Shekinah Community Center Sunday (July 26th): Prophetic Conference, Ipoh

So I went missing for the whole of last week. I was attending a prophetic conference in Shekinah Community Center (SCC), Ipoh, a.k.a. the mothership. SCC is my church's mother church.

I was initially quite reluctant to go, firstly, Ipoh was supposed to be a small town, what could Ipoh offer that I couldn't already get in KL? Then there was also my thing about the "prophetic". Many times I just substitute prophetic with pathetic, it really didn't help when I was trying to pay attention during the conference, everytime the speaker said "prophetic", my mind automatically switches it to "pathetic". It was really funny, to me, only. A real inside joke.

So I mentally prepared myself for a week of boredom. I was prepared to fast internet, stay indoors if there weren't any place to go, and bear a week of pathetic conference. I gave up on my "P" night on Monday and left before I could catch up with anyone, I only met Ke Xin when she came earlier to twist perm my hair, but you would have already had your share of that story by now. I left my wife, daughter, friends, and internet at home and headed due north for Ipoh.

Drive alone was nice, quite therapeutic and cleansing in a way. Music blasted from my aunty's new speakers as I drove her car. I arrived slightly late and had to find the church. For a brief moment I thought my GPS got me to the wrong place, but a brief call to Pas. Henry confirmed I was in the right area. The place was littered with pubs, cafes, cyber cafes, hawkers, and even discos (some dodgier than others). During the duration of my stay I have cristened that area where SCC was located as "Sodom and Gomorrah". I figured this shouldn't be as bad as I have initially prepared for. Worse come to worse I could camp it out in the cyber cafe.

Conference already started and the prophet-speaker already has begun the seminar. I see two familiar faces, Pas. Sam (from Baguio Philippines), and Pas. D'ton (from Bangkok, Thailand). I met them earlier in the week for a dinner on the day of their arrival, I also previously met them during my trip to Bangkok. We were going to be roomies throughout this conference.

The conference was great, for me I was reminded that I need to sharpen my spiritual gifts and not just rely on physical ministry. Many of the supernatural things can't be explained or understood so I just have to trust God when it comes to those things.

During the conference the speaker prayed for the manifestation of "golden glory" and true enough gold dust started appearing on people. Pas. Nagu, being Indian (dark skinned) was the most obvious of all, his face and hands was sparkly from the gold dust.

It is interesting why God would do something like this. I guess he's God and he's just showing off. It's just fantastic when God decides to show off a little... fantabulous!

There were also people who were healed, especially those with backaches due to uneven legs. We (the participants) would pray for the legs to be lengthened and true enough legs were lengthened. Then back problems just went away, it was a miracle. Of course there was also prophecies that were made.

The conferences were held during the night so days were free. So we had time to do some shopping. I spent most of the day with the foreign pastors. Being the local, I showed them around and basically played their host. If gained nothing else from this trip, the friendship built would be well worth the effort.

During one of the days, Pas. Henry brought us all up to Cameron Highlands for a cup of tea. The foreign pastors were also here for a meeting with the various national youth directors. Vietnam and Cambodia could not make it, but Philippines and Thailand was present, and guess who represented Malaysia?

Meeting lasted about 15 minutes, and time to travel to Cameron Highlands from Ipoh is just over 1 hour. Then the rest of the time we had tea and goofed off.

Other days I spent getting to know the people of SCC as well as getting to know the area around the church. Of course the eating was one of the highlights, for me it's the fellowship around the table.

I was supposed to head back straight after the final session late Saturday night, but I finally decided after much deliberation that I would attend the worship service in SCC. It was great getting to see how things are done in the main church. I was introduced to the church, and as expected, people were fascinated at me. I know I'm not the stereotype pastor, in fact, I'm quite the opposite. My newly permed hair got even more stares. But I am happy that people don't immediately recognize me as a "pastor". I'm just a normal guy that loves Jesus and want to serve him. I do the work of a pastor, but I don't want the "stigma" that comes with being a pastor. Christians and non-believers alike often act differently (and many times weird) when they realize you're a "pastor". Pastors are just people like you and me trying to make the most out of our lives. Anyway I was introduced to SCC.

After Sunday service I had the privilege of having lunch at Howard Leow's house. Howard studies Artificial Intelligence in KL and attends our church whenever he's around. He was going to hitch a ride from me back to KL so his mother invited me over to have lunch at their home. It was a great experience for me. They were real village folks and I had an authentic Hakka meal that is rare in KL, even though I myself am a Hakka. I had the chance to embaress myself with my horrible Hakka.

I left Ipoh with a very different perception of the place then when I first came. Ipoh is ready for harvest. So many young people so near the church there, SCC needs a youth worker badly. SCC is right at the heart of the hotspot, less than 100 meters away young people meet up to eat, play, and party. Someone just needs to invite them to come eat, play, and party in the church! God please send more workers, workers who can understand and meet the needs of these young people in Ipoh! I desperately want to go back to Ipoh, but next time I want to bring a small team along with me and try to make a difference there. It will also be good bonding time for me and my small team of ministers. For now I consider this more of a recon trip. People in Ipoh get ready, I'm coming back for you soon...

I arrived in KL at 4:30pm, just in time for futsal. Perfect way to cap off this fantastic week.

Once Saved Always Saved?

So I initially started this blog as a place to reflect on some theological issues for my studies in BCM. Check out my first blog post if you're interested to know more about how and why this blog is here. It has been some time now since I made any "theological" posts. But last Thursday during the Kepong cell (which is somehow located in Kota Damansara), Joel, who was leading the cell, brought up this question:

"Once saved always saved?"

So here's a chance for us (the cell members and you, the reader) to interact more on that question without being worried about the time constraint and needing to give one minute answers...

