Snigglets

we had a book about these while i was growing up. just recently i remembered them and found them online (courtesy of: http://www.ziplink.net/users/wood/funny/snigglets.html). Here they are for your enjoyment:

20 Words That Should Exist (by Rich Hall)

1. ACCORDIONATED (ah kor' de on ay tid)
adj. Being able to drive and refold a road map at the same time.

2. AQUADEXTROUS (ak wa deks' trus)
adj. Possessing the ability to turn the bathtub faucet on and off with your toes.

3. AQUALIBRIUM (ak wa lib' re um)
n. The point where the stream of drinking fountain water is at its perfect height, thus relieving the drinker from (a) having to suck the nozzle, or (b) squirting himself in the eye (or ear).

4. BURGACIDE (burg' uh side)
n. When a hamburger can't take any more torture and hurls itself through the grill into the coals.

5. BUZZACKS (buz' aks)
n. People in phone marts who walk around picking up display phones and listening for dial tones even when they know the phones are not connected.

6. CARPERPETUATION (kar' pur pet u a shun)
n. The act, when vacuuming, of running over a string or a piece of lint at least a dozen times, reaching over and picking it up, examining it, then putting it back down to give the vacuum one more chance.

7. DIMP (dimp)
n. A person who insults you in a cheap department store by asking, "Do you work here?"

8. DISCONFECT (dis kon fekt')
v. To sterilize the piece of candy you dropped on the floor by blowing on it, somehow assuming this will `remove' all the germs.

9. ECNALUBMA (ek na lub' ma)
n. A rescue vehicle which can only be seen in the rearview mirror.

10. EIFFELITES (eye' ful eyetz)
n. Gangly people sitting in front of you at the movies who, no matter what direction you lean in, follow suit.

11. ELBONICS (el bon' iks)
n. The actions of two people maneuvering for one armrest in a movie theater. (or on an airplane!)

12. ELECELLERATION (el a cel er ay' shun)
n. The mistaken notion that the more you press an elevator button the faster it will arrive.

13. FRUST (frust)
n. The small line of debris that refuses to be swept onto the dust pan and keeps backing a person across the room until he finally decides to give up and sweep it under the rug.

14. LACTOMANGULATION (lak' to man gyu lay' shun)
n. Manhandling the "open here" spout on a milk container so badly that one has to resort to the `illegal' side.

15. NEONPHANCY (ne on' fan see)
n. A fluorescent light bulb struggling to come to life.

16. PEPPIER (pehp ee ay')
n. The waiter at a fancy restaurant whose sole purpose seems to be walking around asking diners if they want ground pepper.

17. PETROPHOBIC (pet ro fob' ik)
adj. One who is embarrassed to undress in front of a household pet.

18. PHONESIA (fo nee' zhuh) n.
The affliction of dialing a phone number and forgetting whom you were calling just as they answer.

19. PUPKUS (pup' kus)
n. The moist residue left on a window after a dog presses its nose to it.

20. TELECRASTINATION (tel e kras tin ay' shun)
n. The act of always letting the phone ring at least twice before you pick it up, even when you're only six inches away.

cool quote

I was reminded of this quote today as I was flipping through the pages of old books today. This is from C. S. Lewis' flagship book, Mere Christianity:

I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, 'because it must have been so easy for Him'. Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because He was God. But surely that is a very odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher; and only because it is easier for him can he help the child. If it rejected him because 'it's easy for grown-ups' and waited to learn writing from another child who could not write itself (and so had no 'unfair' advantage), it would not get on very quickly. If I am drowning in a rapid river, and a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back (between my gasps) 'No, it's not fair! You have an unfair advantage! You're keeping one foot on the bank'? That advantage--call it 'unfair' if you like--is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?

Such is my own way of looking at what Christians call the Atonement. But remember this is only one more picture. Do not mistake it for the thing itself..."

Christ can rescue us from this river in which we are drowning because He is God and therefore has the power to save us. But Christ can also save us because He is man and, therefore, was able to take our place.

was Christ fully God?

I've been asked this question a few times recently, so I figured I'd post a blog about it...and, because I'm short on time I'm just going to copy and paste a question/answer between myself and a student who asked it:

From: [undisclosed Korean student who looks like Russell from "Up"][ok, so, those of you who know him, it was Tae! :) ]
----
matthew 24:36
No one knows about that day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father

Christ is God, God is all knowing......im confused @_@

---my response---
good question, bro. i'll admit, i don't fully understand it either. i don't fully understand Jesus. He was 100% man -- He was born like any other person, He was a baby dependent on His mother's milk, He grew up and "kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men," (Luke 2:52) He got hungry and thirsty, He got tired (John 4:6), he slept (Mark 4:38), etc. etc. He was 100% human.

