Weirdly enough, this note was not in the list or even in my activity log. I was pretty sure I posted it, though. I remember rechecking this a few days ago. Anyway, reposting it with some addiitions for keep's sake.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate it if you kept to yourself your “keep it to yourself.” Frankly, you are a hypocrite. Don’t impose on others, you say. But am I wrong to say that you are imposing on me? You impose on me your belief that I shouldn’t impose on others.
But you see, there is no such thing as neutral. Those “neutral” things you love to hear and say – music, and all those inspirational quotes – all of them show who you are and what you believe in. Every word you say, every advice you give, every little thing you do signifies who you are.
If talk enthusiastically about plants it shows how much I like plants, and if I don’t talk enthusiastically about dogs it shows how much I don’t like dogs. Should I then hide who I am and not talk about God? I’d be a selfish fool to do that!
If I discovered unlimited bread that won’t make you go hungry, will I keep it to myself? If I found unlimited water that won’t make me go thirsty, will I keep it to myself? Is it right to keep what is not mine? Will I not tell my sweetheart, “come and eat!”? Yes, I will lead her to that spring of water. How much more then should I tell everyone how good my God is!
So you who tell me “keep it to yourself,” and not only avoid talking about religion but even impede others from doing so are not being neutral at all. You can dish out moral advices agreeing with our Bible; but if you leave out God it’s not quite the same at all, because to us, Christ makes all the difference.
If it is torturous to you to listen to us, don’t you think it also torturous to us to listen to godless advices? Yet no one says to secularism, “stop, I don’t want to hear you any longer.” People like to listen to what they want to hear, and that’s exactly why we both need to listen to what we don’t want to hear.
Keep yours to yourself, but I won’t. You may believe me, and you may not. But I won’t stop sharing this joy that I have. I’d be a selfish fool to do that.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
To Saints and Sinners
I pray that this may never happen to you too – falling to the pits of hell – but I feel it necessary to write to you about this, not only for your benefit but for mine as well.
Should you forget what is written here, I want you to remember at least this word: Grace. By “grace” I do not mean the elegant gait by which my beloved allures me with no effort at all, nor do I mean it to be that charming smile when she glances sideways while the wind blows gently on her soft hair. No, this “grace” I talk about is far more beautiful than that, to say the least.
But to most Christians, this grace is mundanely defined as “undeserved favour.” This is mainly due to the pervading thought that grace is for the salvation of sinners, to save some random professor (from the root word profess, not the teacher in school) from hell as long as he says “I accept you Jesus.” While there is a little truth to this claim, I do not want you to think that way too.
But if you’ve fallen at least as far as I have, it will hardly ever cross your mind. In the beginning most of us would enjoy a joyful and fruitful period, when the flame of the Spirit still burns strong within us. May the Lord be gracious enough to you that this flame would never die out, but there are those of us have put out the flame within until the heart is ice cold with sin. There are those of us who have received the seed but which eventually got choked with the weeds of pleasure. There are those of us who have returned home only to journey back to that distant country. There are those of us who have been forgiven but sinned again wilfully, not once, not thrice, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
Yet the dear Savior says to Peter, “I tell you, [forgive] not seven times, but seventy-seven times.” If Peter is to forgive seventy-seven times, how much more will Christ forgive us - us, whom He died for? And if He died for us, did He not rise again for us also? Even now the marks on His hands cry out to the Father: “Forgiven!” All our sins, “Forgiven!” This is grace: “Forgiven!” We who have tested God’s patience to the limits have found that there are none. The saying is true; when sin, abounds grace abounds all the more.
But I do not want you to fall into sin just to know this grace. Do not say that us who have sinned much are better off than you who followed the path. We are not like those wolves that coat their words with false humility, but really take pride in their “conversion.” We do not glorify sinners. We do not brag of our sins, but of the grace that God has given. In other words, we cannot brag at all. For in the kingdom, whoever wants to be great must be a servant; yet who is the Servant that is least of all? In the same way, you who are holy cannot brag also. It is the same God who works in us, and the same grace that abounds not only to save us but to bring us to perfection until the day of Christ Jesus. So do not seek to know grace through sin. Was not the Christ sinless? Yet the fullness of God’s grace dwells in Him. “Forgiven!” that is grace; but “Holiness!” that is also grace – and a much better one in my opinion. Again in the kingdom, whoever practices and teaches the law will be called great; and who is the Teacher and the Fulfilment of the Law?
