible. After that, I read Systematic Theology again. In between reading those two, I read Tuesdays With Morrie. I write in my blog. And I wait for my posting.
Last night, I was unable to sleep. It must be the prolonged “afternoon nap” that I took. I suddenly realized that I have a severe lack of entertainment. What has happened to me? When was the last time I played sports? When was the last time I sweated it out in the great outdoors? When was the last time I watched a no-brainer movie? When was the last time I indulged myself at some eating place?
Hmmm… I can hardly remember. What have I become? I have become… A book-reading, blog-writing, theology-studying nerd! My muscles are atrophying. I’m getting skinnier by the day. I’m turning into a Cicak Man. Oh no… How come I never saw this coming?
My father must have watched Remp-it. Even my Baby Boomer generation father watched a movie like Remp-it! And what was the last movie I watched? An international movie about mail-order brides. Oh no… What am I turning into?
It’s like, I’m breaking out from a larvae. But I’m not morphing into a butterfly. I’m turning into a moth!
As I’m perplexing myself over how come I didn’t notice the things that are coming over me, I ran my fingers through my head. Aaaaah… My bald head. What comfort and solace it brings…
The female staff at Methodist Boys’ School said I look like Mawi. Chek Boon said I got a torpedo head. His Malay friend said I look like a Smashing Pumpkins band member. Mei Yee said I look like an alien. Some people said I look like a prisoner that just came out. The teachers in Convent Green Lane asked me what’s the message behind it. “To show that we should be bebas dari taklukan minda,” I’d say.
You know what’s missing? I think my bald head and new glasses will go well with a black t-shirt that says in white fonts, “Don’t censor me.”
I feel my bald head with my fingers again. “Yeah,” I tell myself. “I’m still cool…”
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
He's So Lucky...
I’ve stopped teaching at St. Xavier’s Institution for 2 weeks already. The reason I stopped is because I believe my posting will come by mid September. I think I have solid reasons for believing so:
1, the Education Ministry has been giving out standard answers to everyone that the posting will come by mid September (My course mate’s friend called in every day, got the same answer every time, plus a scolding as a bonus). 2, I am a Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia scholarship holder. So it will be foolish for the government to let me off the hook without paying off my 4-year bond after having spent RM26 000 on me. 3, even if not everyone from my batch will get posted by mid September, I have solid reasons to believe that I will be the privileged few to get it, because of the money that the government has invested on me.
However, my father has a different theory. He thinks that I may not get a posting at all! He thinks that even if I do get a posting, it will probably come by January next year. He thinks he has solid reasons for believing so:
1, a lot of teachers who have graduated many years ago still have not got their posting up to today. 2, the current hoo-ha with the Education Ministry is “all over the news” (according to him). About people who have not got a posting for the umpteenth year, walking straight up to the Education Minister and demanding an answer, but the Minister is unable to comment. 3, even if the government dishes out the posting, those who have been jobless for more years than 1 will get a higher priority than fresh graduates. 4, they will probably post us by next year, because the school term is already ending.
So, my father got me hooked up with Convent Green Lane, to temp there until I get my posting. Starting immediately.
Waaaait a minute… 1, If I really do get my posting by September, why is there such a hurry for me to work? The remaining few days I have to rest will be important to me. 2, If I stop working in less than 20 days, I won’t even get paid. 3, if I share the belief that I wouldn’t be posted until next year, I could’ve just continued at SXI! 4, I haven’t finished missing SXI yet :)
Everyone is throwing their theories around, and I’m caught in the brunt of it. “You can’t be living on sunshine!” My exasperated father said. Well, I AM living on sunshine, regardless of whether or not I temp. Because the pay for temporary teachers will not come in after a few months. So the sunshine is still my source of food, thanks to photosynthesis (I think you can see why I like to argue with my father sometimes).
Today, I went straight up to the Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah to see Mr. Toh. I am a diplomatic person. I don’t want to lose a window of opportunity at CGL, and I also don’t want to lose my holiday in a gamble. Therefore, I think the best course of action will be to negotiate for a delay in the contract, without losing it to someone else. If I get my posting before 18th September, I’ll kiss CGL goodbye. If I don’t get my posting by 18th September, I'll take up the job at CGL. Sounds reasonable, rite?