But at the same time he was 100% God. He was worshiped (Matt. 14:33), He could forgive sins (Mark 2:5), He could control nature with His words (Mark 4:39), etc. etc.

So does Matthew 24:36 prove that Jesus was not omniscient (knowing everything)? There's actually other times where Jesus seems to not know something. When the woman was pushing through the crowd to touch the hem of His garment he asked "who touched me?" and then continued looking through the crowd. (Mark 5:32) It seems that Jesus was TRULY asking "who touched me?" because He didn't know. hmmmm....

Well, let's talk about something else for a bit to try to make some sense of this...

Isn't God majestic? Yes. Completely. When we see the throne room we see Him bright and majestic, shining and glorified. In Isaiah 6 when Isaiah sees God on the throne he realizes how awesome God is and how unholy he is. (Interesting note: from John 12 we can actually see that this "LORD" who is sitting on the throne in Isaiah 6 is Christ Himself! ...we can know this because John 12 quotes Isaiah 6 and refers to the one seated on the throne as Christ. notice how John 12:41 says "Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke of Him"...well who is the "Him" in context in John 12? it's Christ! So, Christ is gloriously majestic.) We also see similar things in Revelation chapters 1 and 4 -- Jesus is majestic in these chapters as well.

But when people saw Jesus on earth they weren't overwhelmed with His majesty. Sure, they were shocked by His miracles and His words, but these are words and actions...things He did, not simply who He appeared to be. A lot of the reactions of the Pharisees etc. proved that when they looked at Him all they thought they were looking at was a regular human being (Luke 4:22 they just thought He was Joseph's son...Joseph was someone these people knew. Someone some of them had grown up with. A regular man. ...notice Jesus was speaking to people in Nazareth, His hometown where He had grown up; also, Matthew 12:23 the people say "This man cannot be the Son of David, can He?" ...they didn't think He could be the Messiah (Son of David was a common term for the Messiah)...His appearance wasn't anything to marvel at (see Isaiah 53:2))

So...but Jesus was fully God, right? And God is majestic, right? Why then was Jesus of Nazareth not fully majestic??

Well...to quote Shai Linne, "He put independent use of His attributes on the shelf". ....Christ did not lose or get rid of or take off any of His "Godness" when He became a man--what He did was humble Himself. (check out Philippians 2:1-11). He was still fully, 100% God very God. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. But, He put His independent use of His attributes on the shelf. He relied entirely upon the Holy Spirit's use of the attributes of God through His life.

Isaiah 6 shows Christ's majesty before His time on earth. Then, we don't really see His majesty while He was here on earth (except for a time in the Transfiguration Matt. 17; Mark 9; Luke 9). But, later on, we do see Christ's majesty after He ascended back to Heaven (see Revelation 1 and 4).

We can expect His omniscience to follow the same pattern. Just as we didn't see Jesus' majesty while He was here on earth except when God ordains it to be seen (like at the Transfiguration), so we only see Him being omniscient when God ordains it.

Here's a decent article on it.

keep the questions coming. keep growing. keep focused on Christ.

me and walker prayed for you and your family the other day, bro. ...press on.

elias
----
OK - after reading my attempt to explain this...if you want to hear an EXCELLENT exposition on the incarnation of Christ (God the Son becoming a man) then listen to this.
(Right-click and choose "save target as" to download it.)
This is a sermon preached by Bruce Ware at Community Bible Church's "Exalting Christ Conference".
You can listen to all the sermons here.

i'm still here...

no, i haven't fallen off the face of the planet. sistre, please don't revoke my bloghood :) I am still writing, just not on my blog. If you'd like to read any of my papers they can all be found here.

from my Soteriology paper

i was reading through some of my papers i've written for seminary and decided to post this part of a paper that i wrote on "regeneration"...

Why do we need regeneration? Is it a necessary part of salvation? Can a man repent of his sins and trust in Christ for salvation without that specific work of God which we call regeneration? It is to these questions that we will now turn our attention.

First, we must understand the state of the human heart. Scripture is not unclear about the deadness of a sinnerʼs heart and its complete inability to obtain spiritual life by its own strength.

In John chapter three we see a Pharisee, Nicodemus, come to speak with Jesus. We first read Nicodemusʼ words, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him” (John 3:2b). Jesusʼ response is interesting because He does not respond directly to Nicodemusʼ statement. Instead Jesus seems to cut right to the core issue: Nicodemusʼ need for regeneration, which He speaks of as being “born again”. Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The phrase “born again” which Jesus uses, literally means “born from above.”

