Papal Encyclical Explores Divine, Human Love

On 25 Jan 2006 , Pope Benedict XVI issued his first Papal encyclical Deus Caritas Est ("God is love"). Below are some points which I think both evangelicals & Catholics agree upon. These are the points which I think the church most lack!

Here are some insightful points from the encyclical:

"God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny.

Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might” (6:4-5). Jesus united into a single precept this commandment of love for God and the commandment of love for neighbour found in the Book of Leviticus: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (19:18; cf. Mk 12:29-31). Since God has first loved us (cf. 1 Jn 4:10), love is now no longer a mere “command”; it is the response to the gift of love with which God draws near to us.

Love of God and love of neighbour
16. ... ... can we love God without seeing him? And can love be commanded? Against the double commandment of love these questions raise a double objection. No one has ever seen God, so how could we love him? Moreover, love cannot be commanded; it is ultimately a feeling that is either there or not, nor can it be produced by the will. Scripture seems to reinforce the first objection when it states: “If anyone says, ‘I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 Jn 4:20). But this text hardly excludes the love of God as something impossible. On the contrary, the whole context of the passage quoted from the First Letter of John shows that such love is explicitly demanded. The unbreakable bond between love of God and love of neighbour is emphasized. One is so closely connected to the other that to say that we love God becomes a lie if we are closed to our neighbour or hate him altogether. Saint John's words should rather be interpreted to mean that love of neighbour is a path that leads to the encounter with God, and that closing our eyes to our neighbour also blinds us to God.

17. True, no one has ever seen God as he is. And yet God is not totally invisible to us; he does not remain completely inaccessible. God loved us first, says the Letter of John quoted above (cf. 4:10), and this love of God has appeared in our midst. He has become visible in as much as he “has sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him” (1 Jn 4:9). God has made himself visible: in Jesus we are able to see the Father (cf. Jn 14:9). Indeed, God is visible in a number of ways. In the love-story recounted by the Bible, he comes towards us, he seeks to win our hearts, all the way to the Last Supper, to the piercing of his heart on the Cross, to his appearances after the Resurrection and to the great deeds by which, through the activity of the Apostles, he guided the nascent Church along its path. Nor has the Lord been absent from subsequent Church history: he encounters us ever anew, in the men and women who reflect his presence, in his word, in the sacraments, and especially in the Eucharist. In the Church's Liturgy, in her prayer, in the living community of believers, we experience the love of God, we perceive his presence and we thus learn to recognize that presence in our daily lives. He has loved us first and he continues to do so; we too, then, can respond with love. God does not demand of us a feeling which we ourselves are incapable of producing. He loves us, he makes us see and experience his love, and since he has “loved us first”, love can also blossom as a response within us.

18. Love of neighbour is thus shown to be possible in the way proclaimed by the Bible, by Jesus. It consists in the very fact that, in God and with God, I love even the person whom I do not like or even know. This can only take place on the basis of an intimate encounter with God, an encounter which has become a communion of will, even affecting my feelings. Then I learn to look on this other person not simply with my eyes and my feelings, but from the perspective of Jesus Christ. His friend is my friend. Going beyond exterior appearances, I perceive in others an interior desire for a sign of love, of concern. This I can offer them not only through the organizations intended for such purposes, accepting it perhaps as a political necessity. Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave. Here we see the necessary interplay between love of God and love of neighbour which the First Letter of John speaks of with such insistence. If I have no contact whatsoever with God in my life, then I cannot see in the other anything more than the other, and I am incapable of seeing in him the image of God. But if in my life I fail completely to heed others, solely out of a desire to be “devout” and to perform my “religious duties”, then my relationship with God will also grow arid. It becomes merely “proper”, but loveless. Only my readiness to encounter my neighbour and to show him love makes me sensitive to God as well. Only if I serve my neighbour can my eyes be opened to what God does for me and how much he loves me. The saints—consider the example of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta—constantly renewed their capacity for love of neighbour from their encounter with the Eucharistic Lord, and conversely this encounter acquired its real- ism and depth in their service to others. Love of God and love of neighbour are thus inseparable, they form a single commandment. But both live from the love of God who has loved us first. No longer is it a question, then, of a “commandment” imposed from without and calling for the impossible, but rather of a freely-bestowed experience of love from within, a love which by its very nature must then be shared with others. Love grows through love. Love is “divine” because it comes from God and unites us to God; through this unifying process it makes us a “we” which transcends our divisions and makes us one, until in the end God is “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).
(for full article)

Do we Christians agree?
More importantly, do we love God? Do we love others?

