Theophany

Q. The LORD appeared to Abraham in Gen 18. Are the three men the 3 persons of the Trinity? If yes, shouldn’t this be the First Coming of Christ?

A. No, the spokesperson whom Abraham bargained with was the Lord. The other two were angels according to Gen 19:1 “The two angels arrived at Sodom …” This is a case of theophany or a manifestation of God to man, often but not always in human form. Examples include:

* Gen 12:7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said …
* Gen 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said …
* Gen 26:, 242 The LORD appeared to Isaac and said …
* Gen 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face …
* Gen 35:9 After Jacob returned from Paddan Aram, God appeared to him again and blessed him.
* Ex 3:2 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush.
* Ex 4:5 “This,” said the LORD, “is so that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers–* the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob–has appeared to you.”
* Ex 24:9-10 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel.
* 1 Kings 3:5 At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon … 2 Chron 1:7
* 1 Kings 9:2 the LORD appeared to him a second time… 2 Chron 7:12

Some commentators believe the “angel of the Lord” is not an ordinary angel, but the pre-incarnate Christ Himself. The “glory of the Lord” is theophany but not in human form e.g. Lev 9:23; Num 14:10, 16:19, 42, 20:10. So is the “pillar of cloud” e.g. Deut 31:15.

Since Jesus Himself said in Jn 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only He has seen the Father, some scholars believe the theophanies are in fact Christophanies or pre-incarnate appearances of Christ, not the Father. Technically, the First Coming of Christ refers to His incarnation, not Christophanies in the OT.

Lying Spirit

Q. The Bible is full of contradictions. In 1 Kings 22, God tricked Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead. In v 23 he put a lying spirit in the mouths of all of Ahab’s prophets. Since the bible claimed that God does not lie (Titus 1:2), isn’t this a blatant discrepancy?

A. No. God did not trick Ahab into attacking Aram. You must read the Bible very carefully. First of all Ahab had already planned to fight Ramoth Gilead and had even arranged an alliance with Jehoshaphat before seeking counsel of the Lord.
* 1 Kings 22:3-4 The king of Israel had said to his officials, “Don’t you know that Ramoth Gilead belongs to us and yet we are doing nothing to retake it from the king of Aram?” So he asked Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me to fight against Ramoth Gilead?”
So the lying spirit did not cause the war but only confirmed it.

Secondly, when Micaiah was called, he not only told Ahab the truth but also revealed that the 400 false prophets were prophesying under the influence of a lying spirit.
* 1 Kings 22:20-23 And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’ “One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ” ‘By what means?’ the LORD asked. ” ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said. ” ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’ “So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you.”
In other words, God told Ahab the whole truth and offered him a choice: believe a lie or believe the truth, and Ahab chose the former.

Can God use lying spirits to judge Ahab? Yes. He allowed the 400 men to prophesy falsehood, just as He can use the ruthless and impetuous Babylonians (Hab 1:2-11) to punish Israel. God is sovereign and can turn even men’s evil to accomplish His purpose. But be careful not to refuse the truth, otherwise you will reap what you sow:
* 2 Thes 2:10b-11 They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.

Canoeing Spiritual Lessons 2

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Relaxed canoeing
* Strained rowing
* Large capacity trireme
* Coxswain directing crew

(Continued from yesterday)

A fourth difference is in the physiology involved. A canoeist is in either a sitting or kneeling position, and uses his arms and torso to paddle. It is more relaxed unless you are shooting the rapids. In contrast, a rower sits with his feet pushing against stirrups (in Western sculls) and uses his legs and back to pull the oars through the water. In competition, the rowers are strained to exhaustion as they use every ounce of their muscle power to win. Our Christian walk is the same. A person relying on the Holy Spirit as he navigates through life is like a paddler making use of the currents or downward flow of the stream. He has to be alert, but success is not dependent on his strength. On the other hand, a person putting all his strength and stamina on the line is more like a rower. Which one is better? Actually both are needed, as Paul pointed out in Col 1:29 To this end I labor, struggling with all His energy, which so powerfully works in me. We need to labor and struggle, but according to Christ’s working, not our own strength.

