You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.

If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
« Not to leave you hang… | Main |   » Florida-bound...

October 10, 2006

Informatio: , , , ,

Redemption through our children...

A couple of mornings ago, as I sleepily held my sleepy son in my arms, feeding him formula, I had a glimpse of why God sent His son to redeem the world. For a brief moment, I had a profound feeling of…fatherhood. It was a feeling I don’t think I felt prior to that second on that early morning.

As I stared into my sons eyes, waves of memories hit me like soft ocean waves at low tide. They were memories that used to mean a great deal to me — crushes that I pined over, lost frindships, bad decisions, passions, ideals, regrets — but now seemed like late-night stories relayed to me over a poorly connected phone. As, I looked at my son, I suddenly realized that something spiritual had been fulfilled by his entry into this world. I realized that my former life — the one that, at some point, I though so important — had been redeemed.

Through my son came a new life, not only his, but my own.

As believers in Christ, we always refer to “us” as being redeemed through his blood. But, could it be that because humanity is a reflection of God, God was really the one who was redeemed? Could it be that through Jesus Christ, God — our Maker — became new?

2 Corinthians 5:14-21 (NKJ):

14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Posted at 10:03 am

Trackback:

Trackback Link:

Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url

Comments (15):
How could God be redeemed when He was already wasperfect already? “Without theshedding of blood there can be no remiscion (spelling) of sins.”

dh () - October 10, 2006 at 5:56 pm

What a special moment for you Tim. =)

Jean - October 11, 2006 at 10:45 pm

Interesting thoughts. Somebody(perhaps Piper) said at Passion that God saved his own butt buy sending Jesus. Kind of implying that God got himself in a jam. Which is also kind of implying that it wasn’t planned. Interesting none the less.

Randy () (URL) - October 16, 2006 at 08:03 am

Thanks, Jean. ;-)\n\nRandy ~ That is interesting. I have more of an “open” view of God, though, and might suggest that just because God uses certain moments in our history to reconstruct plans, change his mind, or otherwise save his butt, it doesn’t mean that whatever was/is happening wasn’t/isn’t planned. I’m pretty sure that God knows everything he will have to do concerning our (humanity’s) exsistence, but might not know (or, at least, care) when, or how, as long as it happens at the perfect moment.

timsamoff () (URL) - October 17, 2006 at 2:28 pm

I guess I Believe God knows everything. I don’t feel Jesus or God needs to have any “butt saved” because He is God and the purpose of the redemption was to save our “butts” not His own. God didn’t get “put into a jam” we put ourselves in the jam and God chose to redeem us to Himself. He didn’t reconstruct but redeemed what needed to be redeemed. However, the only thing I can see to move a little toward you is that He redeemed us to Himself by Faith in Him but that seems different than what is explained here. Also, I feel God cares about everything. IMHO

dh () - October 17, 2006 at 4:05 pm

Its getting stinky in here. Too many butts. But while we are on it let it be known that it was a speaker(perhaps John Piper if I remember correctly) at a Passion conference that stated this not me. Regarding God saving his own “butt”. I guess meaning he was subject to his own justice? I’m guessing.
And also you say that your “pretty sure that God knows everything he will have to do concerning”... but many(including some EMC) beleive that God doesn’t know future events. But like you I beleive he does!

randy () (URL) - October 17, 2006 at 4:18 pm

I guess it all depends on what your definition of “future” is…

timsamoff () (URL) - October 17, 2006 at 4:45 pm

I’d like to be able to interpret that position but it would be impossible. I personally feel that God does know everything ever to be known. Including future events. Would you not align with that?

Randy () (URL) - October 17, 2006 at 5:39 pm

Wow, that’s a tough one for me… I think, at this time, I’d choose to align with nothing other than the life of Jesus Christ and the reality of the Spirit and the love of God. To say otherwise might jeopardize countless theories that both and deny every day. ;-)

But, more seriously… Here is one interesting definition of God and the future:

“...the future exists partly in terms of possibilities rather than certainties. That is, there are aspects of the future that are believed to be indeterminate. This means that God’s knowledge of the future, being perfect, would perhaps consist largely of possibilities and not certainties. God has knowledge of some future certainties such as those things that He ordains, and He knows all future possibilities such as the possible free will choices of His created beings.”