Among some verses mentioned during our cell discussion was 1 John 1:9 as well as Philippians 2:12. I'm sure there are so many other verses that can be brought up, so as we discuss you can go ahead and back it up with your choice of verses.

On this issue some people propagate that we have to constantly confess our sins, lest we die with unconfessed sins and thus cause us to go to hell. People who believe this are clearly against the "once saved always saved" doctrine.

On the flip side of the coin, there are others who claim that after we have accepted Jesus as our personal Lord and saviour it doesn't matter what we do anymore, our ticket to heaven is bought and pain in full, so we can live our lives in whatever way we please. People who hold to this view is for the doctrine of "once saved always saved".

I do not think there is a clear cut answer. Theologians to this very day still debate on this matter, only when we get to heaven will we really know for sure if this doctrine is right or wrong, or if it is a tension or certain mixture of this two opposing ideas. But I believe God gave us a brain, and I think God would like for us to use it (otherwise he would have created us without a brain). I do not appreciate Christians who want to reject theology as irrelevant to Christian life. What we believe (or don't believe) will determine how we live our lives. Even the smallest things make a big difference on a long run. So let's try to dig in here so that we can live a more "Christian" life, so to speak.

Feel free to express, as we interact I hope we will be able to better understand God and soteriology (meaning the doctrine of Salvation... have to throw in the theological term there), and thus cause us to grow in our faith.

I will also put up the very first poll on this blog, and it's not about whether I should cut my hair and how it should look. So check it out and leave your mark there as well.

Looking forward to growing with you.

Religion and Cults: Chinese Deities & Ancestor Worship

Here are the two files that I promised to share with the rest of the students in the Religion and Cults class in my church:

*Click on the link to download:

"Malaysian Chinese Beliefs" by Lemuel Yee

"Ancestral Worship and Christianity" by Victor Lee


The Religion and Cults class was quite refreshing. Instead of the usual lecturing method, the class was split into groups and designated to research certain religions/cults. Then we were supposed to present it in our class. Since I took this course in BCM my group volunteered to be the first to go. I wish we could have had more time to prepare a better presentation. My group was designated to research on the Chinese Religions, which includes the 3 major religions: Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Also included the various chinese deities, ancestral worship, religious practices, etc.

I made my presentation and informed the class that I am opened to questions, and that we would learn from each other. After my presentation a lively discussion ensued. Many of my classmates took part in the discussion, sharing their thoughts openly. In a flash one hour had already passed and time was up. I offered to make these two files available for those who are interested in studying the subject further. So here they are.

The first paper is my term paper for my Religion and Cults class in BCM. I chose to do this paper so that I could interact better with the Chinese people that I meet. Especially my relatives. So the paper is more focused on the local Chinese beliefs.

The second paper is from Victor Lee my classmate from BCM. His paper is on the topic of "Ancestral Worship and Christianity". Feel free to visit his blog as well, incidentally his blog is called "My Reflections". We had no idea our blogs had similar names until much later.

Feel free to comment on the papers or my group's presentation. There is much that we can learn from each other. We could continue with our discussion here.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

Now this blog was named "Reflections" as I wanted to do some "reflecting" here. Lately my reflections have been more on the "casual" side, unlike the posts this blog started off with. It is no easy work trying to dig deep into God's word and situations around us. However once in a while someone or something comes along and pushes you to do it.

So my friend Angela Yap, who recently went over to Oxford, England to complete her studies, emailed me and asked me about a certain passage in the Bible that she was reading. Angela mentioned that she was reading 1 Timothy. I believe the exact reference is 1 Timothy 2:9-15. This is what it says:

9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Read the rest of the passage here.

This view of a woman's role in the church is rather passive and male chauvinist. Is there such a thing as "equality of genders"? Can a woman teach or preach in church? Or is the role of women only to "make babies"? Or does the Bible view women as secondary to men? What is the Bible trying to teach us here? Does the church's practices reflect the principles taught in the Bible? Or are we conforming to worldly trends?

Before I go any further, let me hear your initial thoughts and responses to this question raised by Angela (who still doesn't have a blog yet). In the meantime I will be attempting to formulate a "proper" response. Hopefully we can have a meaningful discussion on this very interesting topic. Ultimately I hope that through this exercise we can provoke each other towards growth. As my newbie blogger uncle says in his blog: "iron sharpens iron".

Looking forward to hearing your comments.

RE: Should We Worship The Holy Spirit?

There were many people who told me that they would respond to my most recent post. The question raised was whether Christians should worship the Holy Spirit. However after waiting for quite some time it seems apparent to me that it was not going to happen, so I decided to go ahead with my own response.

While researching on the question online, I stumbled on this article. I read several articles but this one stood out to me. I considered responding or even adapting this article for my own post but I figured that the best thing was to just let you read this article for yourself. This article, entitled "Is the Holy Spirit Worthy of Worship?", is found in christiancourier.com. I found that this article comprehensively answers our question. Some Christians insist that the Holy Spirit is not the proper object of worship. In order to answer this question, we have to first answer the question of "What (or who) is the Holy Spirit?" Read on...

Is the Holy Spirit Worthy of Worship?

January 5, 2006

by Wayne Jackson

Is the Holy Spirit, as a divine Being, worthy of our worship? What do the Scriptures teach on this vital theme? Carefully and prayerfully study this subject with us.

Is the Holy Spirit God in nature? If so, is it appropriate to worship him?

There is a controversy that appears to be swirling about the Christian community these days, and it is this: “Is the Holy Spirit a proper object of Christian worship?” Some adamantly claim he is not. They challenge for a passage that specifically commands: “Worship the Holy Spirit.”