So I went to see Mr Toh. And something happened that I couldn’t believe it. He gave me this:
He handed to me the contract, with all its documents, and asked me to take it home. “Everything in the forms is already filled,” he said, “Except for the date. When you decide on the date you want to start working, just fill in the date, come to the office and hand it back to me, and you can start.”
See the highlighted part in the contract, where the date is supposed to be? He highlighted it himself.
WOW!! How often do you get breaks at government departments like this? He is like… Handing to me a blank check! How often do you get such kind treatment, from a place that has a stigma of red tape and bureaucratic idiosyncrasies?
It’s so wonderful... Now, whether or not I get a posting is not a problem at all! If I get posted by September, then I'll go. If I don’t get my posting by September, I have a job waiting for me in CGL.
The coolest part is… I even get to choose what I want to do, and when I want to do it! In view of the huge unemployment rate of education graduates all over the country, how likely is this to happen? Maybe it’s because I’m getting famous in the District Office. Maybe it’s because of my bald head. Or maybe it’s because I’m just born to be lucky! Man… I can’t believe what luck I have!
No, no… I shouldn’t call it luck... I should call it unfair. Yes! God is “unfairly good” to me!
Oh, can I just add? With my scroll, now I get paid RM1653.73 a month, which is a RM700 jump from my previous STPM pay!
Wait till my course mates find out about this. “GOD IS NOT FAAAAAAIR!” They will bewail.
“God is not fair. But God is just” – Thomas Chung, National Conference 2005.
1, the Education Ministry has been giving out standard answers to everyone that the posting will come by mid September (My course mate’s friend called in every day, got the same answer every time, plus a scolding as a bonus). 2, I am a Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia scholarship holder. So it will be foolish for the government to let me off the hook without paying off my 4-year bond after having spent RM26 000 on me. 3, even if not everyone from my batch will get posted by mid September, I have solid reasons to believe that I will be the privileged few to get it, because of the money that the government has invested on me.
However, my father has a different theory. He thinks that I may not get a posting at all! He thinks that even if I do get a posting, it will probably come by January next year. He thinks he has solid reasons for believing so:
1, a lot of teachers who have graduated many years ago still have not got their posting up to today. 2, the current hoo-ha with the Education Ministry is “all over the news” (according to him). About people who have not got a posting for the umpteenth year, walking straight up to the Education Minister and demanding an answer, but the Minister is unable to comment. 3, even if the government dishes out the posting, those who have been jobless for more years than 1 will get a higher priority than fresh graduates. 4, they will probably post us by next year, because the school term is already ending.
So, my father got me hooked up with Convent Green Lane, to temp there until I get my posting. Starting immediately.
Waaaait a minute… 1, If I really do get my posting by September, why is there such a hurry for me to work? The remaining few days I have to rest will be important to me. 2, If I stop working in less than 20 days, I won’t even get paid. 3, if I share the belief that I wouldn’t be posted until next year, I could’ve just continued at SXI! 4, I haven’t finished missing SXI yet :)
Everyone is throwing their theories around, and I’m caught in the brunt of it. “You can’t be living on sunshine!” My exasperated father said. Well, I AM living on sunshine, regardless of whether or not I temp. Because the pay for temporary teachers will not come in after a few months. So the sunshine is still my source of food, thanks to photosynthesis (I think you can see why I like to argue with my father sometimes).
Today, I went straight up to the Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah to see Mr. Toh. I am a diplomatic person. I don’t want to lose a window of opportunity at CGL, and I also don’t want to lose my holiday in a gamble. Therefore, I think the best course of action will be to negotiate for a delay in the contract, without losing it to someone else. If I get my posting before 18th September, I’ll kiss CGL goodbye. If I don’t get my posting by 18th September, I'll take up the job at CGL. Sounds reasonable, rite?
So I went to see Mr Toh. And something happened that I couldn’t believe it. He gave me this:
He handed to me the contract, with all its documents, and asked me to take it home. “Everything in the forms is already filled,” he said, “Except for the date. When you decide on the date you want to start working, just fill in the date, come to the office and hand it back to me, and you can start.”
See the highlighted part in the contract, where the date is supposed to be? He highlighted it himself.
WOW!! How often do you get breaks at government departments like this? He is like… Handing to me a blank check! How often do you get such kind treatment, from a place that has a stigma of red tape and bureaucratic idiosyncrasies?
