His Will

Learning the painful lesson of havening to admit we're wrong and to try to appreciate the good that comes out of it; to see that what happened was for the glory of God, that is was His will—helps us grow.
The taste of humility can be sorrowful and even bitter to the taste when it comes to the test.
It really reminded me of how humble Jesus had to make himself living down here among us humans and die (Phil. 2:8)—and how small our own lessons of humility are so pathetically silly compared to His. It’s a great comfort to know that whatever lesson comes by it is God's will, and blessings come out of every situation. Each lesson and trial is apart of the narrow walk He gives us.
Personally, it makes me feel very small how God chose us to love and care for, to create in His likeness out of anything and everything, that He cares for us so gently and kindly—so amazing!! We are so small and so insignificant yet so precious in His sight.
And then men have the gall and sinful will to rebel, hate, and curse this loving God,--so forgiving and gentle—they murder...sin upon sin deliberately—and yet God is so patient! So astonishingly forgiving and patient that it quite overwhelms me. I continue to stand in awe of Him.
And then we return to "painful" lessons in humility—what petty feelings to have pride in anything! He create everything and I can do nothing without Him. He knows everything about us and what's in our minds every passing moment. What a n awesome, awesome God we praise and worship!
Nut then I hear of the horrid earthquake in Haiti—and I think, "Why, Lord?" Why so much death? "Because it is my will." Is the answer I keep receiving—that's what pops up in my mind—God has a plan for this—this is his plan in action for our lives in History. It is quite impossible to hear of death and we not hurt, and not see why it doesn't happen somewhere else (like the White House, hee hee—that was bad—sorry); but instead to these poor, poor people. "It's My will."
"Amen, so be it Lord."

Comments

It seems that occationally comments will not show up on my blog--so I am going to post a recent comment that won't show up that was written to my post "Rejoice!"

That was written just lovely! I am a friend of Marquetta's and found your blog through hers. I am a homeschooling mom with teenage daughters. God bless, Rose

Rejoice!

Rejoice! Look to your Lord,
Do let Him to you hurt go toward
Find joy in Loving day by day--
Commit you trouble to Him this day.

Rejoice! Listen to God
And let your soul do give Him laud;
Pay heed to all He has to say
And find joy following day by day.

Rejoice! See your Lord work
Pour out your praises and your mirth
There will you find joy and peace
In surrendering to THE High Priest.

Clarification on "What is Theonomy?"

It seems a few people have been confused by my last post, "What is Theonomy?"

Not sure how good it is, but it is the best I can do for the moment.

Theonomy is a school of theology that is more or less unique to Calvinistsand Postmillennialists. Postmillennialists believe that the world will grow better and better until it becomes almost completely "Christianized",then Christ will return and wondrously create a material new creation,like the garden of Eden, free from the effects of sin. Because of theirbelief that the world must grow better (like the parable of the leavenwhich leavens the whole lump), it becomes a logical corollary that the law of God should be obeyed and enforced in civil society. Because of their belief that God is an arbitrary tyrant who capriciously predestinates some men to salvation and actively hardens the rest, predestinating them to damnation, Calvinists tend to be severe in their view of their fellow man.The cold and unfeeling Puritans are a good example of society under control of "theonomists." They have little toleration for differing points of view, even among believers. Calvin burned to death his best friend because his view of the Trinity did not accord with his own. Therefore, theonomy under Calvinists is probably NOT where we want to go.
However, the basic idea that God's moral law is binding and should been enforced is very sound. The Old Testament had moral law, ceremonial law,and various additional laws suited to the Jews' time and situation. Only the moral law is binding today. Christ's sacrifice nullified the ceremonial, law which was a type pointing to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. The other laws, like dietary laws and the city of refuge that you mention, are not binding today, but were only for the Jews. The dietary laws were to keep the Jews separate from the pagan neighbors. The cities of refuge embodied a principle of looking at the mental state of the actorin homicide to determine if it was murder or voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. That principle is still sound and Anglo-American law follow sit today; but the requirement that the offender reside in a city of refuge until the death of the high priest obviously is not binding.
Morals do not change. It was always wrong to steal or murder and it always will be. So, God's basic moral law is timeless and should be enforced.Yes. Should adultery, fornication, sodomy and other moral offenses be punished by the civil authority? I think it can and should. It is an historical fact that for many centuries Anglo-American law punished these offenses. In England through most of the middle ages sodomy was punishable with death. As we came into the "Enlightenment" society softened the punishment of crime, so that today even murder often is not capital. You can judge for yourself where this has brought society and if softening these laws or nullifying them all together has been good.

What is Theonomy?

I found this definition on the internet:

Theonomy means literally, “God's law,” or the belief that the moral laws of
the Old Testament are still binding today.

I found this objection to Theonomy:

"I have no argument with a great deal of what the theonomists teach. In
fact I find much of their writings on apologetics and theology
positively delightful. So my rejection of Theonomy does not mean that I
wholesale reject all of what they have to say. I have always agreed with
their stance that there is no neutrality, and that all persons have
basic presuppositions (many they cannot account for), even prior to
reading any of their writings. My disagreement is with their political
ideology which appears to be bent on enforcing the first table of the
Law.


