Krissi

1. The most simple and short definition of grace is this: God's unmerited favor. 2. When we seek God's favor by obeying laws we believe are of God, the vector of salvation moves from us to Him. That is the opposite of grace which moves from God to us. 3. I find the third question difficult to answer. As Pastor Ralph wrote, we are prompted by God through His prevenient grace to desire salvation. It's like priming an engine -- we won't "turn over" without help. So, in this way, our salvation is conditioned on God's calling us toward Him. BUT ... and this is where I'm confused, once prompted/primed/called, we must respond positively. We, too, have a role in salvation which is responsive. We don't initiate, but react. Having said this, from our human perspective, it "feels" as if we initiate our response, that it is wholly our own. As we respond to an altar call, for example, we are in control of ourselves. We could choose NOT to go forward or to respond. The choice "feels" as if it is ours. But ... I have read stories about people who were so emotionally or spiritually overwhelmed by a preacher or message that they rushed toward the front of the church, seemingly unable to control themselves. The shaking and tears that accompany salvation seem uncontrollable, too. Some seed falls on rocky, un-nourishing soil. What does this mean? Does it mean that the gospel message never had a chance because God had not yet overturned the soil? Does it mean that the seed could have grown, but landed in the wrong spot at the wrong time? Are there people -- my fahter comes to mind -- who are simply so hardened they are incapable of hearing the message? If the Spirit doesn't soften the soil in their hearts, the message will not be heard and accepted, but this begs the question of a human's responsibility to respond to the gospel message when it is heard.

For the past three months, I've been tentatively associating with a Christian group that uses the Jewish calendar and celebrates Jewish holidays -- First Fruits, etc. I must admit they make me increasingly uncomfortable and am now wondering if they are contemporary Judaizers! We are free in Christ from the old law ... are we free from the old culture as well? The pastors of these churches walk a fine line between accepting Christ's salvation by grace alone and re-inserting Christian faith into old Jewish practices. The phrase, "new wine in old wineskins" seems apt. In the book of acts, the Judaizers wanted to circumcise the men according to Jewish custom and law. This would have submitted Christianity to Judaism; Christian converts would then be Jewish converts. This sounds a bit like Peter's dream about eating meat that was considered unclean. God told him that meat was clean, just as God told the Judaizers in Acts 15 that circumcision wasn't necessary for salvation and sanctification. There must be a human tendency to revert to rules and regulations rather than accept the unbounded grace of God and the responsibility grace entails). When Luther broke away from the Roman Church in the 1500s, the church had essentially institutionalized certain rituals and behaviors, much like the Judaizers of Acts 15. It's not just a Jewish thing, then, but a human desire to regulate and control, and dictate and demand compliance -- this could be a result of pride as well as the desire to dominate and control others. It is sin, in other words.

Why is "continuing" or "abiding" in the faith so important? A Christian, newly converted or not, chooses to grow in faith, stagnate, or fall backward into old patterns of thinking. Most of us have done them all at different times of life, but hopefully, the net trajectory is one of growth. Growth is another way of describing continuing/abiding. It's the slow grind forward, the putting off of the old man and becoming the new. What does Jesus' Parable of the Sower teach about "continuing"? To me, the parable speaks to the fragility of faith; how important it is to immerse ourselves in fertile soil -- Pastor Ralph's studies are a part of this soil. We also have to mentor other strugglers. That parable is usually interpreted as a description of what happens to a new convert, but it can also be seen as what happens to old, seasoned Christians. Even those of us who have been "around the block a few times" in faith can recall times when we didn't thrive, grow or take root. The Christian life is more of a sine-wave than a slow, even trajectory ... maybe i'm just speaking for myself! Continuing isn't sexy. It's slow, methodical and quiet. It's the time we spent studying and in prayer. In darkness, we put down little pale roots that no one sees except God. These pale, fragile roots represent the grind of faith, pressing toward the mark without ever reaching it, our painfully slow transformation. Most of the Christian life is hidden. It's continuing. Abiding. Waiting. Why do new believers need basic instruction and discipling before the task of evangelism is complete? ...because they have no idea what's going on, and very little idea of what to do next. In the West, there is no common Christian culture anymore, no ability to draw on shared verses or even ethical norms such as the Ten Commandments. People come to faith straight out of secularity. We must start mentoring them with basics, then. As the culture coarsens and events happen that change people's perspective, the gospel has to meet-and-beat those strong forces and ways of thinking. For examples, no one would have predicted the constant obsession with social media in the 1950s -- no one would have predicted the wars of the 2020s. Yet this is what new converts have in common. They share events. Ways of looking at life. Technological advances. When we bring a very old -- yet eternally consistent -- gospel to them, we have to help them replace some of their old thinking with new. To do so, we have to understand how they think. Discipling, then, it taking them where they are at and moving them to where they can be in Christ, helping them re-think deeply buried presuppositions, helping them end engrained behaviors. A seed needs space to grow. Mental space. Much if not all growth is accomplished by the Spirit. Perhaps it's done in conjunction with our efforts, or perhaps we just imagine that we're helping others. I've soemtimes wondered if my feeble efforts to help others mature in Christ are more for me than for them -- if the Spirit is the one who causes growth as well as is the focus of growth, what is my role?

