methinkshe

Any appontment to office in the church of Jesus is an appointment to servanthood. The higher the office, the greater service is demanded. We can never be greater than our Master, Jesus Christ. Therefore, our highest service is "washing one another's feet" as Jesus did for us. How able are you to humble yourself? But know, however much you humble yourself you will still never match the humility of Jesus who laid aside His glory to become a mewling infant and grow up as a man. Such heavenly glory and joy set aside for the greater glory of redeeming His elect! We could never come close to such humility. Nevertheless, it is to that kind of servant-humility that we are called. God bless you, brother, and may the Lord enable you to serve in your appointment with even the tiniest degree of the humility and servant-nature of our Lord Jesus.

I haven't posted on Worthy for a good while but I really wanted to share a recent experience in the hope that it will encourage one of Jesus' 'little flock' who may be wrestling with a similar challenge. I recently was given the opportunity to help someone quite close to me (unsaved - as yet!) by purchasing a car for them (at quite considerable personal cost) on the basis of an anticipated insurance claim with which they hoped to repay my outlay. Four years ago, this woman wrote off a car - drink driving - and ever since has been named by her sin. She is labelled an alcoholic. The Lord had been impressing on me the destructiveness of naming a person by their besetting sin - it leaves that person in a place of utter hopelessness. How hurtful and cruel it is to be labelled by one's besetting sin - it's as though one's identity and destiny has been forever changed so that one is so identified with one's sin as to be known by the sin instead of one's name, never mind any decent character trait. Then this opportunity arose for me to buy a car on her behalf while she waited for settlement of her insurance claim. The means by which the car came to my notice can only be described as "providential", if one is a Christian, although others might talk of coincidence. It is a beautiful car - not any old banger - a really, lovely car. Ten years old but in perfect condition. She loved it and instinctively felt that it was "too good for her" and that she "didn't deserve it" and didn't think it could or should be hers, even though it lit a small candle of hope in her heart that her life could change. I made clear to her that it was all of the Lord's doing, none of mine. It was such a good buy that I could probably have put it back up for sale and realised a 20% profit within days. In any event, I bought the car with the intention of passing it on to her at cost price as soon as she received her insurance payout. But then I started to have doubts as to whether I was doing the right thing. I took counsel from Christians and also non-Christian relatives and there was a very distinct difference in the advice they offered. The non-Christians advocated not only that I would be foolish not to realise a 20% profit by reselling the car, but even more foolish to pass it on to a labelled alcoholic, even though I explained that my intent was to give hope where hope had been lost. I had believed from the beginning that I was merely the Lord's instrument in delivering to her an outrageously extravagant, providential gift from the Lord as a very tangible demonstration of His love for her. The Christians I spoke to understood and agreed. In contrast, the non-Christians advised that to give a labelled alcoholic access to such a lovely vehicle would be sheer stupidity on my part. Not only was she undeserving, she would inevitably wreck it. The label had well and truly stuck - she was a hopeless case, unworthy of anything lovely. Hopeless, helpless and unhelpable. Unredeemable, in a word. I pondered and prayed over this conflicting advice for several days and finally, when I resolved to make the car available to her, which was my reason for buying the car in the first instance, but also knowing that I would take a load of flack from the non-Christians who had offered their advice, I was filled with an explosion of overwhelming love that I hadn't experienced in such fullness since my conversion 40 years ago. At that time, I had received such a fullness of love that it was as though I was seeing the world in colour instead of black and white; I had felt this overwhelming love for everyone - every person on the street seemed to be of infinite worth and deserving of utmost compassion and love. But over the years the intensity had faded. But I got a taste of it again when I resolved to "show love to the unlovely", and act against worldly wisdom. I wanted to record the experience so I wrote the following verses so I wouldn't forget the blessing I experienced when I chose to "love the unlovely" as God has loved me. I hope it may be of encouragement to someone here. Blessings to all my dear brothers and sisters in Jesus, where ever you are in the world. Musings on I John 4:19 and Matthew 5:44 We love because he first loved us. Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; How can I know that I love You, Lord, When my heart is so dark and uncouth? How can I ever be reassured That I love you in spirit and truth? How can I know that the worship I bring, Which boasts of my love for you, Is not empty words, a mere paean I sing To impress the man in the pew? I’ll know I love you when I love the unloved With the undeserved love you’ve shown me. When I love my enemy, not just my beloved, And sacrifice self on The Tree. How bless-ed it is to show your grace, To the drunkard, the liar, those known By their sin, condemned and displaced, Sinners chosen in Christ for His own. Fill me with love for others, dear Lord, For in loving the unlovely I’ll know The Spirit’s love has been shed abroad In my heart, and it’s real not a show. Then I will love with a love not my own, A love that you first gave me; The Spirit’s love come down from your throne, As vast as eternity. And I shall glory in your love, not mine, A love unbounded and free, A supernatural love divine, Established in Trinity.