But Nicodemus, by his response, shows that he does not understand that Jesus is speaking not of physical birth leading to physical life, but of spiritual birth leading to spiritual life. Jesus goes on in order to make His point clearer:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ʻYou must be born again.ʼ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:5-8).

Jesus here communicates the truth that one must experience the new birth which is brought about by the Spirit. Without this working of the Spirit no one can enter the kingdom of God. So, we can see from this passage that a work of the Spirit, namely regeneration, is necessary in order for one to enter the kingdom of God (i.e. truly be saved).

We see this truth again in Ephesians chapter two. Here Paul plainly tells his audience the state of their hearts prior to salvation:
“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph. 2:1-3).

Paul is speaking to the church at Ephesus, a group of saints (see Eph. 1:1), and he tells them that they, before they were saved, were spiritually “dead” because of their sins. He tells them that they “were by nature children of wrath.” We should notice that he leaves no one out: “among whom we all once lived.” Paul is saying that there is no one who is spiritually alive in and of themselves. Not only were the saints spiritually dead, they were deserving of wrath--Godʼs eternal punishment for sin. Therefore, we see that man needs regeneration. Man needs God Himself to perform a work in his spiritually dead heart. Manʼs dead heart must be given new life through the new birth. If God does not work regeneration, man has no hope of eternal life.

-----
so i ask you, have you trusted in God's work of salvation? or are you trusting in your own righteousness? by nature you are a child of wrath which means that you deserve God's wrath as punishment on your sin. this is not something you want to face. turn to God. turn to Christ and His saving work. trust Him for salvation. there is salvation in none other.

question

the other day i received a message on facebook from someone who is a friend of a friend on there. i was glad to see someone genuinely interested in understanding the Christian faith. this person must have seen my religious views because their question was directly related to it. i figured i'd share the question and my response while keeping the person anonymous--

Question:
What do you mean by Christ is your strength? And why do you think you should have died the death that Jesus died? I am a curious person trying to better understand the Christian philosophy/thinking. Your response is truly appreciated. Thank you

--
Answer:
Hello,

I’m sorry it took me a while to respond to you. You ask two good questions, and I am glad to answer them. Actually, the answers to both of them are related.

(In my response I reference the Bible a lot. If you do not have a copy you can read the verses by going to this website: http://www.biblegateway.com/ and typing in the references I give.)

Most importantly is the idea of “Substitutionary Atonement.” This is the idea I’m trying to communicate when I say that Christ died the death I should have died. Substitutionary Atonement is essential to the Christian faith.

The idea of Substitution is a familiar one in American culture--we have substitute teachers who take the place of our normal teacher. We have substitute sugars and even substitute for salt. These all take the place of something else. Jesus Christ was our substitute in death. But, unlike teachers, sugar, and salt substitutes, Jesus was a better substitute--He was the perfect substitute.

A verse that communicates this idea of substitutionary atonement is 1 Peter 2:24 in the Bible which says, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.”

But why did Jesus have to die? Why did He have to be our substitute in death? This verse has told us that He died so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. We are healed by His wounds--by the event where He got His wounds--the cross. It says that He died so that we might do two things: die and live. Die to sin, and live to righteousness. This dying and living are spiritual death and life. Throughout the Bible, when it talks about spiritual life and spiritual death it speaks of them in the sense of “what is controlling you”. When sin and unrighteousness are controlling you, you are said to be “dead.” But when you are said to be “alive”, you have been given life through Jesus‘ work. Another way to put this is that a person who is spiritually dead is separated from God spiritually. But a person who has spiritual life is united with God spiritually (and, in the end, physically in Heaven as well.) From the Bible we can see this: Spiritually, all people are dead (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12) unless they have received life from Jesus Christ (John 11:25-26).

Ephesians 2:1-5 says this:
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).

This idea of being separated from God is because of mankind’s nature. The Bible tells us that God created the Heavens and the Earth (everything that exists). We believe in a triune God--the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. These are not three Gods, but three different persons, all equal and all so unified that they are actually one.

Colossians 1:13-23 is a good passage that explains the idea of sin separating us from the God who created us, and Jesus reconciling that separation. You can read the passage here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians+1%3A13-23&version=NASB

Notice at the end of verse 16 (speaking of Jesus) it says “all things have been created through Him and for Him.” See, we were created for Jesus. But we have all sinned--we have rebelled against our creator, we have all turned to our own ways and not lived for Him. The first part of Isaiah 53:6 says, “All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way…” Here the Bible tells us that we all have not followed God’s way, instead we follow our own ways. Because of this God, who created us for Himself, has the right to (actually, He must) punish us. The Bible teaches that God is a just God and a good God. If He were to let rebellion go without punishing it, this means He is not perfectly good and perfectly just. He would not be a good judge. (Exodus 34:7 says that God will, by no means, leave the guilty unpunished). Well, all of mankind is guilty because all have sinned and turned to their own ways instead of His ways (Isaiah 53:6 and Romans 3:23).