Most of us contextualize the gospel without thinking about it. It's just instinctual. Perhaps this happens because most of the people to whom we witness are from the same culture. They're our neighbors, family members, workmates, etc. Perhaps this is why missionaries can more effective, at times, than locals -- they have an outsider mentality that consciously contextualizes; they have to think about what they're doing and saying, that is. Paul had his feet in at least two cultures, maybe three: Jewish, Roman, Greek. He spoke to people from these cultures as someone who, too, was from these cultures ... because he was! Paul was obviously very familiar with the Greek diaspora of his time, and as as Jew, was comfortable among Jews. I am assuming he was familiar with Roman law and customs, as they had been imposed, top-down, on Greek and Jewish societies. I agree with Irmela above that contextualizing, ultimately, means responding to an individual, not a culture. We contextualize, if that's the right word, to the person we're talking to, leaning on the Holy Spirit for His words and insight, not solely our own.

In evangelizing people, how does God use power encounters (in Paphos, Crete, Acts 13:6-12) and signs and wonders (Acts 14:3 in Iconium)? Since plenty of people have been evangelized and brought to a saving faith in Christ without supernatural signs, wonders and 'power encounters,' this begs the question, why were these supernatural events necessary in some places and cases, but not others. I don't have an answer to this question, but it seems that in some situations, an extra assertion of God's power and glory was needed. Are miracles enough to produce saving faith on their own? If not, what else is needed? Westerners tend to explain away miracles, claiming they were natural flukes or somehow explainable scientifically. To many secular people, a seeming miracle is merely an event waiting for a scientific explanation! So, a miracle to a person determined to explain/deny it, is not enough to produce saving faith. Two things are needed. First, the Spirit must incline or tenderize a secular person before he/she is able to accept Christ. Without such an the intervention of the Spirit, no one would be saved. We only respond to His calling, though it feels as if we're initiating. The role of miracles is to help us respond correctly, that it, to see Christ as savior. Secondly, a secular person has to know what he is believing. For this, God sends messengers with the news (words). Most of us need explanatory words. These come from the evangelists ... we are all evangelists. That's our primary calling. ave you seen signs and wonders with evangelism? If not, why do you think that is? Every working of God on earth is a miracle. Yet some of these workings are ordinary, subtle miracles as juxtaposed to His extraordinary shocking ones. Signs and wonders are shocking by definition. It is far more difficult to believe a subtle miracle than a shocking one. It's far easier to assert that God miraculously intervened in human history when the Red Sea parts or someone's leg is lengthened. When sufferings in life are alleviated, however, we tend not to call that a miracle. We may be grateful, but don't see God's intervention as miraculous. Regarding evangelism: I believe every act of His saving power is a miracle and every person who comes to know him as savior are living, walking miracles. But Pastor Ralph's quesiton specifically deals with a particular kind of miracle, one that is dramatic and unexplainable scientifically. I have not seen this sort of miracle. If not, why do you think that is? Yesterday, I was listening to an old Derek Prince sermon on the Internet. He said something that's still rattling around my head: God's power, he said, starts at the point where our human abilities end. Assuming this is correct, in the West, the development of scientific achievements and explanations have made it difficult for us to see God in the world. We have been hardened against the miraculous. We do not see what we don't believe exists. Our medical and other scientific abilities have limited God. My pray to see God at work as much as possible, to discern his "finger" even in events I no longer regard as miraculous. x

What "common ground" does the gospel of Jesus have with Judaism? There's a debate, of sorts, about how Christians should regard Jews and, by extension, the Old Testament. Christ's birth, death and resurrection functions as a divisor between the Old and New, between law and gospel, Jew and Christian. But ... Christians are grafted onto the trunk of Judaism. In some mysterious way, we're part of, or attached to, Jews. When we evangelize to Jews, our focus is to bring Jews into the saving knowledge of their own Messiah. Though we share history -- God's revelation unfolds throughout the OT -- we stress the uniqueness of God's revelation to Jews. How does Paul's approach in the synagogues reflect building on this common ground? Paul begins by recounting a few of the bigger events in Jewish history, establishing himself as a Jew who knew their history well and presumably believed it. He boldly accused the Jews of fomenting political riots which led to the murder of their own Messiah but then quickly moved to the salvation of Jesus and His resurrection in the body. All of these were ideas familiar to the Jews. What Paul did was arrange these ideas in a logical sequence. He led them to water. What is the essence of the gospel? God's plan of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. As Paul did, we have to begin where/how people think in our culture. We also have to particularize our message to a person's needs, assuming we're evangelizing one-on-one.