The fifth difference is the purpose they were designed for. By design a canoe is for up to 3 people only. It is good for navigating narrower waterways, but not for hauling heavy loads. Its purpose is exploration, not heavy-duty transportation. In contrast, a rowboat can carry heavy cargo over long distances. While we are familiar with modern sculls (in which each rower has 2 oars and is done in singles, doubles or quads) and sweep-oar boats (in which each rower has only 1 oar and is done in pairs, fours and eights), ancient battleships such as the Roman trireme or the Viking tall ships are all row-boats with sails. They were designed for capacity and can carry many people and a lot of supplies. Churches are the same way. Some are like canoes and kayaks – small and highly maneuverable. They are innovative and can experiment with many new ideas. Others are like large rowboats, which emphasize harmony and coordination for maximum efficiency and output. Which one is your church? There is no need to envy others. Recognize who you are and work according to your strengths. That’s why God gave them to you. Use them for His glory.

My last difference is in the training and coordination. Since a canoe is designed for exploration by one or two people, you can learn only so much in class. There are no paddling simulators. While there is coordination for doubles, the direction of the canoe is controlled by the rear paddler. It is very much a learn-as-you-go sport. This is like pioneer missionary work. You learn as much as you can about the Bible and the culture you’ll be ministering to, but most of it is learned on-the-job, improvising as you go along. In contrast, you can practice rowing in a gym, and because coordination is so important, in some competition there is a coxswain whose job it is to steer the boat, control the pace, and synchronize the crew. In ancient boats this is the task of the slave-driver! These are similar to a large church. There are assistants in children and youth work, teachers-in-training in Sunday school, and interns in other ministries. Coordination is very important, especially if there are multi-services and multi-sites. That’s why there are executive pastors to ensure the church runs smoothly. Which model is for your church? One is not “better” than the other. Both are necessary for different aspects of the ministry.

Hope you have a balanced ministry. Try canoeing and rowing some time. It’s good recreation. And share your spiritual lessons.

Canoeing Spiritual Lessons 1

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Canoeing – facing front
* Rowing – facing back
* Shooting the rapids with paddles
* Rowing with attached oars in calm waters

One of the best parts of our camping trip was the morning canoeing, before the crowds gather along the beach. Although the weather was hot, there was an occasional breeze which kept us cool. The lake was calm, and the only sounds were our own conversations, plus the water slapping against the rocks when we were close to shore. Since my wife had not canoed before, she asked what the difference between canoeing and rowing is. This turned up some interesting observations. Although both are water sports involving a small boat, there are several major differences.

The first is that while a canoeist faces the direction he wants to go, a rower actually has his back to his destination as he propels the boat towards it. This is like our “life boat”. Some people know their goal and keep their eyes constantly on it, focusing on the future. Others have a general idea, but most of the time focus on the past, checking only periodically or occasionally whether they are on course to reach their destination. What’s your outlook in life? Do you set your mind on the target, or do you spend most of your time looking at the past?

The second relates to the water in which they travel. Canoes and kayaks can be used in rivers and lakes, mountain streams, or even rapids, as in white-water rafting. Row-boats and sculls are also used in rivers and lakes, but typically larger and calmer bodies of water. I’m not referring to the skills involved, as both require disciplined training for mastery, but I am drawing a parallel to the course they travel. It’s the same with our course in life. Some are equipped to face all kinds of life situations, the slow-moving rivers and quiet lakes, but also the churning waters of rapids and even small waterfalls. Others prefer more stable conditions. Which kind are you? Are you the more adventurous venturing into unfamiliar territories, or are you more conservative staying within calmer waters and utilizing the best of your abilities?

The third concerns the equipment used. A canoe or kayak uses paddles which are not attached to the boat. A person can use just one blade on one side of the canoe to paddle his boat forward; while someone steering a kayak uses a paddle with a blade on each end, and can paddle on either side of the kayak as needed. A row-boat, on the other hand, uses oars attached to the boat via oarlocks which act as a fulcrum for pulling the boat forward. The oars are always in pairs, one on each side of the boat, to move it forward. (The only exception is the single oar yaolu in Chinese sampans, which is not used in the West.) This is similar to the flexibility people exhibit in approaching life. Some are highly flexible and adaptable and use whatever means at their disposal to achieve their goal. They are not tied down by tradition and are creative in problem-solving. Others are bound by internal or external constraints for greater efficiency under predictable conditions. Which are you? Are you the flexible pioneering missionary type, or are you the fixed, stable type suitable in maintaining the fort?