But the issue is not whether one can locate a text that explicitly commands: “Worship the Spirit.” There are many biblical propositions that cannot be established on the basis of a solitary “command-text.” There is no text that explicitly puts all conditions of salvation into a single command. There is no single passage that instructs the Christian to eat bread and drink the fruit of the vine each first day of the week in order to commemorate the Lord’s death.

These are solid propositions, but they are determined by what is called the synthetic analytical method, and not because there is an isolated, comprehensive command that embraces all components of the obligation.

Synthetic (cf. synthesis—“to bring together”) study means that one assembles the relevant biblical information on the same theme, and then draws reasonable conclusions of action based upon a harmonization of the material. Let us consider, from the analytical viewpoint, what the Christian’s attitude toward the Spirit of God should be.

The Spirit Is a Person

Contrary to the ideas of some cults (e.g., the “Jehovah’s Witnesses”), the Holy Spirit is a personality. He is referred to in personal terms (John 15:26; 16:7-8,13-14). He acts as a person would act; he speaks (1 Timothy 4:1), he loves (Romans 15:30), he teaches (John 14:26), he intercedes (Romans 8:26), etc.

The Spirit Is Deity

The Holy Spirit possesses the nature of deity (he is neither angelic nor human in essence). He is eternal (Hebrews 9:14). He is everywhere present (Psalm 139:7-10). The Spirit is omniscient, i.e., he knows “all things,” yes, the “deep things” of God (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). He taught the apostles “all things” (John 14:26; 16:12-13). He was involved in the creation process (Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4; Psalm 104:30).

The Holy Spirit is spoken of in intimate association with both the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19; John 14:16; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2).

Some passages in the Old Testament that are attributed to Jehovah, are applied to the Spirit in the New Testament (cf. Isaiah 6:8; Acts 28:25 and Exodus 16:7; Hebrews 3:7-9).

Deity Is Worthy of Worship

A divine person is worthy of worship. Jehovah is “worthy to be praised” (Psalm 18:3). God is great and greatly to be praised (Psalm 48:1). We are commanded to worship God (Matthew 4:10; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). If, then, the Spirit is deity, he is a worthy object of worship. And what will be the consequence if one condemns others who engage in such worship?

Consider this logical point. If it is the case that Christ’s acceptance of worship (Matthew 14:33; Luke 24:52) is a strong argument for the fact that he is divine, would not it likewise be the case that if the Spirit is deity, such would argue for the necessity of worshipping him?

Benjamin Warfield (1851-1921) was one of the most respected scholars in the conservative Presbyterian Church at the turn of the last century. He taught at the Western Theological Seminary in Pittsburg (1878-87) before becoming a professor of theology at Princeton. A half-century ago a volume of his writings was published that contained a masterful essay on “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity.” One point Professor Warfield pursued relentlessly is the fact that the term “God” is used countless times in the Scriptures in a generic sense. By that he meant that the sacred term frequently embraced the entire Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—rather than merely alluding to the Father alone. Here is his statement:

“Everywhere and by all it was fully understood that the one God whom Christians worshipped and from whom alone they expected redemption and all that redemption brought with it, included with His undiminished unity the three: God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, whose activities relatively [sic] to one another are conceived as distinctly personal” (p. 49).

Noted scholar Francis Pieper stated that the worship of the Holy Spirit is “taught in all those Scripture passages where divine majesty, attributes, and works are ascribed to the Holy Ghost [Spirit]” (p. 387). The command to “worship God” includes the sacred Spirit.

New Testament Precedent

In addition to the support from both “command” and “necessary implication,” as sketched above, there is a substantial case that may be made for the position that the Holy Spirit is worthy of human worship upon the ground of “example.”

(1) When the early disciples praised God, the work of his Spirit was included in the anthem (Acts 4:24ff). As one scholar noted, “this act of worship on the part of the disciples terminated on the Holy Spirit (Shedd, p. 331).

(2) Biblical literature abounds with a literary form commonly called a “benediction.” The benediction is defined as the “invocation of blessing, and the expression in prayer for happiness and well-being” (Purkiser, p. 217). These prayer offerings are found in the Patriarchal period (cf. Gensis 14:19-20; Hebrews 11:20-21), and in the Mosaic regime as well (see 2 Chronicles 30:27, and note the parallelism between the “blessing” and “prayer”).

The “benediction” motif is apparent also in some of the epistles of Paul (see: 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18, etc.). Of these benedictions, Michael Martin writes.

“Concluding benedictions requesting grace for his readers are common in Paul’s letters (cf. 1 Cor. 16:23; Gal. 6:18; Phil. 4.23; Col. 4:18) but [they] can show a fair amount of variety regarding the persons addressed (the Lord, the Father and/or the Spirit, by various titles) and the blessings requested (e.g., grace, peace, love, fellowship; cf. Rom. 15:33; 16:24, NIV margin; 2 Cor. 13:14)” (pp. 292-293; emp. WJ).

In this connection let us focus on 2 Corinthians 13:14. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” Of this text Albert Barnes wrote: “It is a prayer; and if it is a prayer addressed to God, it is no less so to the Lord Jesus and to the Holy Spirit. If so, it is right to offer worship to the Lord Jesus and to the Holy Spirit” (p. 274—emp. original).

In an excellent article on the nature of benedictions, Alfred Faulkner comments regarding this passage. “This verse prays for a holy fellowship in the Divine life mediated by the Spirit, and it is a fitting conclusion to an Epistle agitated by strife” (p. 147).

In his commentary on Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians, Charles Hodge, the celebrated professor at the Princeton Theological Seminary, wrote: “The distinct personality and the divinity of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, to each of whom prayer is addressed, is here taken for granted” (p. 314).