But the second half of Isaiah 53:6 says this: “but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him [Jesus].”

This is what I mean by Jesus died the death I should have died. I am a sinner. I have turned to my own ways and therefore I am guilty. God will not let the guilty go unpunished. Not only am I guilty before a smaller power (like the government). I am guilty before the God who created me and the rest of the universe (Col. 1:16). Because I am guilty before the infinite God, I deserve to be punished by Him--I deserve death. BUT, as it says in Ephesians 2:4-5, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).”

I hope that makes sense. All of us deserve punishment by God because we have sinned against Him (we deserve death). But, God is so rich in His mercy and His love, that He bore our sins Himself in His body on the cross (that’s 1 Peter 2:24 again). So that when we believe in Him...when we trust in Him and what He did...then He doesn’t count our sins against us, but, as Isaiah 53:6 says, He caused our iniquity (our sin) to fall on Jesus.

So...you also asked what I mean by saying that Jesus is my strength. If you go to Romans 8, this is a good passage to use to explain what I mean. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8&version=NASB )

In verse 18 it says that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. Verse 28 says that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. In other words, no matter what we go through, it will all be worth it in the end, because God is the one working it all for His purposes. Verse 37 says that in all these things (all the things that were listed in verses 35 and 36...any trouble that life can bring us)...in all those things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. Who is it that loved us? Verse 32 has told us. It is God. Verse 32 says that God Himself, who did not even spare His own Son…(that’s how much He loved us)...He will also freely give us all things--He will help us through any situation.

This is what I mean when I say that Christ is my strength. It brings such great encouragement no matter what happens in life when I know that the God of the universe loves me so much that, in order to redeem me and save me so that I might have a relationship with Him, in order to do that He spared no expense--He did not even spare His one and only Son. A God who will do that, will He not also freely give us all things?

I hope this was helpful for you.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.

Elias

Submission is Christ

God has blessed me by allowing me to go to Seminary and to learn a lot of things about Him. i have been convicted recently to write more about what i am learning...here is one of the really cool things i recently read.

These are some quotes from Bruce Ware's book "Father, Son & The Holy Spirit"... "There is an ordering in the Godhead, a "built-in" structure of authority and submission that marks a significant respect in which the Persons of the Godhead are distinguished from one another. Surely, they are not distinct in essence, for each shares fully the identically same divine nature. Their distinction, rather, is constituted, in part by taxis (which Ware describes as) "the ordering of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the Godhead" ...Intrinsic to God's own nature is a fundamental taxis, and He has so designed creation to reflect His own being, His own internal and eternal relationships, in part, through created and designed relationships of taxis."

Ware had just recently quoted 1 Corinthians 11:3 which says, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." Then he said, "Without question, the Son stands under the authority, or, if you will, the headship of the Father."

See...I see a gaping lack of authority in our culture. I see people who should take authority--they shun it. I see people who should submit to authority--they shake it off and rebel. "This is not the way you learned Christ!" No, intrinsic to the Godhead is structure: authority and submission. Not only are men supposed to submit to God, God Himself--God the Son, submits...willingly submits...to God the Father. And Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, uses this illustration of the Son submitting to the Father as an example of how we as humans should submit to each other. God has built-in to humanity and human relationships a structure of authority. This is not something "man" as put on "woman" or "masters" have put on "slaves". No, this is something the Son has willingly submitted to...He willingly submitted to the Father. And He asks that we follow His example.

Ware goes on to explain this very excellently, and I won't make this a longer blog post by quoting more and more of him, but it was incredible and eye-opening to see that God the Son willingly (and not just while He was on earth, but even from eternity past and into eternity future, as Ware proves from Scripture) submits to the Father. And this is not just a fact that we learn about Him. This characteristic is what makes Him the Son. For, how else is God the Son different than God the Father besides in His submission? He is not different in His power, His knowledge, His wisdom or in any of His attributes. The only distinction between the Son and the Father is His submission. This is what makes the Son the Son. The authority of the Father is what makes the Father the Father. These characteristics are essential. And for us to shun authority, or to rebel against it, is to rebel against who God is. It is to rebel against the image of God in us. He has imparted to us authority and submission. We would do well to accept these positions gladly, as a way to reflect Him.