It’s so wonderful... Now, whether or not I get a posting is not a problem at all! If I get posted by September, then I'll go. If I don’t get my posting by September, I have a job waiting for me in CGL.
The coolest part is… I even get to choose what I want to do, and when I want to do it! In view of the huge unemployment rate of education graduates all over the country, how likely is this to happen? Maybe it’s because I’m getting famous in the District Office. Maybe it’s because of my bald head. Or maybe it’s because I’m just born to be lucky! Man… I can’t believe what luck I have!
No, no… I shouldn’t call it luck... I should call it unfair. Yes! God is “unfairly good” to me!
Oh, can I just add? With my scroll, now I get paid RM1653.73 a month, which is a RM700 jump from my previous STPM pay!
Wait till my course mates find out about this. “GOD IS NOT FAAAAAAIR!” They will bewail.
“God is not fair. But God is just” – Thomas Chung, National Conference 2005.
Monday, September 04, 2006
The Word Of God
The things I learned from Systematic Theology, Chapter 2 – The Word of God.
1) The Word of God refers to the person of Jesus Christ (e.g. as mentioned by the apostle John).
2) The Word of God also means speech by God. There are 4 kinds:
a) God’s decree is a word of God that causes something to happen (e.g. creation).
b) God’s words of personal address are the words that God uses to communicate with people on earth by speaking directly to them (e.g. to Adam and Eve, at Jesus’ baptism).
c) God’s words as speech through human lips are words that God speaks through the mouths of prophets (e.g. Moses, Jeremiah).
d) God’s words in written form are God’s words put in writing (e.g. the two tablets of the Ten Commandments, the New Testament epistles).
My questions to pick at your brain:
i) Do God’s words still come to us by personal address today?
ii) If one day, God speaks to us through a personal address, how should we respond to it?
iii) How can we be sure that we are hearing “God’s voice”? What does it sound like?
iv) Does God use us as His mouthpiece to communicate to people today? How do we know if God is “using” us to communicate His words through human lips?
v) If we find a copy of a New Testament epistle in our backyard today, and it can be proven that it was written by an apostle, should we treat that document as God’s words in written form?
“Even if we did hear some words of personal address from God to ourselves today, we would not have certainty that our understanding of it, our memory of it, and our subsequent report of it was wholly accurate. Nor would we be readily able to convey to others the certainty that the communication was from God, even if it was.”
vi) How come the people from ancient times could do it, but we can’t?
I’m sure these questions can be answered in Chapters 3, 7 and 53. But I’m just ear-marking these thoughts.
My responses to the questions for personal application:
I do not think I would pay more attention if God spoke to me from heaven or through the voice of a living prophet than if he spoke to me from the written words of Scripture. It takes faith to hear, believe, and obey the Words of God, in whatever form it comes in.
God may yell at me from my bedroom window. But if I want to mark it off as the voice of a drunk man that just came home, or a hallucination, or just a dream, then it will be of no use to me.
God has given His Words to me in written form in the Bible. If I do not believe that those words are true, or if I do not want to read and obey them, it will be of no use to me as well.
Hearing God’s words takes faith. And faith is useful when it is coupled with action.
I will give Scripture equal weightage with “special revelations” of the sort mentioned above, if given that the special revelations are authentic beyond a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, special revelations have a burden of proof. Hypothetically speaking, if both forms of communication are authentically from God, then I will do well to believe and obey them both.
In the absence of authentic testing (or the possibility of authentic testing) of special revelations, I will pay more attention to the written Word of God. The written words of God do not have a burden of proof. Its burden of proof can be more easily dealt with, compared to that of special revelations. (In fact, it is already dealt with, and thus it should be taken away from the heart of every believer). The reliability, permanence, and accessibility of the written Word of God make it a trustworthy source for the words of God today.
1) The Word of God refers to the person of Jesus Christ (e.g. as mentioned by the apostle John).
2) The Word of God also means speech by God. There are 4 kinds:
a) God’s decree is a word of God that causes something to happen (e.g. creation).
b) God’s words of personal address are the words that God uses to communicate with people on earth by speaking directly to them (e.g. to Adam and Eve, at Jesus’ baptism).
c) God’s words as speech through human lips are words that God speaks through the mouths of prophets (e.g. Moses, Jeremiah).
d) God’s words in written form are God’s words put in writing (e.g. the two tablets of the Ten Commandments, the New Testament epistles).
