QC and SG accountability (24/8/19)
I was sharing about my realization that God really, really loves us (For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him - Ps 103:11). He cannot love us any more than he does, and His electing love for us does not change when we are foolish and sinful. And I thought of how we are meant to love one another as Jesus loves us (Jn 11:35). I feel ashamed to think of how my love for people around is conditional on how they behave. We are to live a life shaped by the grace of the gospel - the grace we ourselves have received.
We talked about the pastoral issue of Christians who have depression and anxiety. I was asking how we resolve the issue of the Bible commanding us "Do not fear" or "be anxious for nothing" (Phil 4:6) or "My grace is sufficient" (2 Cor 12:9). My thought is that some of us do not have perfect mental health from genetic or environmental factors, and that we sometimes need not only prayer, Scriptural encouragement and fellowship, but medication as well. The deeper question is why we need doctors in the first place, instead of only praying for healing when we get sick. God ordinarily works through the means of medical care, instead of performing miracles of healing (which by definition are extraordinary). So there is a place to encourage emotionally troubled brothers and sisters to see a psychiatrist as well as to put our ultimate trust in God. The following article may be helpful to those of us who struggle with this issue. Conversely, there is a need at times in more serious mental illness to be aware of the possibility of demonization in some individuals who will then not respond to standard medical care.
We also talked about atonement, which led to us raising the point of Calvinism and Arminianism again. I gave a brief summary of these 2 points and noted that Arminians would not call their response to the gospel something that they can take credit for (because it is a response to 'prevenient grace' i.e. the grace of God working in one's life before regeneration). But this raises the natural question why when some respond positively to the gospel, and when some do not, this act of choice is not meritorious in some way. We also noted that Arminianism is in some logical conflict with the orthodox Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement, in that if Jesus in the Cross bore the sin of all men, rather than just the sin of the elect, God will be punishing a sinner for a sin already punished in Jesus - a double punishment. This opens the door to universalism - that all will be eventually be saved because Jesus has in fact paid for the sin of all.That is also why some Arminians reject substitutionary atonement and adopt other models of the Atonement (e.g. Christus victor, moral influence).
QY mentioned the difficulty of evangelizing when we ordinarily ask people to choose to follow Jesus, rather thinking of God as the one choosing them. We also struggle with the idea of why God would even allow man to Fall instead of decreeing that we should live in perfect obedience and joy to him. Our response is twofold:
1. On one hand, the Bible is full of the language of persuasion and choice. We therefore do not need to change our approach of asking people to choose Christ. In fact, it is in people's choices for or against God that we are either saved or condemned.
2. We know from Eph 1:3-14 and Rev 13:8 that it was always God's plan to have a Lamb slain and for a people for Himself to be redeemed in Christ. The Cross was not God's "Plan B" response to man's sin. As in Romans 9, we see the radical God-centredness of God's actions - He purposes to get glory from His actions. If not for the Fall, we would not see the full radiance of His glory - His wrath, justice, righteousness, grace and mercy. Because of the Cross we see our God as the One who suffers in love and who saves us at terrible cost. In the Cross we see the apex of God' love and grace, and also the apex of His holiness and justice. And that is why we worship with depth and emotion that would not have been possible if we had not fallen and needed a Saviour. We join with heaven in singing, “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” (Rev 5:12)
We talked about the pastoral issue of Christians who have depression and anxiety. I was asking how we resolve the issue of the Bible commanding us "Do not fear" or "be anxious for nothing" (Phil 4:6) or "My grace is sufficient" (2 Cor 12:9). My thought is that some of us do not have perfect mental health from genetic or environmental factors, and that we sometimes need not only prayer, Scriptural encouragement and fellowship, but medication as well. The deeper question is why we need doctors in the first place, instead of only praying for healing when we get sick. God ordinarily works through the means of medical care, instead of performing miracles of healing (which by definition are extraordinary). So there is a place to encourage emotionally troubled brothers and sisters to see a psychiatrist as well as to put our ultimate trust in God. The following article may be helpful to those of us who struggle with this issue. Conversely, there is a need at times in more serious mental illness to be aware of the possibility of demonization in some individuals who will then not respond to standard medical care.
We also talked about atonement, which led to us raising the point of Calvinism and Arminianism again. I gave a brief summary of these 2 points and noted that Arminians would not call their response to the gospel something that they can take credit for (because it is a response to 'prevenient grace' i.e. the grace of God working in one's life before regeneration). But this raises the natural question why when some respond positively to the gospel, and when some do not, this act of choice is not meritorious in some way. We also noted that Arminianism is in some logical conflict with the orthodox Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement, in that if Jesus in the Cross bore the sin of all men, rather than just the sin of the elect, God will be punishing a sinner for a sin already punished in Jesus - a double punishment. This opens the door to universalism - that all will be eventually be saved because Jesus has in fact paid for the sin of all.That is also why some Arminians reject substitutionary atonement and adopt other models of the Atonement (e.g. Christus victor, moral influence).
QY mentioned the difficulty of evangelizing when we ordinarily ask people to choose to follow Jesus, rather thinking of God as the one choosing them. We also struggle with the idea of why God would even allow man to Fall instead of decreeing that we should live in perfect obedience and joy to him. Our response is twofold:
1. On one hand, the Bible is full of the language of persuasion and choice. We therefore do not need to change our approach of asking people to choose Christ. In fact, it is in people's choices for or against God that we are either saved or condemned.
2. We know from Eph 1:3-14 and Rev 13:8 that it was always God's plan to have a Lamb slain and for a people for Himself to be redeemed in Christ. The Cross was not God's "Plan B" response to man's sin. As in Romans 9, we see the radical God-centredness of God's actions - He purposes to get glory from His actions. If not for the Fall, we would not see the full radiance of His glory - His wrath, justice, righteousness, grace and mercy. Because of the Cross we see our God as the One who suffers in love and who saves us at terrible cost. In the Cross we see the apex of God' love and grace, and also the apex of His holiness and justice. And that is why we worship with depth and emotion that would not have been possible if we had not fallen and needed a Saviour. We join with heaven in singing, “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” (Rev 5:12)
Comments
Post a Comment