God provides 100% . He chooses, he draws, he calls, he saves, he sanctifies and gives eternal life. None of me, ALL of Him. THIS is the work that the Father requires - to believe on the one who is sent - Jesus. If you think you have anything whatsoever to do with your salvation - either initialising, choosing, responding, keeping - then you have taken from Jesus' and His glory and credited yourself. ALL of Him and NONE of me. ALL the glory belongs to Jesus. You/i can do NOTHING except RECEIVE God's wonderful provision in Jesus.

....the Bible! I hope this analogy doesn't offend anyone. It just came to me that the whole Bible is like Jesus' internet dating resume: it tells about who He is, His character (love, righteousness, truth, life etc) His position (Creator, King of Kings etc) His wealth (the world and all that is in it belongs to Him) His works (inherently good because He IS good) and then invites us to become betrothed to Him and finally to marry Him (I speak in spiritual terms, of course!) It is a an invitation to get to know Him personally, to fall in love with HIm, become betrothed to Him through the earnest/deposit of His Spirit, and then finally to become united in marriage - to be fully one with Him! Wow! What a resume! What a marriage proposal is that! But reading a dating resume can only tell one about the proposer, the author. Only through accepting the invitation and saying "yes" to getting to know the proposer personally can one fall in love and then gladly accept the marriage proposal and become betrothed. Many, many people will read the resume and come to know a certain amount about Jesus, but not all will accept the invitation to know Him personally by His Spirit. This life, this time of our betrothal to Jesus, is the time we are allotted to get to know our intended, our bridegroom-to-be, through His Spirit in us. And then will come that glorious day of consummation when Jesus will marry His betrothed, His bride! And truly we shall live happily ever after!

Dire - in a word! Not that God cannot work all things for good, for the called, and according to His purpose - if we confess (i.e. agree with God) regarding the inadvisability of marrying an unbeliever against His express advice, but the consquences still have to be borne, albeit with God's strength and help. Consider the problems that will arise when the believing partner wishes to bring up any children in the knowledge of God, and the unbelieving partner objects. When light and darkness attempt to co-exist, all one ends up with is a grey fog. And since that is an entirely unsatisfactory way to exist, separation is usually the result - whether it be in actuality (divorce) or apartness within the marriage. Having been there, done it, and lived with the consequences, I would not recommend it to anyone starting out in marriage. It is so second best as to be undeserving of a second thought.

............prEpositional knowledge of Jesus, not just prOpositional knowledge. Even Satan has propositional knowledge of God. The regenerate have (or maybe need) prEpositional knowledge of God. Christ in me, by me, for me, through me, to me, over me, under me, within me, beside me, above me, etc., etc. Prepositional knowledge is relational knowledge. Propositional knowledge is merely declarative. The Believer is immersed into (baptised into) the eternal love relationship of the triune Godhead. Through the Holy Spirit (by Jesus, the Son) we are baptised into the triune Father God - He in us and we in Him. Oh glory! Lord, give me the faith and grace to LIVE the prEpositional, relational truth of Christ in me and me in Christ, not merely acknowledge the prOpositional truth.

