God's Immensity--Hopefully Humbling

In this God-minimizing day when man is the measure of all things, we must be jolted into reality by considering God's immensity. And since God is too little considered, I think it necessary to make this the focus of this morning's blog post. In fact, this very issue impresses my heart since the very air we breathe seems filled with the noxious fumes of man's self-exaltation. Man's very existence--from the American political machine to the Hollywood film industry exude blasphemy. Sadly, it seems, the church is not far behind. We know facts about our God, but of Him we seem sadly ignorant. I read Augustine's Confessions and find myself in there throughout, not the least of which is this entry early on in the book. Contrary to all self-imposed ignorance, God is simply immense--infinitely so--beyond comprehension, surpassing decription and trumping man's best arguments to the contrary. Read this and see if the mere consideration of God's uncontainable-ness make you feel rightfully small. That were a blessed exercise to fulfill such a role!  

Soli deo gloria.
 

CHAPTER III—EVERYWHERE GOD WHOLLY FILLETH ALL THINGS, BUT NEITHER HEAVEN NOR EARTH CONTAINETH HIM.

Do the heaven and earth then contain Thee, since Thou fillest them? or dost Thou fill them and yet overflow, since they do not contain Thee? And whither, when the heaven and the earth are filled, pourest Thou forth the remainder of Thyself? or hast Thou no need that aught contain Thee, who containest all things, since what Thou fillest Thou fillest by containing it? for the vessels which Thou fillest uphold Thee not, since, though they were broken, Thou wert not poured out. And when Thou art poured out on us, Thou art not cast down, but Thou upliftest us; Thou art not dissipated, but Thou gatherest us. But Thou who fillest all things, fillest Thou them with Thy whole self? or, since all things cannot contain Thee wholly, do they contain part of Thee? and all at once the same part? or each its own part, the greater more, the smaller less? And is, then one part of Thee greater, another less? or, art Thou wholly every where, while nothing contains Thee wholly? 

Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo and E. B. Pusey, The Confessions of St. Augustine (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

To Test A Missionary Candidate

There can be wisdom in the unorthodox. I have always loved the following illustration for its simplicity, thoroughness, and sagacity. It's not just about this young "candidate" is it? No, who among us cannot learn how to be more submissive? How difficult is it for us to deny ourselves. For those who've read this before, I hope it comes with a renewed interest. God humble us. 

At 3:00 A.M. one cold morning a missionary candidate walked into an office for a scheduled interview with the examiner of a mission board. He waited until 8:00 A.M. when the examiner arrived. 
 
 The examiner said, “Let us begin. First, please spell baker.”
 
 “B-a-k-e-r,” the young man spelled. 
 
 “Very good. Now, let’s see what you know about figures. How much is twice two?”
 
 “Four,” replied the applicant. 
 
 “Very good,” the examiner said. “I’ll recommend to the board tomorrow that you be appointed. You have passed the test.”
 
 At the board meeting the examiner spoke highly of the applicant and said, “He has all the qualifications of a missionary. Let me explain. 
 
 “First, I tested him on self-denial. I told him to be at my house at three in the morning. He left a warm bed and came out in the cold without a word of complaint. 
 
 “Second, I tried him out on punctuality. He appeared on time. 
 
 “Third, I examined him on patience. I made him wait five hours to see me, after telling him to come at three. 
 
 “Fourth, I tested him on temper. He failed to show any sign of it; he didn’t even question my delay. 
 
 “Fifth, I tried his humility. I asked him questions that a small child could answer, and he showed no offense. He meets the requirements and will make the missionary we need.”
—Selected


Paul Lee Tan, Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations: Signs of the Times (Garland, TX: Bible Communications, Inc., 1996).

Anyone Need a Rest?

As Summer comes to a close, and overcome by activities and responsibilities, we often fall to fretting that we cannot get out from under the load. Young mothers no doubt come to this quite easily as do managers in companies. Too much "stuff" comes at you to get done what needs getting done. Or, too little time is left for these poor souls to get alone with their Lord. (As you can see, I am speaking of the true Christian believer). So, what is to be done? Where is this "rest?" Rest is a beautiful thought. For thus said the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, “In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength.” (Isaiah 30:15) Rest can refer to the cessation of labor. True. But it is not just what you cease doing, but in what you plan to do in which rest finds its greatest virtue. Rest in Scripture often refers to actively being still in God's presence so that one can hear him and respond in kind. It is a peaceful place. Tranquil. Don't you love that word? Ah-h-h. The sighing of a heart at rest before God is the longing of the soul after God. And such will never fail to find peace. Listen to Thomas a Kempis:

WHEN a man desires a thing too much, he at once becomes ill at ease. A proud and avaricious man never rests, whereas he who is poor and humble of heart lives in a world of peace. An unmortified man is quickly tempted and overcome in small, trifling evils; his spirit is weak, in a measure carnal and inclined to sensual things; he can hardly abstain from earthly desires. Hence it makes him sad to forego them; he is quick to anger if reproved. Yet if he satisfies his desires, remorse of conscience overwhelms him because he followed his passions and they did not lead to the peace he sought.