So in the end, it is Christ who is great. In the end, we are both His servants. In the end, we are both His friends. So to you who have not fallen yet (and I pray never, by the Lord’s grace), and to us who are being saved, keep your eyes on Christ, the Grace of God, for our forgiveness and perfection.
Should you forget what is written here, I want you to remember at least this word: Grace. By “grace” I do not mean the elegant gait by which my beloved allures me with no effort at all, nor do I mean it to be that charming smile when she glances sideways while the wind blows gently on her soft hair. No, this “grace” I talk about is far more beautiful than that, to say the least.
But to most Christians, this grace is mundanely defined as “undeserved favour.” This is mainly due to the pervading thought that grace is for the salvation of sinners, to save some random professor (from the root word profess, not the teacher in school) from hell as long as he says “I accept you Jesus.” While there is a little truth to this claim, I do not want you to think that way too.
But if you’ve fallen at least as far as I have, it will hardly ever cross your mind. In the beginning most of us would enjoy a joyful and fruitful period, when the flame of the Spirit still burns strong within us. May the Lord be gracious enough to you that this flame would never die out, but there are those of us have put out the flame within until the heart is ice cold with sin. There are those of us who have received the seed but which eventually got choked with the weeds of pleasure. There are those of us who have returned home only to journey back to that distant country. There are those of us who have been forgiven but sinned again wilfully, not once, not thrice, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
Yet the dear Savior says to Peter, “I tell you, [forgive] not seven times, but seventy-seven times.” If Peter is to forgive seventy-seven times, how much more will Christ forgive us - us, whom He died for? And if He died for us, did He not rise again for us also? Even now the marks on His hands cry out to the Father: “Forgiven!” All our sins, “Forgiven!” This is grace: “Forgiven!” We who have tested God’s patience to the limits have found that there are none. The saying is true; when sin, abounds grace abounds all the more.
But I do not want you to fall into sin just to know this grace. Do not say that us who have sinned much are better off than you who followed the path. We are not like those wolves that coat their words with false humility, but really take pride in their “conversion.” We do not glorify sinners. We do not brag of our sins, but of the grace that God has given. In other words, we cannot brag at all. For in the kingdom, whoever wants to be great must be a servant; yet who is the Servant that is least of all? In the same way, you who are holy cannot brag also. It is the same God who works in us, and the same grace that abounds not only to save us but to bring us to perfection until the day of Christ Jesus. So do not seek to know grace through sin. Was not the Christ sinless? Yet the fullness of God’s grace dwells in Him. “Forgiven!” that is grace; but “Holiness!” that is also grace – and a much better one in my opinion. Again in the kingdom, whoever practices and teaches the law will be called great; and who is the Teacher and the Fulfilment of the Law?
So in the end, it is Christ who is great. In the end, we are both His servants. In the end, we are both His friends. So to you who have not fallen yet (and I pray never, by the Lord’s grace), and to us who are being saved, keep your eyes on Christ, the Grace of God, for our forgiveness and perfection.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Unforgivable
I knew; He told me.
He chose me even.
I saw the miracles-
No, I performed them.
I drove out devils,
healed the sick,
Yet this evil
I can't resist.
He knew; He told me.
Again and again, He told me.
That I am a devil.
Only Him and no one else
No one saw that I fell
The others trusted me
Even with their money.
He knew; I knew.
He gave me the morsel,
But not the wine.
To give me over to the Devil
And to the devil that I am.
And so He said,
"What you are about to do, do quickly."
This is my destiny,
The hell that God allotted me.
To betray Him and fulfil His duty
What can I do against the Almighty?
I knew.
I am the sinner he could not save,
The devil he could not drive away
The one he guarded but was lost
The one he lost on purpose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Judas had not killed himself, if he saw the resurrected Christ, would he have been saved? He was not much different from the other eleven. He was a thief, yes, but didn't Christ came to save the lost? Didn't even Peter deny the Christ?