In an essay on the “Trinity,” Loraine Boettner says that 2 Corinthians 13:14 “is a prayer addressed to Christ for His grace, to the Father for His love, and to the Holy Spirit for His fellowship” (p. 92).

Warfield describes the apostle’s benediction here as “a closing prayer” (p. 46). And Augustus Strong observed, “If the apostolic benedictions are prayers, then we have here a prayer to the Spirit” (p. 316).

(3) There are several New Testament contexts in which the cooperative activity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the scheme of redemption are set forth, and in those contexts an anthem of praise flows from the apostles’ inspired pens (see: Ephesians 1:3-14; 1 Peter 1:1-12). It is very difficult to see how anyone could reasonably conclude that only the Father is the object of such adoration.

(4) Psalm 95 is a marvelous song erupting in praise for God. It begins: “Oh come, let us sing unto Jehovah; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation. Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise unto him with psalms” (vv. 1-2). Then, a little later: “Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before Jehovah our Maker: for he is our God” (vv. 6-7). The text then proceeds with a rebuke to the nation of Israel. The people are admonished not to harden their hearts, as their fathers did in the wilderness, when they “tempted me.” Note this first person pronoun.

The same God who was worshipped was, at other times, “tempted” by Israel. Now here is the amazing thing. When these words from Psalm 95 are quoted in the book of Hebrews as a warning to certain Christians who were in danger of apostasy, the words of the Speaker are attributed to the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 3:7-11). No other conclusion can be drawn than this. The same deity who was “put to the test” was also worthy of worship, and this at least included the Holy Spirit.

(5) References in the book of Revelation to the “seven spirits” (1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6) are almost uniformly conceded to be an acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit.

The number seven is used symbolically for completeness or perfection. Several arguments point in this direction. For example, the “seven Spirits” are encased in a “Trinitarian” format—“him who is and who was and who is to come” [the Father], the seven Spirits that are before his throne [the Holy Spirit], and from Jesus Christ [the Son]” (1:4). The “seven Spirits” operate in conjunction with Christ (3:1; cf. John 14:16-18; 15:26; 16:14).

In Revelation 4, out of the very throne of God proceeded lightnings and voices and thunders. Too, there were seven lamps of fire that represented the “seven Spirits of God” (v. 5). One scholar has observed: “The spirits are grouped with other manifestations of the theophany proper (lightning and thunder); significantly the seven spirits are never said to join in the adoration of God by this court (4:8; 9-11) (Paige, p. 1120).

In the scenes of both chapters 4 and 5, observe the close association of the Spirit with both the Lord God and the Lamb (4:5; 5:6). As praise profusely issues from the entire realm of the rational, spiritually-oriented creation, it is directed to the united operations of the Holy Three (4:8ff; 5:7ff). This clearly evinces the inclusion of the Holy Spirit in the worship that ascends from the earth.

Additionally, as John T. Hinds observed, “a blessing is invoked from the three” mentioned in 1:4. John petitions for “grace and peace” from “him who was and who is and who is to come” [the Father], and “the seven spirits,” and “Jesus Christ.” One should note the coordinating conjunctions connecting the three. Hinds argued that since it is wrong to pray to any one except deity, the conclusion that follows demands that the “seven spirits” must be a reference to the Holy Spirit (p. 20).

The Testimony of the Patristic Writers

Joseph Bingham, in his celebrated work, The Antiquities of the Christian Church, has provided a mountain of evidence establishing the fact that the Christians of the early post-apostolic age did not hesitate to offer worship to the Holy Spirit (pp. 586ff). For example, in a letter that was circulated by the church in Smyrna following the death of Polycarp (c. A.D. 69-155), a disciple of the apostle John, who was being burned alive, these words were recorded:

“Wherefore also I praise you [God, the Father] for all things, I bless you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” (Epistle from Smyrna, XIV).

The epistle also closes with a benediction of “glory for ever and ever” to Lord Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit (XXII).

In the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Roberts & Donaldson, Eds.), there is the record of an ancient Christian hymn with these words: “We praise the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God” (p. 298). Testimony of this nature can be multiplied many times over.

Professor Everett Ferguson is the premier authority of general church history among churches of Christ. His scholarship is respected far beyond our own borders. In his book, Early Christians Speak, he calls attention to a hymn from the Oxyrhynchus collection (A.D. 3rd century) that calls for “the praise of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (p. 160). Ferguson also notes that while prayers were normally rendered to the Father, there is evidence of prayers to both God and Christ, and sometimes to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (p. 43).

Conclusion

In view of the foregoing, it is somewhat perplexing to read the sentiments of one who writes: “Since the Holy Spirit is divine, is it proper to worship him? Yes, in fact, it is wrong not to worship him” (Cottrell, p. 286; emp. original).

But Professor Cottrell, whom I respect though not always agreeing with him, then says: “there are no biblical examples or precedents for addressing the Holy Spirit directly in praise or prayer.” With due respect, we believe the evidence introduced above demonstrates otherwise. Besides, if one cannot directly praise the Holy Spirit—either in song or prayer—how is such worship to be rendered?

For years Christians have sung hymns in which the Spirit of God was praised along with the Father and the Son. A Latin hymn from around A.D. 350 was popularized by Greatorex in 1851:

“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.”

Bourgeois’s composition (1551) has these familiar lines:

Praise God, from whom all blessings flow,
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above ye heavenly hosts;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Heber’s famous song (1826) has these lyrics:

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
All thy works shall praise thy name, in earth and sky and sea;
Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty!
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!

We can only ask respectfully, therefore; whence the origin of this new notion that only the Father is worthy of human worship?

Should We Worship The Holy Spirit?