Thank you for your response. T However, your answer does not sit well with my spirit. In truth, I would prefer to remain in ignorance and trust God with my ignorance than to adopt the resolution that you propose.

Nice post - thanks. Building on that, could it then be said as follows? Since everything that God wills/plans/purposes, IS (because that is a characterisitic of omnipotence) then it must be that what IS in the spiritual unfolds in the natural, over time. Moreover, God must live in an eternal present if He is omnipotent because otherwise He would be dependent on events unfolding before executing His next move, so to speak, and dependency does not equate to omnipotence. Jesus said, referring to His second coming in Matthew 24: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." And that must require foreknowledge of how every person that has ever lived will act - past, present and future. A slight digression: having just quoted the above verse, I am puzzled as to why the Father has knowledge that the Son does not. Is Jesus saying that in His humanity He does not have this knowledge? Because if the Son does not have this knowledge in His divinity, would that not make the Son lesser than the Father? Some help would be appreciated on this point.

I suppose it is possible, although I'm wary of the idea, for the simple reason that there no indication in scripture that God did use unformed matter that had been available prior to the beginning of Genesis. Ex-nihilo is virtually impossible to prove, since one can't prove a nothing. Proving a nothing proves nothing. Even if scripture said that God created the universe out of nothing, an objector might still question what is meant by nothing. Nothing could refer to chaos, a singularity, some sort of proto-matter or anything really. However I do think that when scripture is silent on something it's silent for a reason. I also think that if one cannot find an answer in scripture and logic has reached its limits, then looking at what geniune Christians throughout the ages believed, isn't a bad approach. So for that reason I think ex-nihilo is probably right even though your theory isn't unscriptural or logically incoherent. So, in short, while I don't see anything wrong with it, I also don't see a reason to believe it. If that makes sense? I, believe that God is omnipresent, and so by definition, is everywhere. I know there are some who believe that hell is hell because God isn't there, but I don't believe such a view is entirely scriptural. The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (Rev 14:10-11) This verse seems to suggest that the torments of hell are in presence of God. If hell and outer darkness are different then I think the same would apply to outer darkness. I believe hell/outer darkness, isn't the geographical absence of God, but the perceived absence of God. In other words, when God withdraws from the lost, He doesn't withdraw physically. So while I understand what you mean, by God being able to bring chaos into order, I think God is able to do that anyway through Christ. But one must also consider God's justice. Sometimes God destroys and wreaks chaos, as a judgement. I believe this is the case for lucifer and his fallen. May I ask, are you a universalist? Thanks for your response, Luftwaffle. I agree with what you say. As for, am I a universalist, I'm not sure because I'm very wary of "isms" and "ists" so wouldn't know into which category I might fall. I believe that Jesus in His death and resurrection paid the full penalty for sin and that the freedom (release from Satan's bondage which includes justicfication and sanctification) and righteousness before God, that He purchased through that sacrifice, is universal. Therefore sin is no longer a barrier between God and man because Jesus has paid the penalty for sin and God's holiness is judicially satisfied. But that doesn't mean that all men everywhere will avail themselves of that freedom in Christ to live as God intended, through the restoration of His Spirit in man via regeneration, which is accessible only by faith. As for me, I only know that the resurrected, living Lord Jesus has come to abide in me and that I have His life in me.