The graces of of God were upon him. He was entrusted with the silver, a miracle worker, one of the twelve. Christ knew he would betray him, but He let him follow still. He let him kiss Him. God loved Judas.
But Judas did not have faith. He was a thief, yes, but that never changed. He never followed Christ; he was following the money. But more than that, he chose the money. He chose money over the Christ, and that made him no ordinary thief.
Judas was chosen to betray, but so was Christ chosen before the foundation of the world. Yet He says, "I lay it down of my own accord." And so Judas betrayed Him also of his own accord.
True, he regretted his betrayal. Did he regret that he sold out the Christ? Or did he regret that he sold Him for only 30 pieces of silver? But regardless, that regret did not lead to repentance. It did not lead to faith. He might have thought he was unforgivable. Yet neither suicide nor betrayal is the unforgivable sin - it is faithlessness. He heard and saw and felt how deep Christ's compassion was for the poor and for the sinners, but he rejected it. He'd rather die.
Judas would have been saved if only he believed, "for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
He chose me even.
I saw the miracles-
No, I performed them.
I drove out devils,
healed the sick,
Yet this evil
I can't resist.
He knew; He told me.
Again and again, He told me.
That I am a devil.
Only Him and no one else
No one saw that I fell
The others trusted me
Even with their money.
He knew; I knew.
He gave me the morsel,
But not the wine.
To give me over to the Devil
And to the devil that I am.
And so He said,
"What you are about to do, do quickly."
This is my destiny,
The hell that God allotted me.
To betray Him and fulfil His duty
What can I do against the Almighty?
I knew.
I am the sinner he could not save,
The devil he could not drive away
The one he guarded but was lost
The one he lost on purpose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Judas had not killed himself, if he saw the resurrected Christ, would he have been saved? He was not much different from the other eleven. He was a thief, yes, but didn't Christ came to save the lost? Didn't even Peter deny the Christ?
The graces of of God were upon him. He was entrusted with the silver, a miracle worker, one of the twelve. Christ knew he would betray him, but He let him follow still. He let him kiss Him. God loved Judas.
But Judas did not have faith. He was a thief, yes, but that never changed. He never followed Christ; he was following the money. But more than that, he chose the money. He chose money over the Christ, and that made him no ordinary thief.
Judas was chosen to betray, but so was Christ chosen before the foundation of the world. Yet He says, "I lay it down of my own accord." And so Judas betrayed Him also of his own accord.
True, he regretted his betrayal. Did he regret that he sold out the Christ? Or did he regret that he sold Him for only 30 pieces of silver? But regardless, that regret did not lead to repentance. It did not lead to faith. He might have thought he was unforgivable. Yet neither suicide nor betrayal is the unforgivable sin - it is faithlessness. He heard and saw and felt how deep Christ's compassion was for the poor and for the sinners, but he rejected it. He'd rather die.
Judas would have been saved if only he believed, "for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
The Problem of Morality
I remember telling you some weeks ago that I would like to talk to you about the subject of morality. As promised, here it is.
No doubt this topic has been a field of great debate and interest amongst philosophers, but with the rise of relativism the common reply now is “to each his own:” some holding it as a genuine belief while others as a way to dodge the problem.
This problem of morality seems so simple and universal that the questions “what is good?” and “what is evil?” are usually assumed to be fundamental. But the problem is far from being such. Morality and ethics are in fact a product of a set of beliefs. And like other beliefs and theories, the correctness of a moral belief depends on the veracity of its postulates.
The first of these postulates is God’s existence and character. If God does not exist then the great philosophers would be most likely be right (or at least, more right). But if He exists, then the postulate holds true and anything otherwise is false. And so I will not dwell with the thoughts of the great philosophers – that is to say, their postulates are different than mine. I believe that God exists, that He is good, and that He is sovereign.