My questions to pick at your brain:
i) Do God’s words still come to us by personal address today?
ii) If one day, God speaks to us through a personal address, how should we respond to it?
iii) How can we be sure that we are hearing “God’s voice”? What does it sound like?
iv) Does God use us as His mouthpiece to communicate to people today? How do we know if God is “using” us to communicate His words through human lips?
v) If we find a copy of a New Testament epistle in our backyard today, and it can be proven that it was written by an apostle, should we treat that document as God’s words in written form?
“Even if we did hear some words of personal address from God to ourselves today, we would not have certainty that our understanding of it, our memory of it, and our subsequent report of it was wholly accurate. Nor would we be readily able to convey to others the certainty that the communication was from God, even if it was.”
vi) How come the people from ancient times could do it, but we can’t?
I’m sure these questions can be answered in Chapters 3, 7 and 53. But I’m just ear-marking these thoughts.
My responses to the questions for personal application:
I do not think I would pay more attention if God spoke to me from heaven or through the voice of a living prophet than if he spoke to me from the written words of Scripture. It takes faith to hear, believe, and obey the Words of God, in whatever form it comes in.
God may yell at me from my bedroom window. But if I want to mark it off as the voice of a drunk man that just came home, or a hallucination, or just a dream, then it will be of no use to me.
God has given His Words to me in written form in the Bible. If I do not believe that those words are true, or if I do not want to read and obey them, it will be of no use to me as well.
Hearing God’s words takes faith. And faith is useful when it is coupled with action.
I will give Scripture equal weightage with “special revelations” of the sort mentioned above, if given that the special revelations are authentic beyond a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, special revelations have a burden of proof. Hypothetically speaking, if both forms of communication are authentically from God, then I will do well to believe and obey them both.
In the absence of authentic testing (or the possibility of authentic testing) of special revelations, I will pay more attention to the written Word of God. The written words of God do not have a burden of proof. Its burden of proof can be more easily dealt with, compared to that of special revelations. (In fact, it is already dealt with, and thus it should be taken away from the heart of every believer). The reliability, permanence, and accessibility of the written Word of God make it a trustworthy source for the words of God today.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Systematic Theology Chapter 1
The things I learnt in Systematic Theology Chapter 1 – Introduction to Systematic Theology:
Systematic theology = Any study that answers the question, “What does the whole Bible teach us today?” about any given topic.
Historical theology = A historical study of how Christians in different periods have understood various theological topics.
Philosophical theology = A study of theological topics largely without use of the Bible, but using the tools and methods of philosophical reasoning and what can be known about God from observing the universe.
Apologetics = A defense of the truthfulness of the Christian faith for the purpose of convincing unbelievers.
Old Testament theology = Any study that answers the question, “What does the Old Testament teach us” about any given topic. A study that shows the historical development of the teaching on that topic as it progresses through the Old Testament.
New Testament theology = Any study that answers the question, “What does the New Testament teach us” about any given topic. A study that shows the historical development of the teaching on that topic as it progresses through the New Testament.
Biblical theology = Any study that gives special attention to the teachings of individual authors and sections of Scripture, and the place of each teaching in the historical development of Scripture.
My responses to the questions for personal application:
1) This chapter has not really changed my understanding of what systematic theology is, but it has helped me to better comprehend the definition of systematic theology, in comparison with the different types of theology that are present today. My attitude toward the study of systematic theology before reading this chapter is one of eagerness and self-motivated interest. My attitude now is one of fuelled desire to study it not only for myself, but for the benefit of others.
2) A church or denomination that gives up learning systematic theology for a generation or longer is likely to be weakened greatly in its universal distinctive, regardless of denomination, as the “children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” (Philippians 2:15). If a proper study of theology ultimately affects the way a person lives his life, then the neglect of the study of systematic theology will produce spiritually challenged children. And spiritually challenged children from one generation will produce more offspring of a greater spiritual retardation in the next generation. Over a few continuous generations, our identity and purpose as “the children of God” will be of no significant impact to the world, especially when the world’s intellectual, spiritual, and moral climate is bending fast towards pluralism and the non-existence of absolute truth.
