Children Before the Father

As believers in Jesus Christ, we are justified before the Judge of Heaven. We have received the imputed righteousness of Christ as a gift of God’s grace. As a result, nothing can ever separate us from Him. However, though our sin does not change the reality of our new found relationship with God, it does impact our father/son or father/daughter relationship with him. God no longer deals with us as his enemies because, by faith in Christ, we have become his children; the siblings of Jesus (Hebrews 2:11) as well as his “friends” (John 15:15). God now deals with us “as sons” (Hebrews 12:7), which means he loves us too much to leave us alone in our sin. Though our “at peace” standing with God as our Judge is unchanging, our peaceful fellowship with him as our Father is affected when we disobey. This is because of his loyal love. He loves us too much to sit back and do nothing when sin threatens to harm us. The clearest passage teaching this is Hebrews 12:4-11.

In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

When God the Father chastens his children the goal is always restorative—never punitive. To say it again, God does not punish His children—He disciplines them. There is an enormous difference.    Continue at Paul Tautges

Thoughts on The Hunger Games

By now everyone and his brother has read and/or watched The Hunger Games, so here’s another book review to add to the pile...

Plot summary:

 

The story takes place in what was formerly the United States. Panem is its new name, a tyrannical government with 12 vassal districts that are predominantly controlled by slow starvation and martial law. As punishment for a past rebellion and to keep the populace under its thumb, two “tributes”, a girl and boy, are chosen at random from the children in each district to participate in the annual Hunger Games. These are fights to the death in a specially prepared arena for the televised entertainment of the Capitol’s hedonistic citizens and the torture of the districts. The victor’s reward is fame, money, and above all no fear of starvation ever again. The heroine, Katniss Everdeen, from District 12 volunteers to take her 12-year-old sister’s place to save her from almost certain death. Her fellow tribute is Peeta Mellark, the son of a baker, who saved Katniss and her family from starvation. As the story unfolds, Katniss and Peeta must fight for their lives until only one tribute is left. Who will be the victor?

 

[Warning: Spoiler alert.]

 

Author Suzanne Collins knows how to spin a gripping tale. The reader is drawn immediately into the horror of the games and the anguish of families who are forced to send their children to be murdered at the hands of other children year after year. You feel the battle in Katniss’ soul as she hates the Capitol’s machinations but is drawn to the idea of returning as a victor so her family will never want again. Katniss also knows she and her family owes Peeta their lives, yet it is kill or be killed. The story is violent but Collins is not overly graphic. However, I admit to quickly skimming over several sections.    Continue at Persis

Will The Defenders Of Michael Servetus Please Stand Up

Some words of Michael Servetus provoking John Calvin:

"The title makes me marvel at the impudence of the man who boasts of being a Catholic, although he is a disciple of Simon the magician, as I have evidently shown in my Apology. Who will say that a prosecutor* and a homicide is a true minister of the Church?" 

“You do not know what you say—you are a wretch, if you persist in condemning what you do not understand. Did you think to stun the ears of the judges by your barking? You have a confused intellect, so that you cannot understand the truth. Wretch! perverted by Simon Magus, you are ignorant of the first principles of things—you make men only blocks of wood and stone by establishing the slavery of the will.”

“If I have said that—not merely said it, but publicly written it—to infect the world, I would condemn myself to death. Wherefore, my Lords, I demand that my false accuser be punished, pœnâ talionis, and that he be detained a prisoner like me, till the cause be decided for his death or mine, or other punishment. And to accomplish that, I now lodge an accusation against him for the said pœnâ talionis. And I am content to die if he be not convicted of these things, as well as of others which I shall bring forward” (emphasis mine).

“Wherefore, like a magician, as he is, he ought not merely to be condemned, but to be exterminated and hunted from your city; and his goods ought to be confiscated to me in return for mine, which he has caused me to lose; which things, my Lords, I request from you” (emphasis mine).

William Tweedie writes:

As to the right to inflict punishment for the excess of religious opinion, and to chastise impiety, that was never a question in the mind of the magistrate. In condemning Servetus and his doctrines, the Council of Geneva did not think that it was doing aught more strange than in declaring Berthelier capable of receiving the communion.  Continue at Fernando Ramirez

“I Hope You Rot in Hell!”

Yesterday, a terrible tragedy struck Northern Nevada.  Many of you have probably seen the news about a man who fired on several people, ultimately killing four of them, before taking his own life.  Five of the people who were shot were Nevada Army National Guardsman, three of which died.  Many find themselves utterly dumbfounded by this evil act.  Of course, compounding the issue is that, with the death of the shooter, we may never know why he did it.  There is a tremendous sadness, and even anger over this tragedy.  In fact, one commenter on a news website summed his anger toward the shooter by stating, “I hope God doesn’t show you mercy.  I hope you rot in Hell.”

I have found myself thinking about that phrase over the last twenty-four hours.  What should we think of someone who has committed such an atrociously evil act?  Should we truly desire for someone to “rot in hell?”  Should we really desire that God never show that person mercy?  Ultimately, I believe the answer is no.   Keep Reading...

Doing Away with Hell? Part Two

The doctrine of hell has recently come under vicious attack, both from secularists and even from some evangelicals. In many ways, the assault has been a covert one. Like a slowly encroaching tide, a whole complex of inter-related cultural, theological, and philosophical changes have conspired to undermine the traditional understanding of hell. Yesterday, we considered the first and perhaps most important of those changes–a radically altered view of God. But other issues have played a part as well.

A second issue that has contributed to the modern denial of hell is a changed view of justice. Retributive justice has been the hallmark of human law since premodern times. This concept assumes that punishment is a natural and necessary component of justice. Nevertheless, retributive justice has been under assault for many years in western cultures, and this has led to modifications in the doctrine of hell.

The utilitarian philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham argued that retribution is an unacceptable form of justice. Rejecting clear and absolute moral norms, they argued that justice demands restoration rather than retribution. Criminals were no longer seen as evil and deserving of punishment, but were seen as persons in need of correction. The goal–for all but the most egregious sinners–was restoration and rehabilitation. The shift from the prison to the penitentiary was supposed to be a shift from a place of punishment to a place of penance, but apparently no one told the prisoners. Keep Reading>>>