So to proceed: “what is good?” As I have written in my previous note to you, God is good and God is goodness. He is infinite and perfect not only in holiness and righteousness, but also in kindness and benevolence. But I suppose it will not be of much use to venture farther; this topic has been expounded on already by many a preacher (perhaps my favourite is from A.W. Tozer). I doubt I could add any substantial value to what has already been written, in Scripture and in other books. So I think it best to refer you now to others of greater knowledge in the graces of Christ.
As a side note, I find many people against the morality of the God of the Bible (and against the Bible in general), especially in the Old Testament. So don’t get started on religious laws and wars and genocides if you have not care to read about what others have already said about it (not that other people are right, satisfactory, or even logical; if you want we can talk about this too). And I doubt many of them have actually read the Scripture they pertain to, much less understand it. A crash course in reading Scripture would greatly help. ("Knowing Scripture" by R.C. Sproul is a good start. I can let you borrow my copy if you want)
With all these sidetracks, I have to reiterate: the problem of morality is dependent on the problem of God’s existence. It would be good for us to stop at this point and proceed to that more fundamental question.
No doubt this topic has been a field of great debate and interest amongst philosophers, but with the rise of relativism the common reply now is “to each his own:” some holding it as a genuine belief while others as a way to dodge the problem.
This problem of morality seems so simple and universal that the questions “what is good?” and “what is evil?” are usually assumed to be fundamental. But the problem is far from being such. Morality and ethics are in fact a product of a set of beliefs. And like other beliefs and theories, the correctness of a moral belief depends on the veracity of its postulates.
The first of these postulates is God’s existence and character. If God does not exist then the great philosophers would be most likely be right (or at least, more right). But if He exists, then the postulate holds true and anything otherwise is false. And so I will not dwell with the thoughts of the great philosophers – that is to say, their postulates are different than mine. I believe that God exists, that He is good, and that He is sovereign.
So to proceed: “what is good?” As I have written in my previous note to you, God is good and God is goodness. He is infinite and perfect not only in holiness and righteousness, but also in kindness and benevolence. But I suppose it will not be of much use to venture farther; this topic has been expounded on already by many a preacher (perhaps my favourite is from A.W. Tozer). I doubt I could add any substantial value to what has already been written, in Scripture and in other books. So I think it best to refer you now to others of greater knowledge in the graces of Christ.
As a side note, I find many people against the morality of the God of the Bible (and against the Bible in general), especially in the Old Testament. So don’t get started on religious laws and wars and genocides if you have not care to read about what others have already said about it (not that other people are right, satisfactory, or even logical; if you want we can talk about this too). And I doubt many of them have actually read the Scripture they pertain to, much less understand it. A crash course in reading Scripture would greatly help. ("Knowing Scripture" by R.C. Sproul is a good start. I can let you borrow my copy if you want)
With all these sidetracks, I have to reiterate: the problem of morality is dependent on the problem of God’s existence. It would be good for us to stop at this point and proceed to that more fundamental question.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
August 10 2014 Sunday
Today I am uneasy.
Bro. R preached about woman leadership. There was blatant emphasis on submission and male leadership. While I agree that there is such a thing as order in the household, to extend that to the workplace is unwarranted.
Furthermore, it was assumed (or rather, unclarified) that the biblical idea of 'male leadership' is the same as the dominating leadership that was passed down way back from the patriarchal eras. But in the kingdom of God, leadership is service, not the distorted idea of instutional leadership in the modern church.
I maintain that the role of the woman is to help the man, as Adam was to be helped by Eve. This 'helping' does not necessarily mean to leave all the housework to the woman, though that is an example. Eve was to help Adam in his work for the Lord, not to help him to a sandwich. I think that the church has a largely biased view on what 'helping' could mean.
A proper reading of scripture gives a high regard for women. I would someday like to go through all of those passages, but I do not have the research capabilities now.
On another note, I was supposed to meet M, but she's not replying. The thing is this meeting looks so much like a date that my parents are sure to ask annoying questions (see my brother's text?). Even if she doesn't show up (which is currently the most likely thing to happen), the result would be the same. Not that I care about what they think; it's just plain annoying.
Bro. R preached about woman leadership. There was blatant emphasis on submission and male leadership. While I agree that there is such a thing as order in the household, to extend that to the workplace is unwarranted.