Darwinism vs. Evolution?

"Looking at the doctrine of Darwinism, which undergirded my atheism for so many years, I realized I would have to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason." -- Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator

From our belief in the sanctity of life to trusting God

In an article Supreme Court Upholds Oregon's Suicide Law of this week of the Christianity Today, it was reported that:

The U.S. attorney general overstepped his bounds when he tried to stop the state of Oregon from implementing its 1997 physician-assisted suicide bill, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a 6-3 decision. In 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a directive "that assisting suicide is not a 'legitimate medical purpose'... and that prescribing, dispensing, or administering federally controlled substances to assist suicide violates the CSA [Controlled Substances Act]." Using such drugs to assist with suicide could lead to "suspension or revocation" of a doctor's medical license, Ashcroft wrote. According to Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 46% of Americans support the right to assisted suicide while 45% oppose the
practice....

When Joni Eareckson Tada was interviewed as to what led her to write The Life and Death Dilemma, she replied that:

Twenty-eight years in a wheelchair has introduced me to the world of advocacy, and with it, thousands of people who were either sinking into or surfacing out of suicidal despair. While straining to cope with their own pain, people are learning that they're part of a confusing debate in society over medical issues ranging from physician-assisted suicide to rationed health care. Having observed the pain experienced by people and having participated in the public debate on issues such as euthanasia and health care, I'm convinced that the crisis has become the norm for our society. I wrote this to engage readers' hearts in what God has to say about their own crises.

According to Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, there was a Strong Public Support for Right to Die (Released: January 5, 2006). In the Summary of Findings,

• An overwhelming majority of the public supports laws that give patients the right to decide whether they want to be kept alive through medical treatment. And fully 70% say there are circumstances when patients should be allowed to die, while just 22% believe that doctors and nurses should always do everything possible to save a patient.
• Though Americans are broadly supportive of allowing patients and their families to decide whether medical treatment should be removed, the public is divided over laws that let doctors prescribe lethal doses of drugs to assist terminally ill patients end their lives.
• 
  By two-to-one (61%-30%) white evangelical Protestants oppose physician-assisted suicide laws; by nearly identical margins, white mainline Protestants and seculars approve of such laws. Catholics, on balance, oppose such laws (by 50%-40%).
• 
  Views on assisted suicide are also affected by the amount of thought given to end-of-life issues; 57% of those who have given a great deal of thought to these issues approve of legal assisted suicide, a view shared by only 35% of those who have given little or no thought to these matters.

Very interstingly,the survey also found that:

While most people support the general idea of stopping medical treatment in some circumstances, fewer would personally ask their doctor to cut off treatment if they faced a terminal or debilitating illness. If facing an incurable illness and suffering a great deal of physical pain, 53% would opt to stop medical treatment, while 34% would tell their doctor to do everything possible to save their life.

To this, I think an important that need to be asked is do we have a Moral Right to End One's Own Life? What does ending one's own life reflect of one's beliefs? What are the implications to Christians? As Christians, we trust God as our Savoiur, we can come to Him when we are in distress. When suffering Christians end their own life, what are they tellling non-Christians? Joni Eareckson Tada was for twenty-eight years in a wheelchair (due to quadriplegics). Especially to those who love sports & outdoor activities, being immobile can be as good as being dead. However, Tada faces her pain bravely with the help of God. Not only bravely, she lived wonderfully fruitful lives. She is the founder and president of Joni and Friends, an organization accelerating Christian outreach in the disability community that numbers 550 million people worldwide. As Christians, what is our view on the moral right to end our own life? The survey showed that:

on this question are also strongly related to the respondent's religious beliefs, as well as to party and ideology. Fewer than half of white evangelical Protestants (42%) believe that an individual suffering a great deal of pain with no hope of improvement has a moral right to end their life, compared with 73% of white mainline Protestants. Most Catholics (60%) support the moral right to suicide under these circumstances, as do an overwhelming majority of seculars (78%). Similarly wide disparities are seen in terms of church attendance, with frequent attenders less supportive of such a right.

I think the findings "frequent attenders less supportive of such a right" says much about the importance of attending Church.

