Sunday, June 24th, 2012
“Worship Implications”
I Chronicles 19 (see also 2 Samuel 10; 12:26, 30-31; Acts 16:6-10)
Bible Memory Verse for the Week: Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. — Romans 10:17
Background Information:
- Most commentators agree that the episode with Ammon probably preceded the events of chapter 18. (Broadman & Holman Pub, Shepherd’s Notes, 1, 2 Chr, 37)
- Joab (David’s nephew by David’s sister Zeruiah, has long been David’s military general.
- Joab was ruthless, and calculating, as noted by the fact that David made him captain of his army because he alone found a way to get into Jerusalem.
- Joab was loyal to David and there is no record of his ever having lost a military victory.
- Joab is killed by Solomon when Solomon becomes king because Joab claimed loyalty to David’s other son Adonijah who vied for the throne.
- The capital city of Ammon, Rabbah of the Ammonites (2 Sm 12:26), is the present-day Amman, capital of Jordan. (Joyce G. Baldwin, Tyndale OT Commentaries: 1 & 2 Samuel, 229)
- (v.1) Their late king “Nahash” would hardly have been the same oppressor who had precipitated Saul’s elevation half a century earlier (1 Sm 11:1) but may have been his son. The latter’s relationship to David had been one of hesed, meaning not so much “kindness” as “loyalty” to covenanted treaties and their obligations. These may have had their origin in the common threat that both men faced in Saul, perhaps when David had been fleeing from him some 20 years earlier. (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, 401)
- (v.2) A change of sovereign is still the occasion for diplomatic visits, and David was not acting in an unusual way in sending his ambassadors to offer his condolences and affirm his continuing good will. (Joyce G. Baldwin, Tyndale OT Commentaries: 1 & 2 Samuel, 229)
- (v.3) The biggest mistake Hanun and his advisors had made was to suppose that God’s kind of king was just like themselves. If their power had grown to the extent David’s had, they more than likely would have cast envious eyes on Israel. So they simply assumed that David was casting envious eyes on them. The perversity and irrationality of evil is so obvious at times that we wonder how anyone could ever be so foolish. Yet it is just when we feel this way that we need to remind ourselves that the same irrationality and perversity exists in us, in our own sinful natures. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 1 Chr, 212)
- (v.3) The accusation of spying was an already ancient ploy (Gn 42:9), but it made a good excuse to humiliate David’s ministers by sending them away with half a beard and half-naked. The outrage was virtually a declaration of war, its provocation demanding a suitable rebuff. (Joyce G. Baldwin, Tyndale OT Commentaries: 1 & 2 Samuel, 229)
- (v.4) Inflamed by these lies, the young king not only refused to receive the delegation, but he also sent them packing with the most degrading and insulting of actions he could have committed on their persons–short of carving his initials in their faces. In an age when beards were a sign of worthy manhood, Hanun shaved the beards of David’s men (in half–as we learn from 2 Sm 8:4). And in an age far more modest than our own, the king of Ammon exposed David’s men to public ridicule by having them walk back home with their underwear flapping in the breeze (verse 4). (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 1 Chr, 211)
- (v.6.) The Ammonites could not complain that they did not get value for their money. The armies of four nations and enough chariotry to raise a mighty cloud of dust assembled to do battle on behalf of those who had become “a stench in David’s nostrils” (verse 6). In addition the Ammonites themselves mobilized their own forces (verse 7). It was only then that David finally responded to these blatantly hostile actions by sending out the Lord’s army under Joab’s command. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 1 Chr, 213)
- (v.7) Ruled by their perverse thoughts, the Ammonites realized that the time for laughing at their little joke had passed; the time to prepare for war with David had come. They simply could not believe that David would let such an insult pass by unchallenged. Perhaps he would not have. But in any case, it is clear that the Ammonites provoked the war. And so they would have no one to blame for the coming disaster but themselves. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 1 Chr, 212)
- (v.7) The Ammonites “internationalized” the conflict by hiring the Aramean nations to fight on their side in the war. A thousand talents of silver (about 37 tons as the NIV note tells us) was no mean sum to pay for their services (verse 6). (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 1 Chr, 213)
- (v.8) Noteworthy, too, is the royal restraint David displayed in making no immediate plans to retaliate. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 1 Chr, 211)
- (v.14) As soon as the fighting starts, the Arameans quickly begin to flee, leaving the Ammonites on their own. The Ammonites immediately retreat into the safety of Rabbah, their capital city (19:14-15), while the Arameans recruit more of their countrymen to stand against the Israelites. The combined forces of the Arameans face off against David’s army, and this time the entire Aramean army is defeated. They lose tens of thousands of their soldiers, including their army commander (19:16-19). As a result, they surrender and become David’s subjects, effectively ending the Ammonite/Aramean alliance.
Meanwhile, the Ammonites remain within the protection of their city. They have weather on their side (for now) because fighting was usually suspended during the winter (rainy) season. (Chariots couldn’t very well navigate in muddy terrain.)
But spring comes soon enough, and Joab begins a siege of Rabbah. The Chronicler provides a short note that David remains in Jerusalem (20:1), but this is an important fact in light of the account provided in 2 Samuel 11. It is during this time that David, while his men are all out on the battlefield, is passing time by walking on the palace roof and happens to see Bathsheba. And this is the battle where, after he unintentionally impregnates Bathsheba, David arranges to have her husband killed (2 Sm 11:14-17). (Dr. Tremper Longman, Quicknotes, 1 Chr Thru Job, 35)
The questions to be answered are . . . What is the Chronicler attempting to communicate in this chapter? What does that tell us about ourselves? What does that tell us about our relationship with Jesus?