How does Paul view his call to preach? I don't think, after he was blinded and prayed over to be sighted, and more importantly, after he had personal experiences and conversations(?) with Jesus, that Paul ever doubted his own calling. His was an inviolable calling. Set in stone. His future was determined. Of course, he could have walked away from it, and perhaps he was tempted to do so at times, but Paul knew in his core who he had been created to be -- an apostle to the gentiles. Paul's personality was "all-in" anyway. As a Jew, he cheered for the murder of Christians -- as a Christian, he gave his life. How much choice is involved for him? I love how Paul views his own calling as a compulsion. He can't help but to do his calling, the assignment God has for him, one chosen before his conception. He is to church plant. To teach. Specifically, he is to leave the group of his birth, the Jews, to enter into new cultures and peoples in order to bring them the gospel. How much honor? I don't know how to answer this question. Was being an apostle an honor? Of course. But Paul would be comparing his new status as an apostle for Christ to that of his old status as an up-and-coming Pharisee. In the eyes of the world, Paul took a big step down after he submitted to his calling. In the eyes of God, he was obedient. How should this understanding affect our understanding of God gifting and calling us for ministry? I cried when I read this section and am wiping away tears now. I desperately want God to clearly call me to a specific role in His kingdom, to give a purpose to my life by receiving a meaningful assignment. What is the opposite of faithfulness when it comes to using God's gifts? The opposite of the faithful-using of God's gifts is not the unfaithful-using of those gifts, but rather NOT using the gifts at all. Often, God calls us to an atypical, unacceptable and difficult life. But for many Christians, to live an ordinary life is the biggest goal that God is allowed to give them. To do no more than what's expected is about as good as it gets, to them. Their gifts lay on the shelf, unused and dusty. God must hate this mentality. He must look down from His throne in heaven and see human-ants moving incessantly and pointlessly. He must see timid bores who are unresponsive to his calling and unwilling to color outside the lines for Him. He must see cloying conformists. Organization men. To follow Him means giving up easy and predictable social expectations; it means assuming His expectations for our lives. The reason why the world isn't evangelized is because most Christians have not taken His great commission seriously -- after all, evangelization isn't as important as driving little Austin to his trombone lesson, buying the perfect dress for your husband's Christmas party or bringing a pretty casserole to the next women's meeting. Priorities, ladies! /sarc

I became distracted by Pastor Ralph's mention of the "Homogeneous Unit Principle" -- an idea I couldn't remember -- so spent the last hour reading about it. In many ways, this principle answers our questions. To sum: The Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUD) was developed by a man whose family had been missionaries in India for three generations. India, he noticed, is communal. By this I mean that groups such a neighborhoods, families and congregations make decisions corporately, not individually. Perhaps this isn't the case as much anymore now that Western values have permeated every nook of the earth, but at the time he was developing this idea, in the 1970s, it made sense. Here's a quote: That quote is from an online, four-part series, "Reflections on the Homogeneous Unit Principle," by David Williams, https://www.cms.org.au/2021/06/reflections-on-the-homogeneous-unit-principle-part-1-of-4/ It's a good read. So, to answer the question, "Why are the church leaders in Antioch seeking God through corporate prayer and fasting?" the answer is simple -- this is how they made decisions; decision were made corporately, not individually. The entire church prayed and fasted, not individuals within the church who "feel so led." How does God respond to their seeking? God seems to have approved or rewarded their corporate prayers/fasts. Why do you think we don't do more of this sort of thing today? We're individualized. As individuals we pray and fast, but I've never seen a church-wide fast, or even a request to fast. As a solitary individual, I fast for the needs of myself and others, and, at times, for a larger concern such as socio-political issues. I'm fasting now for God's revelation about my future. I want to know what God is calling me to do. I want His direction and leading. Where are the prophets today? What was the importance of this to the church at large? To the chosen missionaries? By this, I think Pastor Ralph is asking what sort of binding or lifting qualities are present when people fast and pray corporately. I'm not sure it's much different than the sorts of feelings or insights we get individually. Some people are very impacted by the people around them so could be more drawn into the experience: others shut their eyes and approach God as an individual who happens to be situated in a crowd. The prophetic aspect which validates their calling is both specific and personal. Details beyond their names must have been revealed. God could have appeared or spoken to Barnabus and Saul when they were alone, but chose to use prophets. When a congregation acknowledges the calling by God on someone set apart for His work, the fact that the church laid hands or prayed for that person does seem to validate or confirm his or her calling. The apostles and others must have felt more confident knowing that the congregation had, in essence, validated it publicly.