When we do not attend Church, or attend Church when we are free, or when we feel like it, or see worshipping God only as a seasonal activity(Christmas & Easter), when who sees worshipping God as a waste of time,I think we fail to see His Greatness. We have also deprive ourselves of the chance of learning His Greatness, the great truth that God loves us, that He will sustain us through our sufferings. When we do not attend Church, it also shows that we failed to see the importance of worshipping Him. we failed to see His Greatness. If God can create the world of His Word (ex nihilo, meaning out of nothing), He definitely can give us strength to live through our most difficult moments. When we do not attend Church, we are in a way saying that God is not worthy our worship. It shows how small, how limited, how powerless we have reduced our God to.

Dr. Charles Stanley once said that God is greater than our problems and is surely able to resolve them all. So cast all your cares upon Him because he cares for you. This reminds me of a hymn, "If you will only let God guide you" (Words:Georg Neumark,1641):

If you will only let God guide you, And hope in Him through all your ways,Whatever comes, He’ll stand beside you,To bear you through the evil days;Who trusts in God's unchanging loveBuilds on the Rock that cannot move. ... ... God hears the call of those in need,The souls that trust in Him indeed.

In in the Word of God, we can find much comfort. For example, as the psalmist writes, "He will be our Guide even to the end.","Psalm 48:14". Psalms 46.1 God is our refuge and strength, an ever – present help in trouble. Psalms 18:30 As for God, His way is perfect: The word of the Lord is tried: He is a buckler to all those that trust in Him.

Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV):

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Fanny Crosby, who lost her sight at six week of age through improper medical treatment by an inept doc­tor. She wrote thousands of hymns (over 8,000 Christian hymns!!) despite the handicapped she struggled with during her life. Her hymns revealed the triumph God gave her over a life of blindness. In her hymn "All the Way my Saviour leads me", she reminded us that God has never promised to keep us from hard places or obstacles in life. He has assured us, however, that he will go with us, guide each step, and give the necessary grace.

All the way my Savior leads me-
What have I to ask beside?
Can I doubt His tender mercy,
Who through life has been my guide?
Heavenly peace, divinest comfort,
Here by faith in Him to dwell!
For I know, whate'er befall me,
Jesus doeth all things well;
For I know, whate'er befall me,
Jesus doeth all things well.

This beloved hymn came to Fanny as a result of a prayer. Struggling financially, she desperately needed some money. As her usual custom, Fanny began to pray. A few minutes later, a gentleman offered her five dollars, the exact amount she needed. Later recalling the incident, she said, “I have no way of accounting for this except to believe that God put it into the heart of this good man to bring the money.” The poem she wrote afterward became “All The Way My Savior Leads Me.” As both a songwriter and a woman of faith, Fanny Crosby serves as an example to all. (Source: Hymn Stories)

In the 214th General Assembly of PC (USA), on "Christian and Reformed View of Human Life in Relation to the Practices of Euthanasia, Assisted Death, Assisted Suicide, Abortion, and Infanticide", I found the following:

Christianity has historically supported life and God's sovereignty over all aspects of life. But recently, most of the debate regarding euthanasia, assisted-suicide, abortion, and infanticide has been almost entirely conducted in a framework of cultural standards, issues of individual rights, and the legal precedents of the secular realm.

Although the church's witness to the world cannot be made in a vacuum devoid of contextual issues, we must remember that Reformed theology and orthodox Christianity have always sought to affect society and the culture by using the biblical framework to influence behavior and attitudes.

However, in seeking relevance, the church has begun to lose its significance, and in pursuing identification with the culture, it has begun to lose its uniqueness with Christ. We are not simply members of the culture. Instead, we are called to be different from culture as a light on a hill or salt that has not lost its saltiness.

In the Reformed theological tradition, the extent of God's command has been expressed in both the Westminster Shorter and the Larger Catechism.