The rule of God is good and I long for it in its fullness when our Lord
returns, but a theocracy is still a rule of man, since men's
understanding of God is always subjective. Thus the depravity of man
itself rules out the possibility of a real theocracy since our
application of it is always flawed. This is not to mention the
disagreements amongst ourselves us are sharp. I especially find it
disturbing when theonomists begin speaking of imprisoning or deporting
persons of other religions. Such a lack of meekness is not our place
this side of the cross prior to the parousia. Do you hope to persuade
those in prison of our Christianity by force of will? In my opinion this
methodology, proposed by many prominent theonomists, is in conflict with
the Word of God. The sword is not to be used as it is in Islam to coerce
conversions. I have had enough debates with theonomists to know this is
what many of them believe.


Also disturbing, and often to my surprise, is that the attitude of many
of those who attempt to enforce their logic to persuade me in this issue
to be unrelenting and often mean-spirited. Theonomy/Reconstructionism
needs to take a gentler approach if it hopes to persuade others. Jesus
told us to look at the fruit of the persons to determine the spiritual
reality, and the common lack of genuine humility I find among many
followers of reconstructionism is enough to give me serious pause. I say
this while recognizing my own cold-heartedness toward others so this is
surely not a blanket condemnation. I merely say it because I believe
love hates what is harmful and destructive in others' lives. When I see
my friends caught in something that is ultimately harmful I must come
humbly with a clear attitude of "I love you and am committed to you but
I can't stand to see what this is doing to your life," all the while
recognizing my own sinfulness.


It is my strong belief that in this era our Lord has called us to make
his Word known through meekness, suffering and godly persuasion, not
coercion. If postmillenialism is true and we have the opportunity to
apply biblical law to civil government, I would part ways with you guys
with regard to the first table of the Mosiac Law. I do not believe that
it can be enforced on unbelievers. Our tools of war are love, prayer and
the word of God, as empowered by the Holy Spirit. Political enforcement
of worship isn't going to save people. The Lord never sanctions it."

[Dad writing now] I agree that the moral law of the Old Testament is still
binding. However, most "Theonomists" are Calvinists and my concern is that
they would tend to be too "Puritanical" in imposing their view of things on
others, and would start witch hunts and burning people who interpret the
"Trinity" differently than they do if they allowed. That seems to be the
basic concern of the writer of above, and I share it to a certain degree.

I agree that we definitely should try to conform human institutions,
including government and culture, to the Bible, but I believe that a good
deal of toleration must be shown toward all Christian sects. The civil
government should not be a sword in the hand of sectarians or to give one
denomination power over others; all Christian faiths should be protected.
There may be a few very outrageous sects on the fringe of Christianity
should be excluded from protection, but generally, all Christian sects
should be acknowledged and protected.

I do not think non-Christian religions should have the protection of law.
But neither do I think they should be compelled to convert or be
persecuted. I don't think we should let them build mosques or synagogues
either. Why should false religions have legal protection in a Christian
land? Men who argue there is no God can have a terribly destructive
influence and effect on a society and I can't see why communities should
have to allow such irresponsible conduct to have free license. Restraint
is a good policy when dealing with dissenters and outsiders, but I do think
there is a point at which we should be able to penalize evil speech that
destroys men's souls.

Study: Young Children Who Are Spanked Are Happier and More Successful as Teenagers

By Thaddeus M. BaklinskiGRAND RAPIDS, Michigan, January 5, 2010

A US-based study suggests that spanking isn't harmful for children and, in fact, states that children who had been physically disciplined when they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, grew up to be happier and more successful, performed better at school as teenagers and were more likely to do volunteer work and to want to go to university, than those who had never been spanked.The study, conducted under the auspices of the Portraits of American Life Study (PALS) {http://pals.nd.edu/} by Dr. Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of Psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, found there was a lack of evidence to prove that spanking harmed children, and that spanking used judiciously as the normal consequence for bad behavior is beneficial to children."The claims that are made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data," Gunnoe said. "I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool - you just don't use it for all your jobs," she added.Professor Gunnoe interviewed 2,600 teenagers about being spanked. She found that when participants' answers were compared with their behavior, such as academic success, optimism about the future, antisocial behavior, violence and bouts of depression, those who had been physically disciplined only between the ages of two and six performed best on all the positive measures.Those who had been spanked between seven and eleven exhibited more negative behavior but were still more likely to be academically successful.In cases where physical discipline continued beyond the age of 12, or in those who had never received corporal punishment, the children were found to perform more poorly in the indicators that were taken into consideration. Dr. Gunnoe found that almost a quarter of the teens in the study reported they were never spanked.The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) states that disciplinary spanking by parents can be effective when properly used. "It is clear that parents should not solely rely upon disciplinary spanking to accomplish control of their child's behavior," says the organization's position statement. "Evidence suggests that it can be a useful and necessary part of a successful disciplinary plan."According to the ACP, effective discipline has three key components: a loving, supportive relationship between parent and child; use of positive reinforcement when children behave well; and, use of punishment when children misbehave.Many parents who are fearful of using spanking as punishment claim that spanking teaches physically aggressive behavior which the child will imitate.Aric Sigman, a psychologist and author of "The Spoilt Generation: Why Restoring Authority will Make our Children and Society Happier," commented on the results of Professor Gunnoe's research."The idea that smacking and violence are on a continuum is a bizarre and fetishised view of what punishment is for most parents," he told the UK Daily Mail."If it's done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about that. Parents should be taught to distinguish this from a punch in the face."