(To be continued)

Church in the Park

During our camping trip, we selected a non-denominational community church for our Sunday worship. This church used to meet within Arrowhead Lake Park last summer, but found that they attracted only campers in their services. So this year they moved to a park in Huntsville just one block off the Main St in order to draw more local residents. It’s always a good policy to do whatever you can to reach more people.

We arrived a little early and were greeted by people setting up the lawn chairs, who invited us to coffee/lemonade. You need friendly greeters with a warm smile to welcome visitors, not just to hand out bulletins. The church used an amphitheatre in the park as the stage, and erected a couple of canopies to provide shade for children’s church, the welcome desk, and the audio-visual team.

The setting is very nice as the park entrance is landscaped with beautiful flowers, and is right next to the lake front where the public dock for recreational boats was located. The service started at 10:30 AM so it was a little hot, but as the pastor joked, “Where else can you get a sun-tan during worship?” I might add there are few churches with a view of the lake! Don’t be hung up over buildings. It’s convenient to have your own facilities, but not mandatory. The early church did not have their own building for the first 300 years, meeting only in homes, the temple, and synagogues after the temple was destroyed. Buildings don’t make the church. People do. Focus on people.

Worship style was very informal, with the pastor doing double duty as guitarist and song-leader, accompanied by a female vocalist. For small churches, it helps if the pastor, or his wife, can play the piano or keyboard or guitar. I was a little surprised to find the pastor in shorts and sandal, but then so are many worshippers in cottage country. Our Lord wore sandals, the normal footwear in His days. I guess I’m just a more conservative, both theologically and in attire! Do not be bound by tradition. Our Lord wasn’t, and neither should we.

Camping Musings

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Arrowhead Lake
* Beach
* Town decorated with flowers
* Huntsville Main St.
* Trailer
* Mayflower Lake
* Canoeing

Our good friends invited us to camping for a few days. Since we are not outdoorsmen and would never manage on our own, we gladly accepted their hospitality for a long weekend of fun and fellowship. The destination was Arrowhead Provincial Park, in beautiful Muskoka cottage country, just north of Huntsville, a scenic small town about 3 hours drive north of Toronto.

Our hosts recently upgraded from a tent trailer to a travel trailer, which measured 19’ long by 8’ wide by 9’ tall. For a mere 152 sq. ft., it houses a bedroom with a twin-sized “double” bed plus a “single” upper bunk, a café booth dining table which can be turned into a narrow double bed at night, a sofa, a kitchen with fridge-freezer, stove-oven, sink, a bathroom with flush toilet and shower, and lots of cupboard space for storage! So it can accommodate 4 people comfortably, and up to 6 if some are kids who can squeeze into tight quarters. That’s not bad for something about the size of an average master bedroom in Canada, or a small apartment in Hong Kong! Of course most camping trips are short, and we cook mainly outdoors on propane stoves, but we don’t really need a 3,000 sq. ft. home, 20 times the size of the trailer, in order to live. Wonder why so many of us spend our lives chasing after that bigger and fancier house, when all we can sleep on every night is just 2’ by 6’? What’s your priority? Where is your treasure?

Our friend liked camping because of the connection to nature. He felt that with the rise of video and computer games over the last two decades, not only are physical activities like sports losing ground, so are campgrounds losing their popularity. This is born out by actual statistics. For example, the number of visitors to Ontario provincial parks dropped from a peak of 10.5 million in 2005, to a low of 9.4 million in 2009 (latest available), a decline of 10.2%. The number of campers fell from 1.6 million to 1.3 million (16.1% drop) over the same period. This is despite Ontario’s population growing from 12.7 million to 13.4 million, an increase of 5.6%.