Why does Paul call out Peter publicly in Antioch? Paul could have approached Peter privately to talk about his concerns, yet he chose a public forum which demeaned and belittled Peter. Why did he do this? My guess why Paul's rebuke was made publicly because Peter's behavior had had public/church-wide ramifications, gentile Christians had been feeling hurt and rejected by their Jewish brethren, and Jewish leaders had not done anything about it and were, in fact, perpetuating a two-tiered version of Christianity. What is the reason for Peter's hypocrisy? I don't know the sequence of events but at some point in the book of Acts Peter had a vision in which animals were lowered on a blanket before him. He was commanded (by God?) to kill those animals and eat them. Peter refused because of Jewish laws that rendered those animals unclean. This was repeated three times. In the end, God told him to not consider things unclean which He has said were clean. What is the central issue on which Paul feels they must not compromise? This is the central issue -- although they knew that the old laws that had to do with unclean/clean had been abrogated by Christ, and that gentiles were now full members of the body of Christ, prior habits borne from a sense of superiority lingered among the Jewish leaders of the new church. Paul sensed the corrosive nature of a two-tiered Christianity and nixed it before it became deeply rooted. Had he not done this, Christianity could have developed into two religions, with gentile-Christians becoming the "Samaritans." Why is it so important? One of the most important social implications of the Christian faith is the idea we are all equal or one, that in the body of Christ we may have a different function but not a different status.

Perhaps church discipline is avoided because with so many churches to choose from, an individual Christian is able to leave a more stringent church and join a less stringent church without social repercussions. Church discipline may work best in a monopolistic circumstance. During the reformation, for example, when Luther was excommunicated by the Catholic church, it was a big deal because Luther had no other options -- the Catholic church exercised a monopoly on Christianity. This is no longer the case. Another reason why church discipline is avoided is that churches are morally/ethically weak. They'd rather look away from sin, to proclaim a weak gospel of love and forgiveness. Moral laxity is the norm and churches, unfortunately, don't set themselves apart from society. In my wee opinion, we need to be more like the Amish than the Episcopalians; more distinct from society than successful within it. I have never seen church discipline so I have no idea what it would be like. I don't have a comparison with a culture that practices discipline and don't see or can imagine it's consequences. Pastor Ralph's mention of shunning among the Amish makes sense -- that's an application of discipline. Do they still do this? I'm sure we've all read the nineteenth-century novel by Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter, in which the protagonist Hester Pyrne (?) was judged on a platform in front of her entire community because she had borne an illegitimate child. As a punishment for her moral transgression, she was forced to wear a large, red letter "A" conspicuously sewn on her clothing ... for the rest of her life. If I recall the story correctly, because the father of her child was the town minister, she refused to divulge his name and so was forced to bear the shame and punishment alone. To avoid this novel's scenario, the church has gone to the opposite extreme. We don't have stocks or public shaming. We don't brand people or force them to wear a letter "A." We don't have overt shaming in the church either. But we do have subtle shaming: being avoided, not being included in social events, sitting alone, being the focus of gossip. Morality, then, is internalized. Though I'm certain that, if asked, most Christians would agree that adultery, for example, is wrong, I rather doubt that a practicing adulterer would be kicked out of 99-percent of evangelical/charismatic fellowships, particularly if he/she were subtle about their sin. We tolerate some sins more easily than others -- blatant materialism and greed are rarely considering to be offensive, and, at times, are even seen as a marker of success. If you want to get a sense of how much people care about morality in your church or fellowship, just ask them to list the Ten Commandments ...

Why do ambitious Christians struggle so much when they don't seem to be doing anything important? Obviously, someone needs to explain this struggle from the point of view of a so-called "ambitious Christian." It's not so much the importance of the task that's so enticing -- though that helps! -- but it is the actual doing of a task that matters. It's the challenge. The next mountain to climb. The feeling of being a total failure if a week/hour/second goes by without accomplishing something. For years, I charted all my little achievements: the number of words written, number of tomatoes grown, weight and strength, etc. I loved to see progress. Change. To be a bigger and better me. Why is this so difficult to understand, folks???? It's not ambition in a social sense, but in a personal sense. It's the driven, Type-A personality. Why is patience with God's plan so important to growth? I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Don't just sit there, do something ..." Some guy in the 1950s/60s inverted that phrase, "Don't just do something, sit there." That guy needs to have his butt superglued to a heavy chair for that phrase is inhumane, cruel and unusual! Look, some of us are born with personalities that are driven! I can't sit still. Never could. In my wee opinion, the most ridiculously impossible verse in the Bible is this: "Be still and know I am God." Having said this, I know that God not only has given me my personality (and is busily changing it), but also has forced me to be still, to live in solitude, and be separated from the bustle of existence. Though I have prayed for a "big life" for the past six years, God has made my life even smaller. He has His inscrutable reasons. Admittedly, it's been a time of accelerated spiritual growth. I often wonder, however, why a good God can't come up with a kinder way of helping me learn of Him as a person. If you have read Lettie Cowman's devotionals, you'll understand the horror of solitude and stillness from the perspective of a Type-A woman who is far more spiritually mature than am I. Suffice it to say that for the driven, not being challenged is pure torture. Being stuck at home, puttering around the house, feeding my elderly father, watching snow fall and then trees come into leaf, reading book after book after book after book after book after book, writing a few books ... too, petting the dog, studying devotionally for hours because prayer is so difficult -- this is torture to a driven person. Yet, I know that God puts people like me into house arrest because that's the only way He can get us to focus on Him and not on the tasks we're eager to do. If he had not plunged us into seeming inactivity, we'd be starting this or that group, raising money, rushing off to the mission field, speaking incessantly ... without looking at Him or really knowing Him. We would be less obedient than frenetic. We wouldn't really know God. Why is a period of spiritual formation so important to future leadership? Waiting is the supreme test of obedience. I'm not sure waiting is important only to leaders, however, for it is also important to average, everyday pew-warmers like me. A "period of spiritual formation" is a time of nothingness and waiting. "When the cloud tarried ... then the children of Israel ... journeyed not." The poor Israelites were forced to camp for months, perhaps years, without starting fun building projects, digging deep wells, putting in irrigation to make fields productive, dragging stones to make roads, teaching in schools and writing the curriculum, etc. These are the things one would do who was NOT merely tarrying, but knew his calling, purpose and reason for existing. It must have been horrible to be sitting in a dry, ugly desert, looking up at the cloud in tears and begging God to make it move. I feel their pain! Tarrying is for the lost. It's for those who have to learn something before life can start again. It's the pause between the projects, the "pregnant silence" before the crescendo. I wait because God has not assigned me to do anything. Sure, it's a preparatory period, but that's the point, isn't it? Waiting, in itself, is meaningless. It's ONLY preparation for something else. No one likes to wait. To listening for God's voice? I've never heard God's audible voice. If I did, I'd probably spin around to see who is behind me! One of the things I am learning, slowly, is to hear His inaudible voice as I pray. Perhaps this time of house arrest has taught me the rudiments.