In the Shorter Catechism, we have the following statements:

Q. 68 What is required in the Sixth commandment?

A. The Sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life and the life of others.

Q. 69 What is forbidden in the Sixth Commandment?

A. The Sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto.

In the Larger Catechism, we find these obligations considerably expanded, for there we read as follows:

Q. 135 What are the duties required in the Sixth Commandment?

A. The duties required in the Sixth Commandment are: all careful studies and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others, by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions and avoiding all occasions, temptations and practices which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any, by just defense thereof against violence; patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit, a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor and recreation; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild, courteous speeches and behavior, forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil, comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

Q.136 What are the sins forbidden in the Sixth Commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the Sixth Commandment are: all taking away from the life of ourselves or of others, except in the case of public justice lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful or necessary means of preservation of life, sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge, all excessive passions; distracting cares; immoderate use of mean, drink, labor and recreation; provoking words oppression quarreling, striking, wounding and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

I think The Shorter and the Larger Catechism is clear on the issue of Euthanasia (physician-assisted suicide/ mercy killing). Euthanasia involves suicide and/or murder. It is,therefore, contrary to God's Law.

How about death sentence? Exodus 22:2 (NIV) writes: "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed." The authority to take a human life is given to individual men under only one circumstance: a defensive emergency. Nehemiah 4:14(NASB):

When I saw their fear, I rose and spoke to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people: "Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives and your houses."

The civil government is given the authority to take human life in fulfilling its responsibilities for administering justice and national defense. (see also Romans 13:3-5) As Euthanasia falls under neither the categories of defensive emergency or administering justice and national defense, it should not be practised. Dr. John M. Frame in his book The Doctrine of the Christian Life (forthcoming) commented:

Liberal secularists tend to oppose killing in war and capital punishment, but to
accept abortion and euthanasia. Biblical ethics, in my view, teaches the
reverse. We must grant, of course that not all war and capital punishment is
just. (p. 669)

In Euthanasia: Not Our Burden to Bear, the author gives this helpful oberservation:

Often when we are tempted to take on more responsibility or authority than God gives, we fall into pragmatism to justify our actions. Pragmatism is an ethic that justifies means by expected ends. In other words, methods are judged by the results. ... ... Anytime we suggest that doing things as God instructs will not work, we are falling into pragmatism.

Often advocates of euthanasia are operating with just such a pragmatic ethic. We see a situation and come to the conclusion that this life is not worthy of existence. It seems the greater good would be served by the death of this person. Sometimes, we might even be right. Sometimes death is a great relief to the suffering. But it is simply not our responsibility to determine when that is the case, or to make it happen. God does not give us that burden. He reserves it for Himself.

Dr. John M. Frame in his book in his The Doctrine of the Christian Life (forthcoming) also rightly pointed out:

God sets no standards in Scripture for a “quality of life” that gives a person a right to life and an obligation to live. In current discussion, quality of life is in the eye of the beholder. It should not be made a standard of who shall live and who shall die. All children of Adam, made in God's image, have a right to life and an obligation to live as long as God allows.

So God’s command, “you shall not murder” applies to people who are suffering. We have seen that we have some freedom as to what medical care should be given to suffering patients. But we do not have the freedom to kill them. (p. 688)

Helpful website: PC (USA) on End of Life Issues

For more blogs, views & comments on this issue: Right Faith

Some thoughts on John Wesley's view of Scripture (2)

In the book Christianity According to the Wesleys (Baker, 1996), ...

I found some very interseting comments:

Distribution of Bibles without simultaneous proclamation of the Word is but a very inferior procedure (p. 17)

... ...

Hearing God In the Scripture?

Very often, we read the bible & ask this question, "Where is God? Why can't I hear/experience him?".

This question leads me to another question, "Why do we have negative experience?" Maybe it is to lead us to God! How can this be possible? Yes, it is possible. The bible says so!

“Many people in the bible were called during intensely negative experience. However, what the Bible people discover to their astonishments is that their so-called negative experience often turns out to be stunningly positive.” (R. K. Hudnut. Call Waiting: How to Hear God Speak. InterVarsity Press, 1999.) For example, Hannah heard God speaks in anguish. For Job, who has often been characterized as the perfect Christian, his call came in times of arrogance.

Something I read recently …

Something I read recently …
“'pneuma' is neuter but was written in masculine in NT ”

Some thoughts …
According to Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Matthew D Ross, IVP), neuter (adj.) designates one of the three genders in Greek (the others being masculine and feminine).

However, on the point “but was written in masculine in NT, I think this is not always so! In 1 Cor. chap 2 v. 13 & 15, for e.g. , the greek pneuma is rendered “spiritual” (GK no.4461). Here, I think it is a masculine noun. So, this statement is true in that sense. However, in 1 Cor. 9:11, pneuma is a neuter noun, & rendered as “spiritual things” (ESV, NASB), or “spiritual seed” (NIV, NLT) .