Part of the reason behind the campers decline is attributed to changing demographics with young families growing up, but it also speaks to a decline in family togetherness and breakdown of the nuclear family. There is more to life than the city. As our friend remarked, “You have the sun, the lake, and your family and friends as company; what more can you ask for?” But the peace and quietness of the countryside, along with it the opportunity for solitude and reflection, have been replaced by the sights and sounds of city entertainment, and the slide towards shallowness and disconnectedness continues unabated.

If you have a young family, take them camping. Living closely for a few days, with everybody helping out with chores, sharing stories and songs around the camp fire, talking as you hike some of the trails, canoe or take a swim in the lake, will do wonders for bonding and strengthening relationships. Try it sometimes. It beats staring at the TV hands down anytime!

Did God create my soul perfect? Part 2

Yesterday we examined creationism and learned that it does not satisfactorily answer all issues. Today we continue to look at traducianism, from the Latin word traductio, which means a transmission or transfer; specifically, the generation and transmission of the children’s soul by the parents. This view is widely held by Lutherans.

Scripture teaches that man is of a different “kind” from other living creatures (Gen 1:21, 24, 25), and the idea of “kind” implies the propagation of the entire being. Individuals are propagated as wholes, not in parts. It is therefore suggested that parents propagate not only the body but also the soul of their children. No direct references can be quoted, but the following inferences give strong support.

As indicated, Scripture teaches that sinfulness resides in the spirit. But Scripture also attributes the sin nature of children to parents:

* Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
* Ps 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.
* Eph 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

Therefore by deduction the spirit must be derived from the parents, and original sin is transmitted by inheritance. God cannot be blamed as the author of evil, and the weakness of creationism becomes a strong argument in favor of traducianism.

There are objections to this view. One is the conjecture that if the parents’ soul is divided in generating the children’s soul, then the soul is made up of parts and is therefore material. I consider this to be a straw man argument. The Bible did not specify the procreative process, and we cannot assume it to be division and then argue that to be impossible. I can equally assume the process to be analogous to the lighting of a candle. Lighting the new one does not diminish the original flame. The fact of the matter is we simply don’t know how the soul is generated.

It is also objected that if the first sin of Adam was imputed to his posterity, then all his sins should be imputed as well. Actually this highlights the difference between how creationists and traducianists interpret original sin. Since creationists do not believe in spiritual heredity, they claim we are guilty in Adam’s sin through the representative principle. God imputes Adam’s sin to us because he is our legal representative, just as He imputes Christ’s righteousness to us when He becomes our representative. But this raises more questions than answers. Where is the biblical evidence that Adam is our legal representative? If it was purely legal, why couldn’t God choose an angel, the majority of whom did not fall, to represent us? Traducianists, on the other hand, interpret original sin not as the imputed transgression of Adam, but as the sinful tendencies that later lead to actual transgression. As such, it isn’t our ancestors’ individual sins that are imputed, but the sin nature that is inherited that will inevitably lead to sin.

To summarize, creationism is labeled as God centered while traducianism as man centered. However, on closer examination the former presents a more serious problem with respect to the righteousness of God. Throughout the Bible God is the source of good. It is inconceivable that He should specifically create each soul bent on disobeying Him. My own position is therefore traducianism which has better biblical support, and your supposition that God created flawed souls is not valid.

Did God create my soul perfect? Part 1

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Eccles 12:7
* Psalm 139:13
* Jer 1:5
* Jer 17:9

Q. Did God create my soul perfect? If yes, how can there be original sin? If not, why didn’t He? Why not let everyone be like Adam and Eve, starting with a clean slate?

A. This is similar to one of those trick questions that the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus. Either way He answers He’ll be caught! I have answered a similar question some 14 years ago, so I’ll abstract my response below. The problem is in the way the question is framed, which assumes “creationism”. This is not the creation of the universe by God out of nothing, which is also called creationism, but that God created each individual soul at birth or conception.