As far as my church is concerned, I think it will augur well for us to pay more attention to the study of systematic theology as a church, and deliberately plan to do it at a right place and at a right time. In my humble opinion, the approach that my church adopts in the ingesting the Word is mainly via biblical theology. If systematic theology is done on a regular basis, either over the pulpit on Sundays or over special weekly classes, then we can collectively learn and correctly form our beliefs in all topics pertaining to God.
This will benefit us in 4 ways:
a) It will prevent us from going through church life without having any mature stands on things related to God.
b) It will prevent any individual from arrogantly assuming that a stand that one holds for a certain topic is correct, while everyone else within the same church is wrong. As a side product, it will also prevent any individual from ignorantly making a claim that a certain school of thought on a certain topic belongs to our denomination, when there is no real, collective, and exclusive claim of ownership in the first place.
c) The church can move from asking “what does our church/denomination teach us about this topic?” to “what does the Bible teach us about this topic?”
d) The church can function effectively when the right things are done at the right place and at the right time (e.g. Wednesday Prayer Meetings are used for prayer, and Thursday Theology Classes are used for the study and discussion of theology). This will unsure that the church’s activities are rightly used for its purposes. (e.g. Wednesday Prayer Meetings are used for prayer for one another and prayer for God’s work, instead of used as a sounding board or war zone for theological disagreements).
Thursday, August 31, 2006
My Country 'Tis Of Thee
I honestly don’t know how some people can truly celebrate Merdeka.
What is there to celebrate about? Mix FM has been saying “Let’s celebrate our country that is free from wars and natural disasters.” Drop me a line in the comment box. And I’ll show you the wars that are waged everyday on Malaysian soil, and that a tsunami is not the only factor that disproves our immunity from “natural disasters.” Just leave your name and email address, and ask for an issue of Merdeka Special, Non-circulated Edition. I’ll be glad to oblige. Free of charge.
I was watching an international movie at Gurney Plaza last night. As I was driving home, the road was jammed with people coming out on bicycles and motorbikes, “celebrating” merdeka. I wonder if they’re really celebrating our country’s independence, or if they’re only making use of this opportunity to indulge in their catharsis. Maybe this why my annoyance is amplified at the whole merdeka thing.
I just seem to feel disgruntled every time this occasion comes around. What is there for me to celebrate? Oh, let’s see… Well, Baskin Robbins is having a discount today…
I’m sure you’re going to hear this speech sooner or later, either in the newspaper, on television, or over the radio: “Apakah itu maksud sebenar merdeka? Merdeka ertinya kebebasan daripada segala jenis jajahan atau taklukan dari semua segi sebagai negara yang berdaulat. Untuk menjadi merdeka dalam erti yang sepenuhnya, kita seharusnya bebas daripada TAKLUKAN MINDA KITA!”
Ok... So, in the spirit of merdeka, I went out and did this:
Inilah semangat jiwa merdeka!
“Who says we can’t go bald…
Who says it won’t grow back…” – Josh Bon Jovi.
What is there to celebrate about? Mix FM has been saying “Let’s celebrate our country that is free from wars and natural disasters.” Drop me a line in the comment box. And I’ll show you the wars that are waged everyday on Malaysian soil, and that a tsunami is not the only factor that disproves our immunity from “natural disasters.” Just leave your name and email address, and ask for an issue of Merdeka Special, Non-circulated Edition. I’ll be glad to oblige. Free of charge.
I was watching an international movie at Gurney Plaza last night. As I was driving home, the road was jammed with people coming out on bicycles and motorbikes, “celebrating” merdeka. I wonder if they’re really celebrating our country’s independence, or if they’re only making use of this opportunity to indulge in their catharsis. Maybe this why my annoyance is amplified at the whole merdeka thing.
I just seem to feel disgruntled every time this occasion comes around. What is there for me to celebrate? Oh, let’s see… Well, Baskin Robbins is having a discount today…
I’m sure you’re going to hear this speech sooner or later, either in the newspaper, on television, or over the radio: “Apakah itu maksud sebenar merdeka? Merdeka ertinya kebebasan daripada segala jenis jajahan atau taklukan dari semua segi sebagai negara yang berdaulat. Untuk menjadi merdeka dalam erti yang sepenuhnya, kita seharusnya bebas daripada TAKLUKAN MINDA KITA!”