Are you sure this is what you heard?

Is what a famous pastor say always a guarantee for orthodoxy & scriptural faithfulness? Not necesarily so, regardless of who says or writes. Believers in this age & time have to be careful & examine it against the claims of scripture. If we listen carefully, we may ask ourself"Are you sure this is what you heard?". As such, I found this article Inconsistent Underlying Assumptions the Cause of Unsound Theology which have some very important points, worth noting:

• "There is a tremendous need for cogent thinking among our leaders and teachers in the church today."
• "Theological literature and sermons brim over with unsound and invalid reasoning."
• "be extra discriminating in what we read and who we listen to from the pulpit."

Lewis Sperry Chafer's (Founder, President & Professor/ Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary) 1948 Systematic Theology was used as an example ofto highlight this. In Volume III chapter X under Soteriology, his own writing contradicts itself.

For me, which the article also points out, "God's Word does not contradict itself. "

The article also argues that Particular Redemption (or Limited Atonement. The term "Limited Atonement" makes God's power seems limited.) is logical . To those who opposes TULIP (the five points of Calvinism) as they feel Limited Atonement make God an unloving deity, I would disagree. This helpful short simple refelction of TULIP may be helpful.

'Religion Helps Me Feel Happy'??

'Religion Helps Me Feel Happy'? What is it that young people, who have been raised in church and self-identify as Christians, actually believe? This are some questions that are being asked in the article God, Religion ... Whatever -- Are Our Churchgoing Youth Falling Away from the Faith? .

To the first question, Christian Smith & Melinda Lundquist Denton give this (sociologists at the University of North Carolina) portrait of dominant religion in America:

• it is therapeutic. That is, faith is meant to make a person happy, and help him get through life -- much as a therapist does.
• This means that concepts like repentance from sin, praying for God's mercy and grace, or faithfully "living as a servant of a sovereign divine" are absent from the religious lives of many teens, and even many so-called Christian teens.
• "Rather, what appears to be the actual dominant religion among U.S. teenagers is centrally about feeling good, happy, secure, at peace. It is about attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolve problems, and getting along amiably with other people."

Isn't this a worrying sign? I think this is also what is happening in Singapore too!

Superstitions?

During the Chinese New Year, many Chinese ask these questions:

• Is it really “sway” (bad luck/ bad omen) to witness a funeral procession during the Chinese New Year?
• Is it a taboo to eat leftover/ overnight rice/ food on the first day of Chinese New Year? But it our fault? What if I don't cook & is living alone? Going to a restaurant would be too troublesome?
• Would we really dampen our luck in the new year if we go to other people’s homes for meals during Chinese New Year?
• Is it really inauspicious to say expressions such as “ill”, “死（sǐ）” (die), “完蛋 （wándàn）” ，“没希望了”(it’s hopeless), “杀 （shā）” (kill) during Chinese New Year?
• Can we ask our guest, “Do anyone want more rice”? Or is it more appropriate to say “Who would like to fill up their rice bowl”? Does the latter really denote abundance throughout the new year?

I was reading this book Don’t Sit On This Book: A Collection of Chinese Taboos And Superstitions (by Philip Cheong. Malaysia: The Academy of Feng Shui, 2005). In it, the author poses many questions on beliefs that many Chinese have been asking:

• (p. 65) Does red really symbolizes the arrival of good events & good fortune? On p. 66, the author writes that “writing bright and cheerful colours does not necessarily denote that you will have a bountiful year.”
• (P. 68) Is it a taboo to owe money over the festive season? On p. 69, the author feels that it’s not really the bad luck, but the strain that may be put on the relationship if money is not returned when we are able to do so. We should always return the money we borrow from those who are willing to lend a hand when we were in need. I feel that by doing so, we do not take others’ kindness for granted.
• Chinese believe it is a taboo to visit the doctor during Chinese New Year. However, as the author writes, “” (p. 71).
• Whether or not one believes the superstitions analyzed or the analyses, this is an interesting book which would be a delightful read on sleepless nights! However, how are we Christians to respond to these beliefs & superstitions? Some are more obvious that we know we shouldn’t do, but there are others which are more subtle, “small” beliefs that we still hold to!