If we were to follow Paul’s rule, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat,” wouldn’t that allow people to starve? Were there safety social nets in Roman society at the time Paul wrote these words? I doubt it. How did those people live, then, assuming they did not work, BEFORE they were part of the church? Someone must have supported them. Perhaps they were wealthy. Perhaps they were beggars. Assuming they stopped working when they became Christians because they had figured out how to sponge off of other Christians, well, yes, I'd like them starve. Most people, when faced with starvation, figure out how to work. If they were capable of working, they'd suddenly re-discover their work ethic. It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule? It's not harsh. It's tough love. The church doesn't need parasites in congregation or clergy. And, parasites don't need to be parasitical! Work is ennobling. When someone works hard at something and does a "good job," he or she has a feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction, even in more abstract jobs. I remember talking to an engineer-architect who told me that he had designed a few buildings in that city. He told me that every time he drove past those buildings, he smiled. I also remember meeting someone who designed the lighting in grocery stores -- he told me he'd always walk by the produce when shopping, just to see his illumination work! That's a good thing. Those who are lazy may discover these same feelings or accomplishment when forced to work. Perhaps the congregation itself would be strengthened by raising the spiritual "mean" or average of the congregation which is pulled down by it's least mature members. Forcing people to work would raise that spiritual mean. Furthermore, the congregation would have more money to give away to those who truly need it. To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply? To whom would it not apply? Specifically, it would only apply to those truly in need. The elderly, in particular, are vulnerable and often unseen and ignored. It would not apply to anyone capable of work. I also think that Christians who work hard, but still cannot make ends meet, or who have sudden catastrophe such as a health crisis, should be supported. One last thing. Christians who do work, yet fall on rough times, need to be supported in a way that doesn't demean or diminish them. Sometimes that support could be in the form of child care or dropping off food anonymously. The point is to not make them feel like failures or to belittle them in any way. I have seen women in church groups make meals for people who don't really need meals. I remember being in one such group when I had a baby. Their "ministry" was to bring meals to new mothers for one week. This sounds nice, but none of us needed it. The only effect that these meals had was to make the women in the group feel good about themselves -- it served no real need. Their time would have been better spent volunteering at a homeless shelter where the need for food was real, not contrived.

This is fascinating -- a moon worshipper morphs into a godly man. He became godly because God revealed aspects of Himself to Abraham. The little bit that Abraham knew of God was compelling enough to believe in Him, to really trust God, and to do what God tells him to do ... most of the time. God gave Abraham the promise that he would be the father of a nation which obviously meant he'd have to have a child as the basis of that nation. In spite of his circumstances and logic, most of the time Abraham believed this promise of God. I like the fact that God overlooks or forgives Abrahams momentary lapses in faith. Gives me hope. At times, trusting God means being irrational. It means NOT looking at circumstances. It means NOT listening to the people around you who love and want the best for you. Sometimes, trusting God means walking into burning fires because you are absolutely convinced that this is God's will. Abraham trusted God like this. It was irrational for an old, wandering, stateless man to believe he would be the founder of a new nation. His circumstances weren't amenable ... he wasn't poor, but he didn't have a place of his own. No country was named after him. No land was his to defend. He mostly didn't listen to those who criticized him for being a believer in God -- he did listen to Sarah, his wife, and then slept with her servant -- big mistake! The current conflict in israel is the fruit of that coupling. What I identify with in Abraham is his wavering glitches in faith. What I love about God is his willingness to use Abraham in spite of these faith-glitches.