Ok... So, in the spirit of merdeka, I went out and did this:
Inilah semangat jiwa merdeka!
“Who says we can’t go bald…
Who says it won’t grow back…” – Josh Bon Jovi.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
In A Jiffy
Live joyfully with the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life which He has given you under the sun, all your days of vanity; for that is your portion in life, and in the labour which you perform under the sun (Ecclesiastes 9:9).
There are two things that are in common in all of Adam Sandler’s movies. 1, they are usually no-brainers. 2, they have raunchy humour.
But I find Click exceptional. Yes, it still has raunchy humour. But it’s not a no-brainer. It’s quite a contemplative movie.
The character that Adam Sandler plays finds himself a universal remote control, with which he can replay, pause, skip chapters, or fast-forward his life. Therefore, he uses it to fast-forward away all the parts of his life that he doesn’t like.
I’m sure we can easily identify with all these things in life that we would rather do without: An argument with your wife. An uncomfortable situation with somebody that you wish you can get over with as quickly as possible. A traffic jam that you wish you can escape from. A chore that takes almost forever to complete. A family reunion dinner that you dread so much. A long, hard wait for a promotion. An illness that you wish would go away in an instant.
With the powers that came with the universal remote control, Adam Sandler fast-forwarded all of them away.
It’s nice to avoid an argument by just fast-forwarding it away. It’s splendid to get out of a traffic jam in a jiffy. It’s wonderful to get a never-ending chore done as fast as you can click on a remote control. It’s so relieving to be able to whiz past a family reunion that you do not look forward to.
But what happens in between all the time that has been fast-forwarded?
Just because he fast-forwarded parts of his life away doesn’t mean that those things never happened. In between all the time, he went into an “auto-pilot” mode. His body is there, doing things that he should be doing mechanically. But his mind isn’t there. It’s as though he is present in body, but absent in spirit. His auto-pilot being gets him through all those tedious times, while giving people the impression that he has been there through it all.
Cool, isn’t it? But what are the consequences of that?
His "auto-pilot being" has caused him to miss out on the important parts of life. His present-in-body-but-absent-in-mind behaviour made him lose his wife. He didn’t realize that his dog has died. His father passed away without him knowing. His children grew up without him even remembering having spent time with them. He grew old, grey and fat in just a few blinks of an eye.
How did he come to such a situation? It was because he kept fast-forwarding his life. He always wanted to get that big promotion. So, he fast-forwarded his life to get there in a matter of seconds. As a result, he actually traded years of his life for just a few seconds. He fast-forwarded through his illnesses too. He lost up to a decade, just because he didn’t want to live through a state of bad health.
In the end, his life was over even before he knew it.
A sobering thought, isn’t it? We often do that too without knowing it. We don’t have a universal remote control. But we “auto-pilot” ourselves through things that we do not like, hoping that they will be over as soon as possible. Sometimes, we auto-pilot ourselves through a couple of minutes. Sometimes, we auto-pilot ourselves through a couple of years. Going through the motions, going through the motions...
However, if we “auto-pilot” ourselves through life like that, we actually lose out on a lot of good things in life. The most important things usually come bundled together with long periods of bad spells. We often wish we can just fast-forward through the difficult parts of our lives. But if we do not live through them, we won’t be able to grow with them. We will miss the best parts of life. The parts that really matter.
Indeed, there is great wisdom in King Solomon’s words. Enjoy the portion of life that God has given to us. Don’t let our impatience rob us out of it.
It’s ok to die no matter how long or how short we have lived. But not if you don’t even remember living.
There are two things that are in common in all of Adam Sandler’s movies. 1, they are usually no-brainers. 2, they have raunchy humour.
But I find Click exceptional. Yes, it still has raunchy humour. But it’s not a no-brainer. It’s quite a contemplative movie.
The character that Adam Sandler plays finds himself a universal remote control, with which he can replay, pause, skip chapters, or fast-forward his life. Therefore, he uses it to fast-forward away all the parts of his life that he doesn’t like.
I’m sure we can easily identify with all these things in life that we would rather do without: An argument with your wife. An uncomfortable situation with somebody that you wish you can get over with as quickly as possible. A traffic jam that you wish you can escape from. A chore that takes almost forever to complete. A family reunion dinner that you dread so much. A long, hard wait for a promotion. An illness that you wish would go away in an instant.