In the “Preface”, the author Philip Cheong wrote:

In my hindsight, I now marvel at the way Chinese taboos are passed down from one generation to the next. No questions were asked, and certainly no logical explanations were given. But they still have a nasty habit of staying in our minds longer than the scariest of horror movies. Perhaps it’s because superstitions tap into our primal fear of the unknown, or the fact that they’re from an allegedly trustworthy source- our parents.

Do we Christians place more faith in passed-down beliefs than biblical truths? Do we accept the bible with faith, with no questions asked? Are we always after logical explanations for alleged contradictions in the bible? Maybe it is time to get back some of our misplaced faith!

On the necessity of Scripture…

I was thinking … … what if the bible had never been written? How will the world be like? To my surprise, I found a book with exactly the same title What if the Bible had Never Been Written?. This book wonderful book on the importance the Bible played in the history of mankind is written by Dr. D. James Kennedy (Senior Pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church; Chancellor of Knox Theological Seminary). As the excerpts on the back cover writes:

Whether the bible is viewed as a historical book or words to live by, there’s no denying the dramatic differences it has made in people’s lives.

From the ten commandments, which many of our nation’s laws and government are based upon, to the Golden rule, a verse taken straight out of the New Testament, to many of today’s most common phrases and expressions, there is no doubt as to the influence the bible has on everyone, in some degree, every day. What if the Bible had Never Been Written? Provides a well-documented and in-depth look at the impact the Book of Books has had on humanity.

This book is divided into 15 chapters. Chapters 1-11, the author explains the impact the Bible had on morality, society, law, politics, Science, literature, missions, & everyday things. To witness to non-Christians, chapters 12-14 may be helpful. These three chapters focus on the reliability, importance & central message of the Bible. As with all books written by Dr. J. Kennedy, this book too is well-researched & documented. I first saw this book about five years ago, but it was good to be able to read it again.

John Calvin's view on Scripture

In The Inspiration Of Scripture, Loraine Boettner wrote:

-- The inspiration of the bible is both "plenary inspiration" and "verbal inspiration".

-- By "plenary inspiration" we mean that a full and sufficient influence of the Holy Spirit extended to all parts of Scripture, rendering it an authoritative revelation from God, so that while the revelations come to us through the minds and wills of men they are nevertheless in the strictest sense the word of God.

-- By "verbal inspiration" we mean that the Divine influence which surrounded the sacred writers extended not only to the general thoughts, but also to the very words they employed, so that the thoughts which God intended to reveal to us have been conveyed with infallible accuracy -- that the writers were the organs of God in such a sense that what they said God said.

-- Millions of Christians today are like men whose feet are on quicksand and whose heads are in a fog. They do not know what they believe concerning the inspiration and authority of the Bible.

Indeed, the bible is important as it is the Word of God.

As John Calvin said in Institutes of the Christian Religion (Henry Beveridge, Esq Translation), Book 1, Chapter 6, Section 2:

I repeat that, in addition to the proper doctrine of faith and repentance in which Christ is set forth as a Mediator, the Scriptures employ certain marks and tokens to distinguish the only wise and true God, considered as the Creator and Governor of the world, and thereby guard against his being confounded with the herd of false deities. Therefore, while it becomes man seriously to employ his eyes in considering the works of God, since a place has been assigned him in this most glorious theatre that he may be a spectator of them, his special duty is to give ear to the Word, that he may the better profit. Hence it is not strange that those who are born in darkness become more and more hardened in their stupidity; because the vast majority instead of confining themselves within due bounds by listening with docility to the Word, exult in their own vanity. If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be, that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is impossible for any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right and sound doctrine without being a disciple of Scripture. Hence, the first step in true knowledge is taken, when we reverently embrace the testimony which God has been pleased therein to give of himself. For not only does faith, full and perfect faith, but all correct knowledge of God, originate in obedience. And surely in this respect God has with singular Providence provided for mankind in all ages.

For us, where do go to know God better? Is it our own/ other experience(s)? Is it our pastor, our Sunday school teacher, cell group leader, parents? Or maybe it is our faculty of reason, the various theories of science? Going to these sources isn't wrong, but as Albert C Outler, (Professor of Theology, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University) noted in the preface to St. Bernard of Clairvaux' s On Loving God,“It was in Scripture that, first and last, Augustine found the focus of his religious authority.”Shouldn't we also be doing this? The scripture should havethe final say in all matters pertaining to our faith.