What kind of example did Paul set with regard to work when he was in Thessalonica? Paul worked diligently, for long hours, with his hands. He was a skilled tradesman. Those with whom he lived, that is, those with whom he travelled would have surely watched him work. Perhaps people in the cities to which he travelled also watched him work. As a tent-maker, he would have had to carry heavy loads of cloth to make tents. He also would have had to bring his needles, dowels, string or thread and other tools and supplies of that trade. I never thought that Paul was schlepping this stuff around until now! As a Christian worker, did he have a right to support? Yes, though I wouldn't word it as a "right." I'd rather say he had an "expectation" that people in each city would be willing to support him so he could preach and teach. Sometimes they gave ... sometimes not. It's much like itinerant preachers today who ask for "love offerings." I'm sure they pray that their offerings, at a minimum, cover their expenses. Why didn’t he exercise that right? Paul says he wanted to be an example of hard work to those who may have thought he was sloughing it off by only preaching. It would be difficult to deny Paul was working when he produced actual, visual objects, in this case, tents; it was easier to deny Paul was working when he produced speeches.

What does the Bible teach about sloth and idleness among those who can work but refuse to? Summarize it briefly. What is our Christian duty? Most of the people I know, including myself, have the opposite problem -- we're compulsive workers, unable to relax. Compulsive workers find the contemplative aspects of Christian faith almost impossible to "achieve." For example, I have a difficult time clearing my mind for prayer. I've met a handful of truly lazy people in my past -- none were christians -- who had either been born into money or received a windfall for some reason. The only work they did, in their minds, had to do had to be "fun." They became dissipated and lazy, self-indulgent and obsessed with the material objects. They shrank as people. By this I mean that they were less interesting to talk to because they had nothing to talk about! Instead of giving away their wealth, they hoarded it as they were spending. Money, oddly, had became the focus of their life perhaps because their status as wealthy individuals was all they had -- they had no real or meaningful accomplishments. Without faith, if one's livelihood is assured, the problem of work becomes acute. (This is a great time to witness, by the way.) Faith gives meaning to labor. A faithful person does not labor to exist, but labors because he/she LOVES other people and wants to serve them and because he/she loves God and want to obey Him. Labors become infused with meaning because they are no longer seen as a "job" but as a significant and important "calling." I'm not opposed to the Protestant work ethic, by the way. It's a glorious idea, misunderstood by most. Essentially, this ethic weaves calling and work tightly together. In it, you work because you are called to work; it is your obedience to that calling that gives joy and direction to your life.

Why is perseverance so important as we see wickedness increasing? The most horrible of circumstances are those which never seem to get better. Then, patience over the long term is needed. That's how I think of perseverance, as patience stretched over many years, over circumstances that are emotionally crushing. What happens if we stop believing and being patient? When we impatiently do stupid things to get rid of the pain and change the circumstances, our circumstances actually get worse. How can we help one another persevere? Only those who trust us can be encouraged. Most of the time the sort of circumstances that require perseverance are too horrible to discuss. Ultimately, perseverance is an individual character trait that has to be grown by the Spirit -- it's less of an issue in our salvation than in our subsequent sanctification. What part does God’s redemption and grace have in our salvation? God initiates and completes our salvation. I'm not smart enough to understand our and His respective roles. Somehow we respond to what He puts into our hearts -- a need to know Him. Is our response preordained? Again, I don't know and probably will never know!

Many years ago I read an article in which random Christians in different churches were asked to recite the Ten Commandments. Very few -- less than ten percent, as I recall -- were able to recite most of them. Some didn't know any of the commandments. Most Christians could say only one or two of them. These were Christians! Could it be the case that legalism isn't possible unless the law is known? Legalism isn't trusting oneself but a fanatical adherence to the letter of the law. Spiritual pride is another matter. One can be proud of one's ability to stand in front of the congregation and preach, pray, sing or whatever. One can be proud of the number of converts notched on one's belt. One can be proud of diligent reading and prayer, and of completing these bible studies. One can be proud, then, of good things, strangely. When the thing of which one is proud is a substitute for a relationship with Christ Himself, then "spiritual pride" is a hindrance to knowing Him and trusting only Him in faith. I struggle with pride even though all I value has been destroyed in the past decade. At times, I feel sorry for myself and angry at God. I beg to die rather than put up with another day on earth. When I gripe to God about how much I hate my life and want either change or death, I feel the heaviness of the Spirit in me. I know I've displeased him. And in a very real way, it's pride that's hindering me. If I were not so proud, I would not believe I deserve more than this. As I ask God, "Haven't I been humbled enough?" I realize that the asking of that question renders His answer, "NO!"