Roman Catholics and many Reformed Christians (Calvinists) hold this view. A body is mortal whereas a soul is immortal. They believe parents may propagate a mortal body, but only God can produce an immortal soul. Several passages are cited as support:

* Eccles 12:7 … and the spirit returns to God who gave it
* Isa 57:16 … for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me – the breath of man that I have created
* Zech 12:1 The LORD, …, and who forms the spirit of man within him
* Heb 12:9 How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!

Opponents point out that since God instructed man to be fruitful and increase in number (Gen 1:28), He would have vested them with the power to procreate according to his kind. So parents can produce both body and soul of their children by God’s delegated power. Furthermore, God rested from all the work of creating on the 7th day (Gen 2:2-3), and would not be creating souls continually. Rather, He now works through secondary causes, namely parents. God is clearly presented as the creator of the body:

* Ps 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb
* Jer 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you …

Yet we do not interpret this to mean He created each individual body, only through the parents. So the passages cited simply attribute the creative power ultimately back to God, not that He created each soul personally.

Not only are there alternative explanations, there are also objections to this view, the most serious of which is that creationism cannot explain the tendency of all men to sin i.e. the sin nature. Scriptural teaching traces sinfulness to the inner soul or spirit, not to the body:

* Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.
* Mt 15:18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean’.

But if God individually creates the soul, then how can our sin nature be accounted for? Either God creates a sinful soul, which makes Him the direct author of sin, or God creates a pure soul but puts it into a body which will inevitably corrupt it, which makes God an indirect author of evil. As far as I know, creationists have not answered this objection satisfactorily.

(To be continued)

Grand-kids Again!

This is one subject we never get tired of:

KSP – On a hot summer’s day:

SEL – Started walking out of the blue!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12e0qD–1Zk

Work Grievance

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* World’s way – File complaint
* Grievance procedure
* Christ’s way – Reconciliation
* Win-win

Q. I have a question relating to my work. There’s an administrator who treats everyone unkindly and me especially, because I’m the youngest. She frustrates me a lot because she is a professed Christian, yet does not reflect what Jesus taught. 1 Tim 4:12 says ” Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.” I really want to make a complaint about her, but how should I approach it in a godly way?

A. This is similar to the case of a brother who sins against you in Mt 18:15-17. The difference is in the setting – work versus church, and the gender, but the principle is the same.
* 15 If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
* 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
* 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Filing a formal complaint is one way to resolve your grievance, but not the best way. Rather than make a complaint right away, I suggest you follow the Lord’s procedure of talking to her first, just between the two of you. Ask her “There’s something I wanted to talk to you. Can we chat over coffee?” or “Can I talk to you in private?” Do it politely and she should have no good reason to refuse. Then find a private spot during coffee or lunch break where you can talk without being disturbed.

Use the sandwich method. Begin by finding something positive you appreciate about her. This sets the tone of your discussion to the positive instead of negative criticism. Then explain that notwithstanding the good point, you and other staff have noticed that she is often unkind to her fellow workers, including you, which makes you and them very frustrated. Be ready to cite actual examples if asked. Don’t just say generalities. Tell her it is affecting her relationship with everyone, which in turn affects their work and possibly hers. Furthermore, since people know her to be a professing Christian, this affects her testimony as well as the impression non-believers have for Christians in general. Tell her you do not wish to complain to her boss unless you have to, that’s why you have chosen to speak to her first. Wrap up by saying that you believe she will put things right, and you expect there will be good working relationships in the future.

If she listens to you, you have won your sister over. But if she will not listen, then you may follow v 16 or v 17 depending on whether there are others in a situation similar to yours and they are willing to act as witnesses. The idea is not to “gang up” on her, but to establish the fact that what you said is true, and that they can be witnesses to the facts of the case, so it won’t be your words against her in case she accuses you of wrongdoing. If she refuses to listen to them, or if nobody is willing to come along as witnesses, tell it to her supervisor. Explain that you have spoken to her first, but she refuses to listen, and therefore you have no recourse but to escalate it to management.

Remember that Mt 18:15-17 is in the context of prayer (Mt 18:18-20) and forgiveness (Mt 18:21-35). So pray first for the right attitude, and be ready to forgive your colleague. If you do that, I believe you will be handling the issue in a mature and godly manner. Hope this helps.