The Gospel of Prosperity?

I was reading the“Refutation of City Harvest's "Divine Healing" Article at another blog. There was an interesting discussion on “Prosperity Gospel” & its biblical basis. I have posted some of my views there. There is,however, one main point which is this:

• In the gospel, when Jesus prays, we can see that “prosperity gospel” has never been Jesus’ agenda. In the Lord’s Prayer, for example, the first three petitions deal with God and the last three with us. This pattern indicates that disciples should have more concern for God than we do for ourselves. We should put His interests first in our praying as in all our living. For example, "Your kingdom come, your will be done” (Matthew 6:10) points to the need to recognize the sovereignty of God. Even in the last three in the petitions of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:11-13, the prayer center around the issues of regeneration, justification, and sanctification. Jesus commanded His disciples to bring their personal needs to God in prayer. The first three petitions stand alone, but the last three have connecting "ands" that bind them together. We need all three of these things equally; we cannot get along without any of them. So from verse 11-13, we have “Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation (Greek: peirasmos), but deliver us from evil.” (ESV)

In the article Refutation of City Harvest's "Divine Healing,

Kong Hee said:

Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. He dwells within you. To the world, your hands are effectively Jesus' hands. Your feet are Jesus' feet. Your mouth is Jesus' mouth. If you are sick all the time, how are you going to provide for your family, excel in life, help the poor and needy, and be a powerful witness for Jesus Christ?

Some thoughts:

I believe that the example of Paul shows that the converse is true. Also, Is Rev. Kong Hee trying to say that Christians who are sick all the time (what do he mean by this? Is it an incurable disease? ) are poor witness for Jesus Christ? Not necessarily so, by being joyful and full of faith (& hope) in sickness, our sickness may be just what point others to God! The statement “If you are sick all the time, how are you going to provide for your family, excel in life, help the poor and needy, and be a powerful witness for Jesus Christ?” isn’t biblical truth (the bible doesn’t say this), but shows mankind’s faulty logic because our fallen and sinful nature since Adam. If we can trust God to heal us, to give us health, can’t we also trust that he will sustain us, & help us even when we are sick?

As to the question of “Who does all the healing at healing crusades, churches and cell groups all around the world?”, it would be unfair for us to judge. However, when God heal through his servant (apostles), the bible shows that there were no record of failed attempts to heal (except if Mark 9: 17-29 where Jesus took over!). Moreover, in the NT, when healing does occur, there are no relapse, but in contemporary Charismatic & Pentecostal scene, the same cannot be said of healings through pastors & evangelists.

Kong Hee:

Critics of divine healing or proponents of the cessation theory would claim that supernatural healing and health were confined only to the Old Testament or Gospel era. Now that we have doctors, hospitals and advanced medical technology, God doesn't find it necessary to heal people supernaturally anymore. To that, my rebuttal is: "If the people of God in the Old Testament, under the old covenant, could have healing, good health and prosperity, how much more we believers of the new covenant. We now have Jesus in our hearts, the Holy Spirit in our lives. We should enjoy healing and good health even more!" Otherwise, how could we qualify the new covenant to be a better covenant than the old (Heb. 8:6)?

Some thoughts:

God gave the promise of a new covenant because the people of Israel had failed Him. He also did so because the Old Mosaic Covenant did not have the power to enable them to remain faithful to God. The New covenant is better covenant than the Old covenant because the New Covenant has the power whereby God's people may remain faithful, namely, the presence of God living within the believer. This is one way in which it differs from the Old Covenant (v. 9). (For further insights on the New Covenant, may read J. Dwight Pentecost’s simple but useful book Thy Kingdom Come, pp. 164-77) Rev. Kong Hee said that the people of God in the Old Testament, under the old covenant, have healing, good health and prosperity, my question is this, “Is this always so? If not, how does this make the New Covenant a better covenant than the Old Covenant? ”
My point is this, the New Covenant is a better covenant than the Old Covenant because God promised that the New Covenant would enable the Israelites to do four things:

(1)They would know and desire to do God's will (v. 10b),

(2) enjoy a privileged, unique relationship with God (v. 10c),

(3) know God directly (v. 11), and

(4) experience permanent forgiveness of their sins (v. 12).