Why do you think God sends Ananias to Paul rather than revealing directly? I don't know. Saul had been blinded for only three days and certainly didn't have the time to deeply ponder what had happened to him and why so I don't think it had to do with Saul but Ananias. Surely, Ananias was changed by the experience of ministering to Paul, by being the instrument God used to perform the miracle of restoring Paul's sight, leading Him to the Lord and baptising him in the Spirit. God could have appeared to Paul as he did to so many Old Testament figures, even obliquely as in a burning bush. But He didn't do this. I don't think we'll ever know His reasons for doing what He did. Why does Ananias argue with God? Ananias was rightly frightened. Stephen had just been stoned and Ananias was afraid of meeting a similar fate. Why does it take courage to obey? What does Ananias do and say? Facing persecution or death for the sake of my faith is always courageous because the option lingers in my mind of denying Christ to save my life. Have you ever had God guide you to talk with someone and minister to him or her? Have you followed through? Yes and Yes. But it's never enough! I pray to be used by Him in the near future. I'm praying to powerfully evangelize, with the power of Him/Spirit, not with the power of my own cleverness, charisma or ability to articulate.

What makes people so gullible that they believe the Antichrist’s deceptions? What is the reason that God gives them over to this deception? This question has to do with human psychology and how we're wired to believe certain untruths. It also has to do with how society forces untruths on us -- relentlessly, through the media and government disinformation. I have no doubt that most of the people I know will believe the antiChrist when he comes. They're inclined to believe the herd, to defer to "expert opinion." These are those who "refuse to love the truth." But the verses Pastor Ralph gave us also suggest that they believe lies because God has given up on them, knowing that they'll never want to know the truth. Some people may be "too far gone." I'd like to think that everyone could be saved if they wanted to be so, but some people make decisions, one after the next, that only reinforce their "powerful delusions." They can't be corrected. Why is a fearless seeking of God’s truth so important to us? How can a preaching of the truth set people free? I was struck by the "fearlessness" we must have as we seek His truths. This implies something bad may happen or that the truths themselves may be so powerful, or so antithetical to the way we live/think that we are afraid of knowing the truth. Some strongly held ideas are tenaciously held because changing them was far too difficult and painful. God doesn't seem to make everyone face their own delusions. I was also struck by the phrase, "refuse to love the truth." Not only are we to fearlessly seek what we fear will destroy us, but we also have to love it!! That's amazing. I'm thinking of a young woman who is a lesbian with whom I recently spoke, who though she has divorced her "wife" to marry a male (it's a start!), she refuses to condemn her old beliefs. Too proud to admit she was wrong, she won't cut the mental/emotional/spiritual ties to her past, even though she seems to love her new husband and the truth of real marriage. I'm praying that God sends her a better messenger than I to explain, patiently and with great compassion, true human sexuality. Perhaps his/her preaching will set her free as the Spirit enters her? I pray this happens. But there are people who grew up in the church, or who knew the truth but backburnered or rejected it to believe a lie they can't "live without it." I've known ******** Marxists who simply can't give up that totalizing way of looking at the world -- I've also read of a handful who have become Christian. I know many "greenies" who are convinced that the world is warming -- these people have made themselves into mini-gods who can't quite give up their own eschatological POV that contradicts God's word. Many sexual deviants, uber-wealthy shysters, ******** patriots as well as America-haters, and almost all diplomats and politicians involved in international affairs are people who can't give up the lie as it's too personally painful for them to do so. They prefer bondage to the lies of their own concoction to freedom from those lies by submitting to Christ.

The antichrist will be proud -- intense and excessive pride is his distinguishing characteristic. He is too proud to submit to law -- he exalts himself above all. He is too proud to submit to God, in fact he puts himself in the place of God, pretending to be God, fooling some people, though ultimately he is only fooling himself. Most Christians assume that the antichrist will be a political leader. Pastor Ralph, in contrast, emphasized the antichrist's religious fantasies: the Revelation passage states that the antichrist makes war against christians to conquer the church. He is a one-world leader with authority/power over every single nation and people-group. And most people, even Christians, apparently, will not push back -- all but the most true Christians will worship the antichrist. The antichrist is a person, a flesh-and-blood man, not an socio-economic or political system. He will have a name. The antichrist, then, will usher in a 42-month period of intense political persecution of Christian as he tries to consolidate power under himself. I can see how such political persecution separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in the church. Weaker Christians and those of false or unformed faith will fall away unless protected and shepherded by those with stronger faith. I'm repressing the urge to speculate who it could be, if the antichrist is alive today. It seems only logical that he would come from one of the organizations with globalist pretensions (WHO, UN, EU) or from a powerful state with globalist pretensions (China, USA).

The Thessalonians had been convinced that they had missed Jesus's second visitation to the earth by a false prophet or letter-writer. They didn't know what to believe. On the one hand, they had the false letter from a false Christian (or a confused one) -- on the other hand, they had Paul's comforting words that they had not missed the Second Coming. I wonder how they dealt with these confusing, conflicting ways of looking at things. We tend to think that Paul's words automatically settled the issue, but maybe they remained confused. In his brief discussion of the anti-Christ, Paul clearly states that the anti-Christ will come before Christ returns. He will reign during a time when people are crude, unlettered, hostile to God and immoral (sounds like today, huh?). The anti-Christ seems, in the biblical description, to be a political leader, perhaps a globalist/internationalist. Since Christ won't come until the anti-Christ is in power, many find it tempting to speculate on who the anti-Christ could be! It's sorta like a Christian parlor game.