With the powers that came with the universal remote control, Adam Sandler fast-forwarded all of them away.
It’s nice to avoid an argument by just fast-forwarding it away. It’s splendid to get out of a traffic jam in a jiffy. It’s wonderful to get a never-ending chore done as fast as you can click on a remote control. It’s so relieving to be able to whiz past a family reunion that you do not look forward to.
But what happens in between all the time that has been fast-forwarded?
Just because he fast-forwarded parts of his life away doesn’t mean that those things never happened. In between all the time, he went into an “auto-pilot” mode. His body is there, doing things that he should be doing mechanically. But his mind isn’t there. It’s as though he is present in body, but absent in spirit. His auto-pilot being gets him through all those tedious times, while giving people the impression that he has been there through it all.
Cool, isn’t it? But what are the consequences of that?
His "auto-pilot being" has caused him to miss out on the important parts of life. His present-in-body-but-absent-in-mind behaviour made him lose his wife. He didn’t realize that his dog has died. His father passed away without him knowing. His children grew up without him even remembering having spent time with them. He grew old, grey and fat in just a few blinks of an eye.
How did he come to such a situation? It was because he kept fast-forwarding his life. He always wanted to get that big promotion. So, he fast-forwarded his life to get there in a matter of seconds. As a result, he actually traded years of his life for just a few seconds. He fast-forwarded through his illnesses too. He lost up to a decade, just because he didn’t want to live through a state of bad health.
In the end, his life was over even before he knew it.
A sobering thought, isn’t it? We often do that too without knowing it. We don’t have a universal remote control. But we “auto-pilot” ourselves through things that we do not like, hoping that they will be over as soon as possible. Sometimes, we auto-pilot ourselves through a couple of minutes. Sometimes, we auto-pilot ourselves through a couple of years. Going through the motions, going through the motions...
However, if we “auto-pilot” ourselves through life like that, we actually lose out on a lot of good things in life. The most important things usually come bundled together with long periods of bad spells. We often wish we can just fast-forward through the difficult parts of our lives. But if we do not live through them, we won’t be able to grow with them. We will miss the best parts of life. The parts that really matter.
Indeed, there is great wisdom in King Solomon’s words. Enjoy the portion of life that God has given to us. Don’t let our impatience rob us out of it.
It’s ok to die no matter how long or how short we have lived. But not if you don’t even remember living.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Can Truth Be Censored?
Let my cry come before You, O Lord;
Give me understanding according to Your word (Psalms 119:169).
My thanks to Joshua “Kim” Johnson for making this entry possible.
I’ve always wanted to study theology. No, not just study it. My heart has always wanted to study it systematically, thoroughly, understandably, applicably, and wallet-friendlyly (if there is such a word). My answer came in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.
I’ve made it a point to try to read a chapter a week (note the empasis, try). If I can do that, I can finish the studying Systematic Theology in around a year.
I think I’m gonna like this book. It is meant for theology students, not theology teachers. It is written with a deliberate attempt to avoid using technical terms or Christian jargon. Its arguments and positions on every doctrine are presented clearly, eloquently, and in an easy-to-understand way. It can be comprehended by anyone who will at least bother to hear them out.
A very good friend of mine has expressed reservations against the author, citing that Wayne Grudem shares a Pentecostal belief on certain doctrines concerning healing and spiritual gifts. In fact, in the dedications page, Grudem acknowledged John Wimber – a very prominent person in Charismatic circles – as one of the 8 people whom God has sovereignly brought into his life.
So, does that mean we have to ban the book from our library? Do we have to throw away the baby along with the bathwater?
After reading the preface, I felt more approving of Grudem’s work. Instead of marking his treatment on Systematic Theology as a forbidden fruit, I think I’ll put it in the “favourites section” in my library (if I can ever have a proper one).
In the true interest learning, any form of authentic education cannot come through a prejudiced mindset. If we pick only the authors whom we fully agree with on every single aspect, aren’t we merely choosing to hear what our itching ears want to hear? If we toss an entire book out of the window just because we can find one, single position on a particular doctrine that we find objectionable or questionable, and scramble to look for another book that we can fully agree with, is that really called learning? Can any form of learning be possible in the presence of bias or prejudice? Can we learn anything at all if we’ve already pre-decided what we want to see or hear?
I think not.