Satan and sin are not synonomous. God and good are not synonomous. God does not sin because it is not in his nature to sin. God cannot even look upon sin (Hab. 1:13). Sin is what separates man from God. Sin is what brings man under a sentence of death. Jesus did not experience personal sinfulness. Jesus did not experience what it means to be a sinner. The sins He bore were not His own. The Bible puts it this way: "All we like sheep have gone astray; but God hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us all." Is. 53:6. What is important to note is that the word “laid” has a more forceful sense in the Hebrew than it does in English. From the Hebrew we find that God caused the sin of mankind to come upon Jesus heavily with great force. I would remind you of v. 5, which tells us that Jesus was crushed for our iniquities. The weight of the penalty of sin crushed Him. This points to the intense punishment Jesus was bearing for us on the cross. God the Father hurled all of his wrath and judgment for sin upon Jesus, and Jesus drank every bitter drop of the cup of God’s wrath. “…the iniquity of us all.” God laid upon Jesus the iniquity of us all. We need to be clear as to what this means, as well as what it doesn’t mean. When we say that Jesus bore our sins, we do NOT mean: That He was a sinner; That He suffered pain of conscience; That Jesus was, at any time, personally displeasing to God the Father; That there was any transfer of character or moral qualities. Jesus bore our sins but he did not become a sinner or sinful in and of Himself. Jesus bore our sins without bearing their power or pollution. Jesus, being sinless, had no need for repentance or contrition. Jesus was always, at all times, pleasing to God and remained so, even on the cross. One commentator has written: "He bore the wrath of God, but He bore it representatively. He never was more pleasing to God, He never was more righteous, He never was more acceptable and lovely He never was more intensely and immeasurably fulfilling the will God, than when He cried out, Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani!" (J. W. Alexander, D. D.) When we say that Jesus bore sin, we mean that: Jesus suffered for our sins (Is. 53:4, 5; Rom. 5:6, 8; 1Cor. 15:3; 1Thess. 5:10; 1Pet. 2:21); He bore our sins in the sense that He bore the penalty of sins; Jesus bore our sins in order to remove their penal consequences and secure our salvation. It is important to understand that our sin was imputed to Jesus, just as His righteousness is imputed to us. Jesus bore the penalty for sin, which is death. Jesus has borne everything it takes to send a man to hell. He bore our infirmities, carried our sorrows, He was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. Jesus bore everything it takes to send a man to hell and He did it so man would not have to. Thanks for the reply, Shiloh. Re the phrase above that I have bolded. What about 2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

If Satan and sin are synonymous in the same way that God and good are synonymous, (i.e. God IS good, intrinsically and uniquely) it logically follows that Satan IS sin. And God cannot be Satan, thus God cannot sin. But does that mean that God cannot, in Jesus, vicariously have experienced our sin on the cross? Not that He sinned, but that He bore our sins. One can only surmise from the description of Jesus' torment in the Garden of Gethsemane, and His cry from the cross: my God, my God, why hast thous forsaken me? that He must have experienced something terrible beyond measure: was He not experiencing (or bearing) the sin of the whole world?

So where does the following fit in? "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" Surely this is foreknowledge. And these: Romans 8:28 - 30 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Psalm 147:5 5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite. 1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Isaiah 42:9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. Isaiah 44:7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Hebrews 4:12-13 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. I have to conclude that God knows the future - intimately, intrinsically, even, not just a rough idea. Regarding free will. I have always believed that only God is autonomous and has free will; i.e. that which He wills He is able to perform. Men are derivative creatures. By birth, a man derives his spiritual nature from Satan. Through re-generation a man is restored to a pre-fall condition of deriving his spiritual nature from God. Humanity has freedom to choose but only as far as his derivative spiritual nature allows. Since the nature of Satan is everything that God is not, then God can know antithetically Satan's will in a person. And since His Spirit is in the regenerate, He knows His own will. Men's choices will be defined by the actuating spirit - either Satan or God. Moreover, because God says: "you did not choose Me but I chose you" and "no man can come to me except the Father draw him" we know that it is God who moves in a man to draw him to respond to God's calling or, conversely, does not. Thus even man's freedom to choose is limited. He doesn't have free will.