Recently there has been a convergence of a few situations that led me to ask this next question. I would really appreciate your input on this matter as I search for an answer or a solution to this.

As you would already know, as far as this blog is concerned, my assignment is now completed. Now this question I post is a search for better understanding.

Let me fill you in on what happened and how the different situations converged to raise this next question:

Situation #1: As you would know, I have just completed my BCM term paper on the Trinitarian Godhead. There was also a recent blog post on the same subject.

Situation #2: This you did not know, the worship team in my church (Canaan Church) has set a theme for the month of May and part of June. The theme set is the Holy Spirit. We just started this "theme" thingy and we were not very explicit on what we meant, but it seemed all the worship leaders and pastors understood each other and what we meant with this theme. The theme was chosen as Pentecost Sunday is coming up and our church camp is also around the corner. This theme seemed very timely, and, "right".

Situation #3: There has been a few people whom I have spoken with who asked some questions that directly and/or indirectly related to this question.

Perhaps I could go as far as to say that God is speaking to me, and maybe even to my whole church on this matter.

Here's the question:
Should we love the Holy Spirit? Should we worship the Holy Spirit?

The question is seems deceptively simple. I have been pondering this question for a couple of weeks now. Before I come to my a conclusion I would like to have some of your input on the matter. I hope that we will all be able to come to a good conclusion, that will affect our lives positively.

RE: GRM Question #3 "The Trinity"

I believe that most Christians would roughly know what the Trinity is already. At the same time we still do not really fully understand such an important doctrine of the church.

The Bible did teach on the Trinity, however, the term itself is not found in the Bible, so it belongs to systematic theology rather than biblical theology. Without the doctrine of the Trinity it would be impossible to explain the three persons of the Godhead. The term “Trinity” was first formally used in the synod held at Alexandria in A.D. 317. It was used to describe the three persons in the God head, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

These three persons make up the Trinitarian Godhead. We do not worship three Gods but one God. The three are one and have been one since the beginning of time, and are of the same “ousious” (meaning essesnce). *Now go back and read that again in slow motion*. A few very important statements have been made in a rather short sentence, so take you time and have another read.

Let me just summarize and explain a little…

Christianity is a monotheistic religion, but we have often been accused by the Muslims and Jews as tritheists. But get it right, we worship one Trinitarian God. How do we reconcile this? We do not. We have to realize that we are finite and limited while God on the other hand is the total opposite. We cannot expect to fully comprehend something that is infinite and without limits whatsoever.

There is not one person in the trinity that precedes another, nor is there one that came after another. A common error is to think that since there is a father and there is a son, so naturally we conclude that the Father must have come before the Son. Then what happens to the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit? It only seemed natural that the Holy Spirit came after the Father and the Son. This is a wrong view of God. The three have been one right from the get go. How do we reconcile this paradox? We simply cannot. However keep reading…

The three persons are also the same in essence. When it comes to the subject of the essence of God the term used by theologians is “ousios”. The three persons of the Trinity share the same ousios. Some might have the opinion that the Father is the soul, the Son is the body, and the Holy Spirit is… the spirit. This is a faulty theology. Each person of the Trinity is as “god” as the next person in the Trinity. So when Jesus made statements that seemed as though he was “lower” than God the Father it is explained by theologians as an economic submission. It is a functional submission and not a lower status or essence. The three persons of the Trinity are of the same ousios. How do we reconcile this? Again… we do not.

Now this is my favourite part of explaining the Trinity. At almost every corner in this doctrine we encountered some kind of paradox that we simply cannot comprehend or reconcile. Here’s the beauty of it all: God does not expect us to be able to understand and explain all of this. Theologians throughout history have dubbed this the mystery of the Holy Spirit. Even the great thinkers had to conclude that there are simply things that cannot be understood no matter how much we tried.

I have avoided using analogies so far because analogies can never fully answer our question anyway. Often analogies are used to attempt to describe the Trinity. Here are some of the more common analogies used to explain the “three-in-oneness” of God. However I cannot stress enough how these analogies are merely man’s finite attempt to grasp an infinite concept. Impossible!

The “egg analogy”: the outer shell, the egg white, and the egg yolk makes up the complete egg.

The “H2O analogy”: H2O exists in three different forms. Whether liquid, steam, or ice, it is still H2O.

The “man analogy”: a man might be one singular person but this one man is at the same time a father to someone, a son of someone, as well as a husband of someone.

The “sun analogy”: with the sun we know it is a giant orb of gas in outer space, at the same time it also emits heat and light.

The “math analogy”: For those who like to answer this question in a mathematical way, this might help. We always wonder how can the Father + the Son + the Holy Spirit = Trinity. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. But this analogy gives us another formula to solve this question. 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Some have suggested this is how the Trinitarian Godhead is one.

As you can see from these analogies they can help us to have a better understanding of the Trinitarian Godhead. However analogies are just analogies, we cannot use limited human terms to quantify and describe God. Just as the video in my previous post, God is indescribable and unfathomable. But it would be a big mistake to just leave God as unexplainable, in this situation the means is as important as the end itself. In this journey that God brings us on the journey is as beautiful as the destination because in our search we will be able to come into a closer relationship with God. *Note that in my post on “revelation”, God reveals himself to us to draw us into a relationship. That is what we will gain from searching him even in the area of the Trinity.

Some are in the opinion that when we meet God at the end he will explain all these mysteries to us and it will be revealed to us, and the veils will be lifted and we will fully understand all the mysteries in the universe. For me this notion would be like trying to fit the waters in the seas into my mouth. It will not fit. True, when we get to heaven we will be perfected. So we would be perfect humans, like Adam and Eve. So question is: did Adam and Eve comprehend the mystery of the Trinity? I doubt it. Even if we used 100% of our brains we would still not be able to fit 1% of infinity into our puny minds. I believe this is the fun part of heaven and eternity, that we will be spending the rest of eternity discovering and getting to know God better and better. And God is infinitely able to show us something new and exciting every single day for the rest of eternity.