Furthermore, it was assumed (or rather, unclarified) that the biblical idea of 'male leadership' is the same as the dominating leadership that was passed down way back from the patriarchal eras. But in the kingdom of God, leadership is service, not the distorted idea of instutional leadership in the modern church.
I maintain that the role of the woman is to help the man, as Adam was to be helped by Eve. This 'helping' does not necessarily mean to leave all the housework to the woman, though that is an example. Eve was to help Adam in his work for the Lord, not to help him to a sandwich. I think that the church has a largely biased view on what 'helping' could mean.
A proper reading of scripture gives a high regard for women. I would someday like to go through all of those passages, but I do not have the research capabilities now.
On another note, I was supposed to meet M, but she's not replying. The thing is this meeting looks so much like a date that my parents are sure to ask annoying questions (see my brother's text?). Even if she doesn't show up (which is currently the most likely thing to happen), the result would be the same. Not that I care about what they think; it's just plain annoying.
August 10 2014 Sunday
Today I am uneasy.
Bro. R preached about woman leadership. There was blatant emphasis on submission and male leadership. While I agree that there is such a thing as order in the household, to extend that to the workplace is unwarranted.
Furthermore, it was assumed (or rather, unclarified) that the biblical idea of 'male leadership' is the same as the dominating leadership that was passed down way back from the patriarchal eras. But in the kingdom of God, leadership is service, not the distorted idea of instutional leadership in the modern church.
I maintain that the role of the woman is to help the man, as Adam was to be helped by Eve. This 'helping' does not necessarily mean to leave all the housework to the woman, though that is an example. Eve was to help Adam in his work for the Lord, not to help him to a sandwich. I think that the church has a largely biased view on what 'helping' could mean.
A proper reading of scripture gives a high regard for women. I would someday like to go through all of those passages, but I do not have the research capabilities now.
On another note, I was supposed to meet M, but she's not replying. The thing is this meeting looks so much like a date that my parents are sure to ask annoying questions (see my brother's text?). Even if she doesn't show up (which is currently the most likely thing to happen), the result would be the same. Not that I care about what they think; it's just plain annoying.
Bro. R preached about woman leadership. There was blatant emphasis on submission and male leadership. While I agree that there is such a thing as order in the household, to extend that to the workplace is unwarranted.
Furthermore, it was assumed (or rather, unclarified) that the biblical idea of 'male leadership' is the same as the dominating leadership that was passed down way back from the patriarchal eras. But in the kingdom of God, leadership is service, not the distorted idea of instutional leadership in the modern church.
I maintain that the role of the woman is to help the man, as Adam was to be helped by Eve. This 'helping' does not necessarily mean to leave all the housework to the woman, though that is an example. Eve was to help Adam in his work for the Lord, not to help him to a sandwich. I think that the church has a largely biased view on what 'helping' could mean.
A proper reading of scripture gives a high regard for women. I would someday like to go through all of those passages, but I do not have the research capabilities now.
On another note, I was supposed to meet M, but she's not replying. The thing is this meeting looks so much like a date that my parents are sure to ask annoying questions (see my brother's text?). Even if she doesn't show up (which is currently the most likely thing to happen), the result would be the same. Not that I care about what they think; it's just plain annoying.
Friday, August 8, 2014
August 8 2014 Friday
It's been so long since I last wrote here. As usual, I'd skip the other days and write only about today.
Today is the second day of class. It is very unprofitable. There were no classes at all except for ChE 182.
I really enjoyed it though. Ma'am H (I almost forgot, I don't namedrop) surpasses her reputation. She has a cool voice, a good pace (rather fast for my pen but just enough for my mind), clear examples, even perfect pronunciation (grammar OC too). I'm looking forward to this semester.
Today is the second day of class. It is very unprofitable. There were no classes at all except for ChE 182.
I really enjoyed it though. Ma'am H (I almost forgot, I don't namedrop) surpasses her reputation. She has a cool voice, a good pace (rather fast for my pen but just enough for my mind), clear examples, even perfect pronunciation (grammar OC too). I'm looking forward to this semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)