Luftwaffle, Thank you so much for the time and effort you have expended in your reply to my questions. I really appreciate it. May I take you up on your offer to "walk down this road with you and see what we can learn."? First I need to complete the picture vis a vis where I am coming from. Only please tell me if I have overstepped the mark and drifted too far from the revealed into the speculative. I want to "draw out" from the whole counsel of Scripture, not "insert" from my human understanding and imagination. Okay, continuing from my first post, here is where I go next......... Would it in any way contravene Scripture to propose a God-created universe of unformed matter that correlates with “outer darkness” that pre-existed the creation of the earth and heaven – that is, its creation from unformed matter into an ordered, life-bearing planet and atmosphere, and the giving of light to other clumps of unformed matter in the universe, thus creating the sun and stars, the whole culminating in the creation of humankind? “Ex nihilo,” if applied strictly to the creation of the earth, might not allow, but “ek Theos” would (at least, I think so) – hence my question in my previous post. One could then consider whether this is evidence that even where there is darkness and chaos and disorder, God can, if He so wills, bring His light and order and life. In a way, it could be seen as an object lesson for Satan and his demonic spirits – God rules even in the outer darkness where they were cast. That there is no place where God cannot, if He so wills, bring His Person and His rule to bear – not even “outer darkness” which, one assumes, having been cast there, Satan took as his dominion. (As an aside, I have always pondered on the verse: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. I Corinthians 11:10. What have angels to do with the subject? It is obviously an authority matter. Beyond that, I am puzzled. Anyway, it's probably a red herring as far as this discussion is concerned. But it did come to mind, so......) The spiritual battle then begins; who rules even outer darkness – God or Satan? The first move is God’s – He creates the heaven and the earth in this outer darkness, or chaotic universe of unformed matter, that Satan has taken as his dominion, by bringing His presence and order and life to it through creating plants and animals and finally man in His image, a being designed to derive his spiritual nature from his Creator. Satan responds by corrupting Adam who then derives his spiritual nature from Satan. God counter-responds by becoming man in Christ Jesus and, with the potential for spiritual regeneration that this allows humanity, takes the victory! Satan doesn’t give up, though, he continues to corrupt humanity until such times as God calls an end to Satan's deception. Or is this just far too much speculation?

This is interesting..... I think I see where you are coming from. Are you, for instance, suggesting that God's foreknowledge is less "crystal ball knowledge" (to use human terminology) and more "I will bring it to pass" and therefore because what God WILLS must always OCCUR, then he knows what will come to pass because he knows what He wills WILL happen - if you follow me! That is not in any way to detract from the conditions that sometimes accompany God's will in relation to humanity. He has given humanity freedom to choose and does not IMPOSE his will on us. Although I must admit that I get stumped right here because humanity's freedom to choose and God's will seem to be at odds with one another. He WILLS all men to be saved, but we know that because we have freedom of choice not all men will be saved. So in that instance, God does not "bring to pass" His will. Hmmm...... Also, if there is a concept of "it is finished" as Jesus said from the cross, then there cannot be an eternal "now". Perhaps such misunderstanding is what gives us the R.C. Mass - the continual re-offering of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Or have I entirely misunderstood the thrust of your reasoning and am just tying myself up in knots?

Thank you for sharing that, Fez. You are so right when you say: "Jesus put her with me to teach me a servants heart (the hard way)." I know that is true for me, too. Only yesterday I was meditating on the whole concept of the servant heart and servant leadership and how Jesus came to serve humanity. . I wonder whether some of us (me, that is!) are so hard of heart (or hard of hearing!) that we can only learn this lesson the hard way - casting no aspersions on you, of course! It is only in our service to others that the Lord Jesus in us is revealed to them, yet so often I duck the challenge. But when someone near and dear is so in need of help, it simply isn't possible to duck out. I am now praying that the Lord will enable me, through His Spirit, to serve my daughter with joy instead of reluctance. Real joy, too, not just a pious pretence, and that is going to take a transformative work in my heart on the Lord's part - but with God all things are possible and I have faith that He will do that. Already my burden feels lighter. Thank you, dear brother.