In this I take solace.

I know this post raises even more questions than answers, but I am alright with that, and I think God is alright with that as well.

RE: "There MUST be a God"

Found this video inspiring. Trust me, it is really worth watching (especially in full screen).

Indescribable - Louis Giglio


Here's another link of the same video. The audio quality probably better however no full screen view. http://www.268generation.com/videoplayer/player.php?videoid=Indescrwide1&quality=hi.

Be inspired.

GRM Question #3

Here are the final (set of) questions:

1. What is Trinitarianism? Did the Bible teach on Trinity? Is the word Trinity found in the Bible?

2. Jesus in numerous occasions seem to suggest that he is lower than God? Can you please explain this?

John 5:19 - Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

John 5:30 - By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

Matt 24:36 - “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

3. Are the persons of the Godhead in heaven one or still remains three?

RE: GRM Question #2(A): “Revelation”

I think this question really revolves around the term “revelation”. I once read that studying theology is like joining in on a conversation that has been going on for thousands of years. As time pass I find this analogy so true. If you have taken part in an internet forum/discussion board that has been going on for a long time you would realize that new terms start to pop up to better describe what they wanted to express. Not only that, the meaning of some words begins to morph and take on new meanings. It is very much the same in theology. Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language reflects the same by defining “revelation” as “a revealing; something revealed; (theol.) God’s manifestation of himself to man; something revealed to man by God”.

Below are some more explicit definitions of the theological terms by theologians themselves (including “general revelation” and “special revelation”). Understanding what theologians mean when they say “revelation” will help us answer this question.

Revelation:
By this we mean God's manifestation of himself to man in such a way that man can know and fellowship with Him. – Erickson.

God has taken initiative and has, in intelligible ways, disclosed himself to people. – Lewis & Demarest

General/Universal Revelation:
General revelation is God's communication of Himself to all persons at all times and in all places. – Erickson

General revelation refers to the disclosure of God in nature, in providential history, and the moral law within the heart, whereby all persons at all times and places gain a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands. – Lewis & Demarest

God everywhere gives knowledge of Himself. – Rodman

Special Revelation:
By special revelation we mean God's manifestation of himself to particular persons at definite times and places, enabling those persons to enter into a redemptive relationship with him. – Ericksson

God’s self-disclosure through signs and miracles, the utterance of prophets and apostles, and the deeds and words of Jesus Christ, whereby specific people at particular times and place gain further understanding of God’s character and a knowledge of his saving purposes in His Son. – Lewis & Demarest

Conclusion:
Now that we have understood the meanings of these words we can now tackle the question at hand.

I believe it is God who gave us the ability to discover him. If God were to choose to hide himself from us none of us would be able to know him. I hold to the calvinistic view that man is totally depraved, that man does not even have the ability to find God on his own terms. Man did not find God, it was God who revealed himself to us. God chose to reveal himself to us through nature, creation, history, and even by sending his begotten son Jesus Christ. I believe that when it comes to revealing himself, God has the prerogative. It is totally up to God whether or not he chooses to reveal himself, it is also up to him how he wants to reveal himself. It is totally up to him. Our part only comes in after receiving God’s revelation. Then we can choose to accept or reject him.

We do not deserve any of this, however God chose to reach out to us. This is amazing grace.

... I am still amazed.

RE: GRM Question #2(B) "All Babies Go To Heaven?"

The question on whether babies go to heaven has been bothering me, tormenting me, eating away at me even. The question holds extra significance to me. Mikayla, my three month old “cutiepie” has been keeping me busy and away from many things. One of the things, among many things I severely miss is – movies. I have even been feeling left out from conversations when people start talking about the latest movies. I can only comment on whether the poster looked good, and the posters mostly looked fantastic! Mikayla is such a gift, she has been learning to make sounds. About two weeks ago she began to say “gooh”, then it was “ang-gooh”. This few days she has been making all kinds of new sounds. Melanie and I are ecstatic. My parents (a.k.a. Mikayla’s grandparents) are missing out on all the action as our internet at my home has been out since the last time they were around (11th March). The combination of baby and limited connectivity has kept me away from the blog. I am now resorting to other means…

As you can clearly see, I have some problems focusing. Back to the question at hand...

Let me just simply explain some of the theories on whether babies (or the mentally handicapped) go to heaven when they die. As far as I understand babies and mentally handicapped people fall into a similar category. There are some differences between the two but I believe, in relation to the question at hand, their lack of judgment and/or ability to think puts them in a similar position. I do not mean to offend anyone here and I sincerely hope that no one will be offended by my stand or by my choice of words. The “politically-correct” language changes by the week, I cannot keep up, however I sincerely mean no disrespect.

To deal with this question we will also have to consider the theology of original sin. “Original sin” simply states that all we are all born sinners, this is particularly clear to me from Psalm 51, among other Bible verses. I agree that we are all sinful from the time we are born. Since Adam and Eve sin has been passed on from generation to generation.

Yes we know well from the Bible that we all are born sinners and God is just in condemning sin. But apart from verses that condemn sin in general, there are no verses in which God deals with the sins of a baby. However, I find that there are verses that suggests God’s grace, love and mercy towards babies.

The Roman Catholic Theory:
Traditionally Roman Catholics believed that anyone, anyone at all – baby or mentally handicapped, has to be baptized in order to go to heaven. Still births, miscarriages, or babies who were too young to be water baptized will go to purgatory. There they are said to enjoy an “eternal state of natural happiness but without being in communion with God”.