True peace of heart, then, is found in resisting passions, not in satisfying them. There is no peace in the carnal man, in the man given to vain attractions, but there is peace in the fervent and spiritual man.

Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 11.

Mafia Forced to Preach?!

Man imagines that he is in control. When man is spiritually blind, he cannot "see" what is really going on in the spiritual realm. Just like Elisha's servant, many do not see that armies of heaven arrayed against the Syrians (2 Kings 6). But that doesn't stop God from carrying out his plans as He wills! Read this passage and see how many unwilling prophets there were. God turns man's plans right on their head.

20 Then Saul [Mafia "Don"] sent messengers [the hit-squad] to take David, and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. 21 When it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they also prophesied. 22 Then he himself went to Ramah and came to the great well that is in Secu. And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?” And one said, “Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah.” 23 And he went there to Naioth in Ramah. And the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. 24 And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night. Thus it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

Even King Saul, David's nemesis, did himself bow (unwillingly) under the power of the Spirit of God to prophesy, declaring praises to God and no doubt pronouncing self-condemning words along the way. My interest here is not to discuss how this is possible, or why God would do it this way. Rather, mentioning it simply surfaces a great reversal, an about-face for those who are in power and do not realize what kind of power they are up against!

This points out, how desperately wicked are men, who though forced to speak what is right, still choose not to believe it. It also points out how gracious God is who constrains men do what they ought to be willing to do, giving them, as it were, a second chance to come to their senses. Finally, such a story sheds light on the weakness of us sinners who could learn from their failure, turn to our Lord and find grace to help in time of need. Evermore, Lord, give us this truth, and a stomach to handle it with pleasure. 

Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies?

I appreciate this article for at least two reasons: 1) ironically, it refuses to be bullied by the opposition, and 2) it clarifies meanings and arguments so that the discussion works to a logical, and in Turek's case, biblical conclusion. It seems that this is increasingly rare these days. May God grant us wisdom to speak convincing words in these days! (See end of article for his address and TV show info)

By Frank Turek

8/26/2011

George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit—name-calling and bullying—will be unleashed.

I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldn’t answer he called me a “bigot.”

I asked, “What’s your definition of bigotry?”

He said, “Fear and intolerance.”

I said, “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not ‘bigotry.’ With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.”

He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?

Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. That’s why the state recognizes marriage to begin with—not because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.

Everyone also puts limits on behaviors. But opposing behavior is not the same as opposing or “hating” people. In fact, to really love people, we often have to oppose what they do! Parents know this, and all former children know it as well.

Celebrating behavior that leads to disease and an early death is closer to hate than love. According to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control, homosexual men comprise more than 80 percent of sexually transmitted HIV cases despite comprising less than 2 percent of the population. The FDA says that men who have sex with men have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general population. Why should we be encouraging behavior that results in such tragic outcomes? If I have good reason to think you are on the road to destruction—if a truck is about to run over you—the only way to love you is to urge you to get out of the street. If I tell you to keep walking down that road—that I celebrate the road you’re on—how could I hate you more?

But isn’t homosexuality like race? No. Race has nothing to do with behavior, but homosexuality is a behavior! Skin color affects no one, but destructive behavior affects many. Moreover, sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African-American.

So if you don’t approve of a man because of his race, you are a bigot. But if you don’t approve of a man’s destructive behavior, you are wise.

The “born that way” argument doesn’t work either. Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” non-existent, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws.

First, after many years of intense research, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a homosexual “gene” be passed on? Homosexuals don’t pass on anything because homosexual unions don’t reproduce.

Second, while desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is. So regardless of the source of sexual desires, people are certainly capable of controlling their sexual behavior. If you claim that they are not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and pedophilia.

Third, the “born-that-way” claim is an argument from design— “since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them.” But the people who say this overlook something far more obvious and important— they were also born with a specific anatomy. We can’t know if our desires are inborn since we can’t remember anything from birth, but we are 100 percent certain that we were born with our anatomy. So why do homosexual activists choose to follow their desires rather than their anatomy? Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal.