Why does persecuting Christ's people constitute persecuting Christ himself? I hope, frankly, that the persecution I've endured recently is equivalent to being like Christ and His persecution. It seems, though, that many Christian who are persecuted are not relieved of that persecution in their lives, and some even die as martyrs ... again, like Christ. God controls all of human history including its more sordid aspects such as the persecution of believers. I do not know how to reconcile God's sovereignty with the persecution of believers. What kinds of goads or prods have you seen God use on you to move you along Christ's path? The goads God has used to get me to turn to Him more fervently are failure and persecution, solitude and divorce. All were incredibly painful. When you "kick against the goads" is it harder on you or on God? Me. God put those goads in my path both by creating me the way I am and by engineering my life. He knew when I would fail and when I would overcome. He chose to make my life difficult. God is sovereign. He knows and controls all events in our lives, including the goads which He places on our path.

I imagine the glory of God to be so overwhelming that it's "sensory overload." In the Bible, God's presence is so bright, so loud, so frightening ... that it defies explanatory words. Metaphors had to suffice and even the strongest of adjectives was not enough. Frankly, I think God's glory would be terrifying both to believers and seculars. It's just too much to take in ... even though believers are safe. Unbelievers would see it as a Hollywoodish depiction except in their hearts they would know the glory was real, not fake, and that would terrify them. Their lack of understanding, though, may cause seculars to see the glory as a natural disaster, nuclear bomb, or something like that. I don't think they'd associate it with God. If "outer darkness" is hell, then "inner lightness" is heaven. "Darkness as black as night covers all the nations of the earth, but the glory of the Lord rises and appears over you.All nations will come to your light; mighty kings will come to see your radiance." (Isaiah 60:2-3 NLT)

I've been reading primary sources on the First Great Awakening lately. The sermons at that time have been shocking because of their "negativity," I confess. Earlier generations of Christian evangelists made no effort to create "seeker friendly services" or salve/comfort those attending their services; instead preachers spoke often and in explicit terms about hell, damnation and the horrible consequence of unbelief. No comforting psychology, excuses, alibis or whatever were given to those who reject God. Instead, they were called heathen or the damned and not the more gentle term that I just used, "unbelievers." Perhaps we've lost something in our evangelistic appeal if we do not talk about hell? I don't know. I have no idea how a Purlitan-like sermon would effect millennials, for example. Perhaps our Puritan forebears were onto something when they frightened those who heard their message ... purposely. The response of heathen-listeners was to shake, sob, be consumed with fear, beg God for forgiveness, etc. Their reaction, in short, was visceral as well as mental/spiritual. They were very afraid. -- I confess that I never heard of annihilation until this lesson. Any doctrine that softens the notion of hell for unbelievers functions like this, however, which is why most non-believers don't believe in hell. It's not like unbelievers think about hell, admit it exists and roll the dice! That's not what happens. They deny hell's existence. I have been told on several occasions that some unbelievers were such good people -- so kind, nice and generous -- that God could never consign them to hell; conversely, I have been told that Christians are frauds and child molesters who deserve hell. My point is that our common culture cannot handle the idea of judgment which is why, frankly, it may be useful to bring it up again. The list of verses Pastor Ralph listed is a good start. As an aside, Jews don't have a developed knowledge of hell. Instead, they believe that "good Jews" sorta hover about, like shades or ghosts -- well-educated people have told me this. When in graveyards, Jews put little pebbles on the gravestones to weigh down the ghosts trying to escape. For them, hell is not a place of punishment but more like a boring playground with lousy equipment that no one wants to play on. There's no judgment in shoel. No God. For most Jews, the afterlife is, at best, a sleeping state ... but forever. A small minority of Jews believe the body will be resurrected when the Messiah comes (not Jesus) and there will be an existence something like the Christian heaven for ALL Jews, good or bad, believing or unbelieving.

I find Pastor Ralph's observation that they were "just' praying in the upper room, as if that was insufficient, until the power of the Spirit came upon them. How often I've prayed without power! Probably most of my prayers are insipid and powerless, I confess. But what KIND of power did they get? I'm not sure, but whatever it was, it had a witnessing effect. Before, they prayed: after the Spirit came, they proclaimed, witnessed ... were martyred. The identity of martyrdom and witnessing frightens me. Spreading the gospel should be costly, not easy. It could cost my life. When the Spirit came upon them, they scattered. The usual explanation is that the diaspora was a consequence of persecution, but maybe they were just obeying the Spirit who told them to leave, run, move-house, and go to new places. Why? To witness. To die there. But the blueprint is this -- once the Spirit comes upon a new Christian, he/she will feel compelled to witness AND witness to groups of people who had never heard the gospel message. Do I fit in this? Yes. I am waiting for His commission or sending, eager to do whatever He wants me to do abroad or at home. I simply wish He'd speak in a clear though whispery voice, "GO TO INDIA (or wherever) and TELL PEOPLE ABOUT ME AS YOU ...." The people in the upper room were clearly empowered and sent. I pray for such clarity in my own life.