Because of the believe that absolutely nobody can get to heaven without first being baptized, the Catholic Church also came up with the ordinance of extreme unction, or the baptism of the dead. This gave believers of the Roman Catholic faith hope for their loved ones, especially babies or the mentally handicapped.

I find this theory very leaky and Roman Catholic church is trying to plug the holes in their stand. I do not believe in “purgatory”. Firstly it was not mentioned in the Bible, but mostly because the concept of purgatory (or limbo) distinctly contrasts with the teachings of the Bible. Christianity is a religion of love and grace, the idea of purgatory tells me that I need to work for my salvation. As far as I understand, purgatory is a place for people who God cannot decide whether to send to heaven or hell. I would be very disappointed if God made me go through purgatory. It would be as though God’s grace was not sufficient to save us. And if God’s grace was indeed sufficient, then it would seem to me that God is simply just being mean. Jesus came all the way, became flesh, died a bloody death, and after all that told me it was all for nothing. It is as if a person traveled a great distance to visit, but refused take the final step to come into the house.

I believe water baptism is merely a symbolic act. The act means nothing in itself unless we understand the meaning behind the symbolic act. But water baptism becomes meaningful when we understand we that we were once dead but now we live through Christ’s death. If someone goes through the act of water baptism but does not understand the meaning behind the symbolic act, it does nothing for the person. So would a baby understand what water baptism means?

The Roman Catholic church is a great church, however not perfect (yet). I believe the Roman Catholic church are on the brink of a reform. One of the changes that might be made would be on this theory. For more please see: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/20/limbo-in-limbo.html. Also see http://www.newadvent.org for more on the Catholic faith.

Rejection Theory
This other theory holds a baby will go to heaven because a baby, or a mentally handicapped person has no ability to reject God. There are people who believe that in order for a person to deserve hell, this person must reject God outright. The verse normally cited to support this view is John 3:18A baby is not able to choose to accept God but at the same time also has no ability to reject God, therefore, a baby who cannot reject God will not go to hell and instead go to heaven.

There are also some who believe that babies are not capable of committing sins that “deserve hell”. Sins like those mentioned in John 16:9 and 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9. Revelations 20:11-15 tells us that on judgment day we will all be judged according to our works that are recorded. Again a baby would not have been responsible for his/her actions and incapable of committing a sin. A factor of “the age of accountability” also normally comes into play. The “age of accountability” is like juveniles who are judged by different standards than those of an adult. This term is not found in the Bible itself but it refers to the age when a person is able to understand the Gospel. The age of accountability is subjective an differs from person to person depending on their individual mental development.

Believing Parent Theory
Based on 1 Corinthians 7:14, it reads: For the believing husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

This theory would mean that not all babies would be saved, except only those who are children of a believing parent. The first part of the verse is hard to understand and explain, however the latter part of the verse is clear enough.

I think this stand is not unreasonable. Some might think that if God were like this it would not be fair to other “innocent babies”. In this world of “political correctness” we might have become too politically correct for our own good. I believe nothing is fair, when Jesus who was sinless had to bear the sins of the world, I do not think anything in this world can ever be said to be fair (or unfair) anymore. If God were to be “fair” we being sinners would all be in hell, end of story. Instead, God chose grace and mercy over “fairness”.

Willful Transgression Theory
As you can read from the funky names of the different theories you would know by now that I am making names up for different theories that already exist. This theory is mainly based in Deuteronomy 24:16 which reads: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin".

This verse acknowledges the theology of original sin but puts it in the backseat. The Bible deals with men as reasonable, responsible, and accountable beings. Instead of judging men’s original sin, the Bible seems to indicate that “every man shall be put to death for his own sin”. Only those who have willfully sinned against God will be judged and punished.

...

I believe there are many more arguments for as well as against babies going to heaven. However I believe I have enough evidence to reasonably and rationally believe that my little baby Mikayla will be in heaven if she dies before the “age of accountability”. I am definitely satisfied with what I have found, although it is by no means comprehensive, it is sufficient.

Even though I believe babies will most likely go to heaven when they die, this does not mean babies who are alive are regenerated. I do not fully understand the matter at hand and cannot reconcile this contradiction. What I have discovered evinces that babies who die most likely go to heaven. However, I doubt there will be anyone who can comprehensively answer and satisfy everyone on this subject. Like many age-old questions, all we can do, until we meet God, is to just trust that Our God is just and he will do what is right (Genesis 18:25).

Further readings? Go to:-

For reasons and verses, for and against babies going to heaven. Recommended for the easy point form reading format. Read and judge for yourselves.
http://www.barr-family.com/godsword/babys.htm

A transcript of John F. MacArthur’s sermon on the subject at hand.
http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0142.htm

An article on the same subject.
http://www.all4god.net/when_babies_die.htm

RE: Darwin (January 29, 2008 11:16 PM)

Darwin,

Thank you for contributing to our discussion. However I must disagree with you, there is a god. Your argument is not convincing at all. You claim that there is no God but yet you begin your post by crying out "oh my god!". Ironic, who is your God?

I do not disagree that animals and mankind evolve. If Charles Darwin is right about evolution then I believe it is God who gave us the ability to evolve into something better. Man gets stronger, faster, smarter. But claiming that God does not exist is not a step forward, it is a step backwards. There are many great scientist and philosphers who hold to the existence of God as well, who is Charles Darwin?

I know that there are some Christians who force their believes on others. I, on the other hand, believe that God gave us all the gift of free will. Nobody can force anyone on what they believe, but in the same way that you came into my blog and used strong words to state your case, Christians too feel strongly about their case and are passionate about it, and sometimes, Christians take it overboard. No matter, people can say what they want, the way that they say it might be wrong, but at the end of the day you must make a decision for yourself. You have to choose to accept God or reject God, there's no two way about it.

