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.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
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.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
When Love is Wrong
Often I have heard: "it is never wrong to love." Perhaps it is this thought that is most influential in making us see things in much more than fifty shades of gray in an otherwise colorful world. A man loving another man; a deprived wife finding satisfaction from another's husband; a free man living life as he wants; a desperate woman clinging to another; a rich man hungry for power; a poor man working for his family; we can see at least seven billion more varieties and nuances of love being justified by that one, globally accepted postulate: "it is never wrong to love."
To this I say: no. In fact, the love we see now is almost always wrong. I could go on with details and perhaps list cases and judge whether each case is right or wrong, because love can be wrong depending on the kind of love, manifestation, object of love, and timing etc. etc. But I think it more fruitful to lay down the one and only time that love is right.
Right and wrong is a controversial issue, and it would be best if we talked about this separately some other time. For now, rest in the fact that God is good. If you don't agree with this then I have nothing else to tell you. You can skip this now and move on with your life - I am serious. Now if you think it right then I will continue. By "God is good." I do not mean that there is some standard of good to which God is measured against. I mean that God is good, and good is God, and that He is goodness Himself, and that He is the standard by which good is measured. This kind of morality has no doubt been abandoned in this age, and I see this as the primary cause of the modern moral mayhem. I will try to convince you of this in some other note (only God can convince you).
Back to the main topic. Love, in all its forms, is only right when it is in God. This is the first and greatest commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, all your soul, and with all your strength." One need not be concerned whether the kind of love exhibited is appropriate because God demands all our love; or whether the object of love is appropriate because the object is first and foremost and solely God-who-is-good.
Also, because God demands all our love, and that disobedience to God-who-is-good is sin, we can therefore say that sin is but misplaced love. An obsessive love for money, power, objects (even fries and bacon), a country, an ideal, even for people: countrymen, students, the self, or any other - yes even family. I tell you the truth, "everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." Any love that does not spring from the love of God is sin. Remember, the Lord our God is a jealous God. No man can serve two masters.
You may say, "if God is to have all love, then what about humans? What about the world? How can I love them then? This teaching is black and white; I cannot accept it." The key lies in the second greatest commandment: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." Humanists would call this the first, but The Christ calls it second. And obviously, He calls it second because the first should take precedence. This brings us back to the question, "if I love God with all of me, then how do I love my neighbor, or how do I love her, or anyone else for that matter?"
Listen to the Christ: "If you love me, you will obey my commands." We can then see clearly from the first and second commandments that love of God overflows to others. Love of God, or love for God means loving people the way He loves. It does not consume; it is a spring from which life flows. This is what I mean by love that is in God: it is an overflow from the infinite love of God. And so it is alright for a man to love another man, or a woman to love another woman, or a poor man to love his family - as long as that love is in the love of God.
You would be right to notice that this context changes everything entirely: the type, manifestation, and timing of love, etc. would be only what is appropriate in God's sight. Now while that may sound boring to someone who has never tried it, let me at least describe to you a little of this great love that overflows. To love God-who-is-good is to see a colorful world: to be content and happy in wealth and in poverty, to enjoy His creation of birds and trees, to love your wife as Christ gave His life, to abhor wickedness yet love your enemies, and to persevere in trial then encourage with a smile.
I am aware that talking about love is probably not the best way to explain it. How can I possibly show you in black text the wonderful colors of the world as seen in Eternity's Light? If I describe to you a rainbow in an imagery that not even Orpheus can utter, it would do you little good unless you have seen a rainbow. I can describe my feelings when I see the color red, but to a colorblind I cannot describe the color. In my dreams I have seen a new color (at least I think so), but I cannot share the experience with anyone at all. I am no Orpheus, and I cannot possibly describe all the various hues and shades of a life in the love of God; with every new tint I see, it seems a hundred more is to be discovered (nothing less should be expected of an infinite God). If you were with me maybe I could minister to you and let you see a glint of Eternity's Light. But that is the best I can do. It would be better to see and experience for oneself. The Word of God lives and He can convince you of this: "It is never wrong to love, when love is in God."
To this I say: no. In fact, the love we see now is almost always wrong. I could go on with details and perhaps list cases and judge whether each case is right or wrong, because love can be wrong depending on the kind of love, manifestation, object of love, and timing etc. etc. But I think it more fruitful to lay down the one and only time that love is right.
Right and wrong is a controversial issue, and it would be best if we talked about this separately some other time. For now, rest in the fact that God is good. If you don't agree with this then I have nothing else to tell you. You can skip this now and move on with your life - I am serious. Now if you think it right then I will continue. By "God is good." I do not mean that there is some standard of good to which God is measured against. I mean that God is good, and good is God, and that He is goodness Himself, and that He is the standard by which good is measured. This kind of morality has no doubt been abandoned in this age, and I see this as the primary cause of the modern moral mayhem. I will try to convince you of this in some other note (only God can convince you).
Back to the main topic. Love, in all its forms, is only right when it is in God. This is the first and greatest commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, all your soul, and with all your strength." One need not be concerned whether the kind of love exhibited is appropriate because God demands all our love; or whether the object of love is appropriate because the object is first and foremost and solely God-who-is-good.
Also, because God demands all our love, and that disobedience to God-who-is-good is sin, we can therefore say that sin is but misplaced love. An obsessive love for money, power, objects (even fries and bacon), a country, an ideal, even for people: countrymen, students, the self, or any other - yes even family. I tell you the truth, "everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." Any love that does not spring from the love of God is sin. Remember, the Lord our God is a jealous God. No man can serve two masters.
You may say, "if God is to have all love, then what about humans? What about the world? How can I love them then? This teaching is black and white; I cannot accept it." The key lies in the second greatest commandment: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." Humanists would call this the first, but The Christ calls it second. And obviously, He calls it second because the first should take precedence. This brings us back to the question, "if I love God with all of me, then how do I love my neighbor, or how do I love her, or anyone else for that matter?"
Listen to the Christ: "If you love me, you will obey my commands." We can then see clearly from the first and second commandments that love of God overflows to others. Love of God, or love for God means loving people the way He loves. It does not consume; it is a spring from which life flows. This is what I mean by love that is in God: it is an overflow from the infinite love of God. And so it is alright for a man to love another man, or a woman to love another woman, or a poor man to love his family - as long as that love is in the love of God.
You would be right to notice that this context changes everything entirely: the type, manifestation, and timing of love, etc. would be only what is appropriate in God's sight. Now while that may sound boring to someone who has never tried it, let me at least describe to you a little of this great love that overflows. To love God-who-is-good is to see a colorful world: to be content and happy in wealth and in poverty, to enjoy His creation of birds and trees, to love your wife as Christ gave His life, to abhor wickedness yet love your enemies, and to persevere in trial then encourage with a smile.
I am aware that talking about love is probably not the best way to explain it. How can I possibly show you in black text the wonderful colors of the world as seen in Eternity's Light? If I describe to you a rainbow in an imagery that not even Orpheus can utter, it would do you little good unless you have seen a rainbow. I can describe my feelings when I see the color red, but to a colorblind I cannot describe the color. In my dreams I have seen a new color (at least I think so), but I cannot share the experience with anyone at all. I am no Orpheus, and I cannot possibly describe all the various hues and shades of a life in the love of God; with every new tint I see, it seems a hundred more is to be discovered (nothing less should be expected of an infinite God). If you were with me maybe I could minister to you and let you see a glint of Eternity's Light. But that is the best I can do. It would be better to see and experience for oneself. The Word of God lives and He can convince you of this: "It is never wrong to love, when love is in God."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)