These are the "better promises" the writer referred to earlier (v. 6). As such, Hebrew 8:6 seem to have been misinterpreted & wrongly applied.

Kong Hee:

Faith is the atmosphere for miracles and healing. Doubt and unbelief are definite miracle killers. When Jesus came to His hometown of Nazareth, He was greatly despised by His own people. They scoffed at Him for being just the son of a simple carpenter (Mark 6:2-3). Jesus marveled at their unbelief and could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them (6:5-6).When a Christian adopts an attitude that says, "Well, let God first heal me; then I'll believe in divine healing!" That is the surest way of hindering God's healing power. God's way is the way of faith—you believe first with conviction, then you will see the miracles of God taking place in your life.

Some thoughts:

When a Christian adopts an attitude that says, "Well, let God first heal me; then I'll believe in divine healing!" I do not see this as believing. Rather, if we need God to first heal me in order believe in divine healing, this is call “knowing”. Different from Kong Hee, I do not think that anything can hinder God's healing power. Besides the examples of Matthew 8:14-15 & Acts 3:1-7, the example of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11:5-44) & healing a man blind from birth (Jn. 9:1-41) also shows that God is not some calculative deity sitting in heaven, waiting for us to have faith before he heals. Our faith that divine healing still occurs shows affirms we believe “Jesus can” heal, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that “Jesus will” (especially to our timing. Rev. Kong Hee knows this too! Quoting his key#4: “HEALING IS NOT ALWAYS INSTANT”). One may ask: “How can this be? God loves us.” Yes, God loves us, but God is also sovereign. We can’t (& shouldn’t) expect to use our faith as an instrument to “force” (which we never can!!) God to do things. For example, we trust our spouse, but we can’t use our “trust” to “manipulate” (“control”) them into do things against their will/ desire. Our spouse may do the things we want, but it is out of his/her love. Our trust may be a factor, but it is never a determining factor. “How unfair!” one may say, but have we consider that … the God who still provides for us, who cares for us, even when we lack the faith in Him shows that He is a loving God. A God worthy of our adoration.
Rev. Kong Hee knows that “Christianity cannot be reduced into a set of techniques and formulas” (quoting from him), but he sure makes faith sound like a guarantee to all things!!

Here are some further thoughts on “Prosperity Gospel”, I believe there are a few simple biblical texts which can shed light on this issue:

1) Matthew 5:45 says, “he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust”. Here, we see that those who are wealthy are not more Godly than those who are not.

2) Ps. 72:3-12 shows that the wicked frequently prosper.

3) In these texts, Romans 15:26; 1 Cor. 1:26; 2 Cor. 6:10; Gal. 2:10; James 2:3-6, we see that the righteous are frequently poor even though they are rich n faith.

4) I feel Christianity/ the gospel of Jesus is not about selling/ promoting Jesus by telling people that Jesus will make them rich or forever healthy!

5) We believe because God is true, Jesus has died, & risen. He is our Savior. If we don’t believe all these, then we are implying the bible is not completely true. We should not only believe the “nice things” of our faith, but all that the bible teaches. If pick & choose what to believe, we only delude ourselves.

6) As such, I think that the “Prosperity Gospel” should not be taught. The gospel is the good news of Jesus for the world. The focus of the gospel should be on Jesus, & not Jesus. Proponents of “Prosperity Gospel” say that if we obey & love God, He will make us proper & healthy. However, if we really obey & love God, He will naturally bless us with these. However, He is sovereign & may have other purposes for out lives. As such, rather than saying “Prosperity Gospel” should not be taught, it can be said that “Prosperity Gospel” need not be taught.

Some thoughts on John Wesley's view of Scripture

I have thought I am a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow through the air. I am a spirit come from God and returning to God; just hovering over the great gulf, till a few moments hence I am no more seen. I drop into an unchangeable eternity! I want to know one thing, the way to heaven—how to land safe on that happy shore. God himself has condescended to teach the way: for this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price give me the Book of God! I have it. Here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri [a man of one book].

John Wesley,
“Preface to Sermons on Several Occasions, 1746,”
The Works of John Wesley, vol. 1, 104-106.


Here, John Wesley's love for the scripture is what our generation lack. Very often, we have bible study with friends or in the church. However, do we do i out of routine?

Oh how I love your law!
It is my meditation all the day. (Psalm 119:97)

God, please help us to love your Word.