Indeed Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" is a classic, but have you heard of the Bible. It is still the top seller, translated into thousands of language. There are also many other "classics" that argue for the existence of God.

The great philosopher/theologian St. Augustine once said: "You have created us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you..." Deep inside everyone of us is a "God-shaped vacuum", it is the way the Creator created us. I believe it cannot be ignored. Trying to fill it with substitues (like money, fame, good works, etc.) will not fit, nothing will fit. God is the only one that can fill the God-shaped vacuum.

I quote from the greatest of all classics, the Bible. The wise man Solomon had everything. He had all the money, fame, fortune, wisdom and knowledge, he even had all the women he could want! And Solomon who had it all wrote in Ecclesiastes: "Also He (God) has put eternity in their hearts... All is vanity... Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all”.

... That is my conclusion of the matter as well.

GRM Question #2

So here we go again, this is the second question, in two parts:

"How can we know God? Deal with the issue regarding General revelation and Special Revelation?"

and...

"What happens to babies and young children when they die? Do mentally ill people go to heaven?"

I am already having headaches... but let's see where we can get with this.

P/S: In the meantime we can still continue our discussion on the previous posts.

RE: GRM Question #1 "There MUST be a God"

Thank you all very much for making your opinions heard. Looks like I've been thrown to the deep end of the pool. This is the main reason why I did not want to respond earlier. I acknowledge that I do not have all the answers, and I also did not want to frivolously give answers that do not hold water. Like some of my fellow classmates, this blog has consumed us, some of us are even blogging in our dreams. I have thought through the first question and now it's time to sink or swim.

Before I go any further I just want to clarify a few things. I seem to have offended some people by, what seems to me, some very innocent and neutral blog posts. The other reason why I did not make my response earlier was because I wanted to try to keep this blog a neutral ground for anyone and everyone who would like to join in this dialogue. So I did not want to make my opinions heard so soon. Remember, it's a dialogue, please try to respond with some respect to the blogger and especially to the other readers. We all have our own opinions on the issue, and although some of us may feel more strongly than others we should still respond with some respect to each other. Nobody is shoving anything down anywhere. Otherwise I can understand, and appreciate you, for your strong and passionate responses. Please continue to take part in my dialogue.

How I answer the question at hand depends very much on who asks the question. Since the question is thrown into the air, it is so much harder to provide good answer to satisfy everyone. Books can and have been written on this subject. So any response I make will be terribly short and simple in comparison. What I will do here is attempt to give a general respond. If there are some interesting comments I will try to respond more specifically.

Let me just recap the question at hand:
"Many religions claim the existence of God. Does God exist? How do we know He existed? There are so many gods, which is the true God? How do we define God?"

Many religions claim the existence of God. Does God exist?
Yes, I do believe God exists. (That was easy...)

How do we know He existed? (This is the difficult part of the question...)
I do not know how you would interpret the existence of God, but how I know he existed is through a personal experience/encounter with God. However, this answer holds very little water if you do not know the person giving the answer. This is what a Christian might call a life testimony. It seeks to proof the existence of God through a changed life. Christians claim that someone who has experienced God will be changed for the better.

But there are still other arguments for the existence of God. There is the argument of intelligent design. This view argues for the existence of God by claiming that the whole universe designed by someone intelligent. Nature in all its beauty and splendour is pointing us to someone, something. Every leaf on the trees, every grain of sand on the beach, every unique snowflake, every part of creation is pointing us to a creator who created the universe and everything in it.

There is also an argument of the "uncaused cause". This view argues that everything has a cause. For example, some people claim that humans evolved from apes, and apes evolved from monkeys, and monkeys etc... Long story short, we can all be broken down to individual cells, and cells broken down to atoms, and atoms to sub-atomic particles. If we were to follow this argument through all the way, we will inevitably realize that there has to be a supreme creator. Someone has to be there at the very beginning to cause the first chemicals to come into existence, and thus start the chain of reactions that ultimately led to the existence of homo sapiens.

I believe that there are many other arguments for and against the existence of God. However, as you can read, I clearly believe God exists. Perhaps some of you have other thesis for or against the existence of God, care to comment or respond?

There are so many gods, which is the true God? (Another toughie...)
These days people are not so concerned about the question of which is the "true" God. The post modern prediposition causes people have the opinion that whatever works for them is true and right, and whatever that does not work is discarded as "untrue". Post modernity does not have absolutes, no absolute right, no absolute wrong; just what works for each individual. However it is my belief that although there are many issues that are grey and without absolutes, and issues that require a tension of both extremes; I believe that on this issue of a true God there is only one and true God.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)

How do we define God?
This is such a subjective question. Depending on who you ask "god" could be anything. To some their god is their money, to some love is their god. However generally speaking, God is defined as a higher supreme being or beings. Some religions who claim that we are all gods in our own way. Still some others claim that God is an unknowable being. However being a Christian, I believe in a supreme monotheistic God.

Responding to the question took me a full day. I think this blog post is worth reading as it took me almost a full working day to post! I really hope that we will all learn from each other through this blog. I do not just want to make myself heard but I also want to hear you out as well. Looking forward to hearing your comments.

GRM Question #1

Like I said this blog is part of my "God, Revelation, Man" requirements. Here's the first question that was given to us to post and interact. Do not be afraid to to express yourself. All genuine opinions will be accepted. Please consider this question and leave your comments.

"Many religions claim the existence of God. Does God exist? How do we know He existed? There are so many gods, which is the true God? How do we define God?"

Looking forward to hearing out all your opinions.