As I said, this is one interesting definition.

timsamoff () (URL) - October 17, 2006 at 10:00 pm

I guess for me knowing possibilities is not perfect knowledge IMO. I still think there are problems with thinking God doesn’t know for certain all things. For me the Life of Jesus is that He is God and that God “..is the same yesterday, today and forever.” For me I want to align with all of God whatever it may be and that this for me confirms God in His power.

dh () - October 18, 2006 at 09:55 am

remove whatever it may be. What I meant to say was, for me I want to align with all of God to every extent of God presented in His Word (trinity with no contradiction since there is no contradiction, IMHO) with the consistency that is presented in His Word.

dh () - October 18, 2006 at 09:58 am

Doug ~ Two things…

1. What about the discussion thus far has implied that God isn’t the “same.” And, to your knowledge, what is God the “same” as? What is stated by scripture?

2. If so, show me in scripture where it actually speaks of the “trinity.”

I’m not denying the trinity by any means, only pointing out that much of what we think is God’s “sameness” is what the Christian religion has come up with. But, what if God’s “sameness” included the ability to change His mind about things or choose to act on prefect moments or historical precedence rather than a perfect foreknowledge?

Of course, I’m just theorizing here, so don’t get too passionate about all of it. What I’m trying to say, though, is if God has always acted a certain way and will always act that way, He’s always the same, right? What our dilemma seems to be is the question of what God is the same as: A human conceived representation of God or something that we will never be able to descibe?

For some reason, I feel more comfortable with a God that we will never be able to describe.

timsamoff () (URL) - October 18, 2006 at 10:35 am

The definition of the term is in the Bible and thus is not projected from the Christian religion. For me the clear definition of the term without the term is equivilent to use the term. Analogy: If I state “I placed the seed in the ground” and someone says “you planted the tree”; then I feel it would be nitpicky for me to say “I actually didn’t plant the tree, I placed the seed into the ground”, the same analogy works in the reverse as well. Does that make sense? If the clear definition of the term is mentioned but the term isn’t mentioned I feel that to say it isn’t mentioned seems nitpicky when the definition is clearly defined. I don’t believe His sameness included the ability to change His mind. That would be a contradiction of the concept of sameness. When the Bible mentions I AM sent me, many times Jesus referred to Himself as being God. I and the Father are One, I could go on and on. I don’t feel these are human conceived representations. When He says He is the same it is same in everyway. Changing His mind implies God isn’t the same in light of what the Bible says same being in everyway. I personally feel that the projection that God changes His mind IS a human conceived representation of God. I see nowhere in Scripture where His sameness including changing His mind. I hope you don’t think I’m being too passionate here. It just seems the theory you present here doesn’t seem to work.

dh () - October 18, 2006 at 11:30 am

I don’t know… I can name a few places where God seemingly changed his mind based on the actions of His creation: Noah, Sodom & Gomorrah, Jonah, etc.

Now, as I said, these are places where he “seemingly” changes His mind. Of course, it could be only on the surface that the outcomes of these stories appear to be directed by the actions of the people in them. Traditionally, we would say that God knew all along what the outcomes would be. That’s fine with me too… I’m just trying to read a little deeper into the implications that our actions might determine where God would have us go next.

timsamoff () (URL) - October 18, 2006 at 12:24 pm

I see what you are saying. However, that is the reason I said changing His mind was not present in Scripture because even though it appears like He did He in fact didn’t. However, I get your point. The latest response makes sense. Thanks for coming full circle with me. :) I always appreciate it when it “comes together” like this. :)

P.S. My gosh I’m so bad. It has been weeks and I need to get you my “Lost” pictures from Hawaii for your site. Man you need to wake me up, Tim. Oh well. AT least I haven’t forgot. :(

dh () - October 18, 2006 at 2:00 pm

Commenting has been permanently disabled. Please use the Contact button above.