Fourth, being born a certain way is irrelevant to what the law should be. Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires, and we all have desires we ought not act on. In fact, all of us were born with an “orientation” to bad behavior, but those desires don’t justify the behaviors. If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean you should be an alcoholic? If you have a genetic attraction to children does that mean you should be a pedophile? What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies gay-bashing? (Don’t blame me—I was born with the anti-gay gene!) Certainly, those that oppose alcoholism, pedophilia and gay bashing are not “bigots”—they are wise.

The bottom line is that the standard arguments for homosexuality and same-sex marriage don’t work. That’s why some homosexual activists will continue to smear conservatives as “bigots” in order to bully them out of the debate and even out of their jobs. In America today, it’s much easier to win with demagoguery than evidence. If you convince the majority that your opponents are “bigots,” then you automatically win even if you’re the bully actually practicing bigotry (read the bigotry and bullying by homosexual activists of conservative but suspended “Teacher of the Year,” Jerry Buell, here, and my own case here).

Will they get away with their bigotry and bullying? Not if Americans start thinking. Thinking people realize that equating homosexuality with race, though presently fashionable, is just as fallacious as calling marriage based in biology a form of bigotry. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

Frank Turek

Frank Turek is the award-winning author or coauthor of three books including Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone and I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. His TV show airs Wednesday nights at 9 pm and 1 am ET on DirecTV, Channel 378. To learn more visit www.CrossExamined.org.

Enjoy Jesus with All Your Senses

I love the subject of faith. I really love it when faith is compared to or explained with our senses. "Taste and see that the Lord is good" hits home with all those who love biting into a delicious, well-grilled steak! Such comparisons open our eyes to truths that might otherwise be lost in abstraction. So, it is with joy that I send forth this very good word from Charles Spurgeon. Read it slowly, thoughtfully. It will reward you richly.
 

“His fruit was sweet to my taste.”— Song of Solomon 2:3

Faith, in the Scripture, is spoken of under the emblem of all the senses. It is sight: “Look unto me and be ye saved.” It is hearing: “Hear, and your soul shall live.” Faith is smelling: “All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia”; “thy name is as ointment poured forth.” Faith is spiritual touch. By this faith the woman came behind and touched the hem of Christ’s garment, and by this we handle the things of the good word of life. Faith is equally the spirit’s taste. “How sweet are thy words to my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my lips.” “Except a man eat my flesh,” saith Christ, “and drink my blood, there is no life in him.”

This “taste” is faith in one of its highest operations. One of the first performances of faith is hearing. We hear the voice of God, not with the outward ear alone, but with the inward ear; we hear it as God’s Word, and we believe it to be so; that is the “hearing” of faith. Then our mind looketh upon the truth as it is presented to us; that is to say, we understand it, we perceive its meaning; that is the “seeing” of faith. Next we discover its preciousness; we begin to admire it, and find how fragrant it is; that is faith in its “smell.” Then we appropriate the mercies which are prepared for us in Christ; that is faith in its “touch.” Hence follow the enjoyments, peace, delight, communion; which are faith in its “taste.” Any one of these acts of faith is saving. To hear Christ’s voice as the sure voice of God in the soul will save us; but that which gives true enjoyment is the aspect of faith wherein Christ, by holy taste, is received into us, and made, by inward and spiritual apprehension of his sweetness and preciousness, to be the food of our souls. It is then we sit “under his shadow with great delight,” and find his fruit sweet to our taste.

Free of Worry?

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote:

'Take no thought for the morrow,' means 'Do not be guilty of anxious thoughts about the morrow'. It does not mean that you do not take any thought at all, otherwise the farmer would not plough and harrow and sow. He is looking to the future, but he does not spend the whole of his time wondering and worrying about the end results of his work. No, he takes reasonable thought and then he leaves it.

Here again the whole question is where to draw the line. Thinking is right up to a point, but if you go beyond that point it becomes worry and anxiety and it paralyzes and cripples. In other words, although it is very right to think about the future, it is very wrong to be controlled by it.

The difficulty with people who are prey to these fears is that they are controlled by the future, they are dominated by thoughts of it, and there they are wringing their hands, doing nothing, depressed by fears about it. In fact, they are completely governed and mastered by the unknown future, and that is always wrong. To take thought is right, but to be controlled by the future is all wrong.

Spiritual Depression, 98.