I’m not saying that we should take in anything that false teachers have to say. I’m not encouraging the study of errant doctrines, just for the sake of learning, and try to make some sense out of it. What I’m saying is 2 things: 1, we must take great effort to seek reliable sources to learn from. And 2, when we find something that we do not fully agree with, let it be argued out. Every school of thought deserves a fair hearing, just as every man (guilty or innocent) deserves his day in court. Presuming that we are always right and shutting ourselves off to exploration is an attitude that is by best ignorant, and by worst, arrogant.
That is why I believe censorship may not always be the best way to attain genuinely mature growth. Truth is objective. If something is true, it will always be true. It will definitely stand the test of time, against fallible arguments, and against any faulty reasoning. We do not have to be defensive or fearful to put things that we hold dear to the test, if indeed our quest for truth is more important than our quest for comfortable acceptance. There is no expansion of knowledge in a disconnected pond, any more are there fish in a kitchen sink.
The pursuit of truth, as much as it needs human diligence and commitment, also needs humility. Fervent study will not find fruition if it is without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, let us be humble before the Lord. Let Him teach us. Let us learn not by the careless emptying our minds, but let’s learn with a non-inflated head firmly screwed on our shoulders while we study about Him.
Give me understanding according to Your word (Psalms 119:169).
My thanks to Joshua “Kim” Johnson for making this entry possible.
I’ve always wanted to study theology. No, not just study it. My heart has always wanted to study it systematically, thoroughly, understandably, applicably, and wallet-friendlyly (if there is such a word). My answer came in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.
I’ve made it a point to try to read a chapter a week (note the empasis, try). If I can do that, I can finish the studying Systematic Theology in around a year.
I think I’m gonna like this book. It is meant for theology students, not theology teachers. It is written with a deliberate attempt to avoid using technical terms or Christian jargon. Its arguments and positions on every doctrine are presented clearly, eloquently, and in an easy-to-understand way. It can be comprehended by anyone who will at least bother to hear them out.
A very good friend of mine has expressed reservations against the author, citing that Wayne Grudem shares a Pentecostal belief on certain doctrines concerning healing and spiritual gifts. In fact, in the dedications page, Grudem acknowledged John Wimber – a very prominent person in Charismatic circles – as one of the 8 people whom God has sovereignly brought into his life.
So, does that mean we have to ban the book from our library? Do we have to throw away the baby along with the bathwater?
After reading the preface, I felt more approving of Grudem’s work. Instead of marking his treatment on Systematic Theology as a forbidden fruit, I think I’ll put it in the “favourites section” in my library (if I can ever have a proper one).
In the true interest learning, any form of authentic education cannot come through a prejudiced mindset. If we pick only the authors whom we fully agree with on every single aspect, aren’t we merely choosing to hear what our itching ears want to hear? If we toss an entire book out of the window just because we can find one, single position on a particular doctrine that we find objectionable or questionable, and scramble to look for another book that we can fully agree with, is that really called learning? Can any form of learning be possible in the presence of bias or prejudice? Can we learn anything at all if we’ve already pre-decided what we want to see or hear?
I think not.
I’m not saying that we should take in anything that false teachers have to say. I’m not encouraging the study of errant doctrines, just for the sake of learning, and try to make some sense out of it. What I’m saying is 2 things: 1, we must take great effort to seek reliable sources to learn from. And 2, when we find something that we do not fully agree with, let it be argued out. Every school of thought deserves a fair hearing, just as every man (guilty or innocent) deserves his day in court. Presuming that we are always right and shutting ourselves off to exploration is an attitude that is by best ignorant, and by worst, arrogant.
That is why I believe censorship may not always be the best way to attain genuinely mature growth. Truth is objective. If something is true, it will always be true. It will definitely stand the test of time, against fallible arguments, and against any faulty reasoning. We do not have to be defensive or fearful to put things that we hold dear to the test, if indeed our quest for truth is more important than our quest for comfortable acceptance. There is no expansion of knowledge in a disconnected pond, any more are there fish in a kitchen sink.
The pursuit of truth, as much as it needs human diligence and commitment, also needs humility. Fervent study will not find fruition if it is without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, let us be humble before the Lord. Let Him teach us. Let us learn not by the careless emptying our minds, but let’s learn with a non-inflated head firmly screwed on our shoulders while we study about Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