Answer: The Chronicler demonstrates the faith of Joab even as he is a man of action. The life of David has certainly had its influence on Joab. Like David, Joab works, plans and acts as if God uses his efforts to work God’s will. And yet, Joab prays as if success is all in God’s hands.
INTRODUCTION:
“I shall work as if everything depended on me and I’ll pray as if everything depended on God.” —Saint Augustine
The Word for the Day is . . . influence
What is the Chronicler’s message to his audience here in Chapter 19?:
I. David (the good shepherd – 1 Sam 16:11; Ps 23) was willing to do whatever was necessary to protect the security, integrity and welfare of the nation Israel (1 Chr 19:1-9; 2 Sm 10:1-8 – Ps 23; 78:70-72; 80:1; Isa 40:11; Jer 31:10; Ezek 34:1-31; 37:24; Mt 2:6; Jn 10:1-16; Heb 13:20; 1 Pt 2:25; 5:4)
Hanun followed the counsel of his nobles and insulted David. His men shaved the beards of David’s delegation and cut their garments short, exposing their buttocks (19:4). These insults were not trifling matters (see Ezek 5:1-4; Isa 7:20; 50:6; Jer 13:22, 26; Nah 3:5). They caused profound personal embarrassment for the delegates (see 19:5), and they seriously rebuffed David’s attempt to maintain peace with the Ammonites. (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chr, A Mentor Commentary, 162)
The Ammonite reaction was not to seek reconciliation with David. Instead they formed an alliance with the Arameans (19:6-7). The Chronicler added descriptions of this coalition to heighten the threat against David. He mentioned the large amounts of money paid for the Arameans (a thousand talents of silver to hire chariots and charioteers [19:6; 2 Sm 10:6]). He also shifted from attention to foot soldiers to 32,000 chariots and charioteers (19:6; 2 Sm 10:6). These variations reveal how aggressively the Ammonites came against David. They were not interested merely in defending themselves, but in defeating David. (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chr, A Mentor Commentary, 163)
While the treatment of David’s men by Hanun might seem somewhat unusual, if not mildly amusing, to a modern reader, it actually constituted a calculated, direct affront to David and started a war between the two states. In the ancient Near East (though not in Egypt), beardless men tended to be eunuchs; thus, shaving David’s envoys was a symbolic act of castration (of David, too, since they were his representatives). In addition the beard was a symbol of manliness and strength. To shave off one’s beard and hair was also a sign of deep mourning, and the forcible shaving of David’s men here was intended to convey the message to Israel that they would be conquered and thrown into mourning.
To “cut off their garments in the middle at the buttocks” was an act of gross humiliation, making them appear like slaves to captives. These men were David’s ambassadors and were thus entitled to respect and diplomatic immunity. David could not allow such treatment to go unrequited. He also could not permit his representatives to return to court in such a state of humiliation and embarrassment; thus, he instructed them to remain in Jericho until their beards had grown again. (John H. Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Vol. 3, 268-68)
II. David historically trusted in the providence and sovereignty of God (1 Sm 16; 1 Chr 17; 29:12-14; Ps 23; 44:1-3)
III. Joab learned how to do the same by the worship time spent with his uncle David (1 Chr 19:13; 2 Sm 10:9-12)
He did not panic in the face of formidable odds, but strategically deployed his forces so as to allow for flexibility as the battle progressed. Moreover, he took on the most difficult task himself, commanding the small special force against the Arameans, while permitting his brother Abishai to fight the Ammonites, on the understanding that each would reinforce the other’s army in case of need. Finally, Joab revealed himself to be a man of faith, fighting for the cities of our God, and praying, not expressly for victory, but for the Lord’s outworking of his will. (Joyce G. Baldwin, Tyndale OT Commentaries: 1 & 2 Samuel, 230)
Humanly speaking, what the Israelites faced was an impossible situation: a two-front war. The Ammonite army was drawn up on one side of the Israelite forces, the Aramean armies on the other. The Ammonites had their capital city of Rabbah close at hand, their home and their fortress to give them an extra sense of security. The Arameans had 32,000 chariots and the right kind of open country in which to operate (see v. 9). Israel had none of these advantages. Most generals in Joab’s position would have been filled with a powerful longing to go home. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 1 Chr, 214)
His plan? “If the Arameans are too strong for me, then you are to rescue me; but if the Ammonites are too strong for you, then I will rescue you” (v. 10). Hardly the most confident of pre-battle pep-talks! There is no whiff here of military braggadocio. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 1 Chr, 214)
Joab encourages his troops by reminding them they are fighting for all the Israelite people and “the cities of our God” (19:13a). This phrase, coupled with the command to “be strong and…fight bravely,” alludes to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel and to the conquest of Canaan by Joshua (cf. Josh 1:6-7). Joab concludes his precombat exhortation with a prayer, committing the outcome of the battle to the sovereignty and goodness of God (19:13b). Expressions of such trust in the providence of Yahweh are an important feature of the Chronicler’s theology of hope for postexilic Judah (cf. 2 Chr 19:11; 20:15; 32:7-8). (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 264)
The climax of David’s international struggles came in 995 B.C. (Before the birth of Solomon, 2 Sm 12:24) and arose out of two campaigns against the Ammonites. These people were related to the Hebrews (cf. V. 1) and lived directly east of them in the portion of Transjordan that lies east of the Jabbok River (Dt 3:16), as it flows northward before bending west to enter the Jordan. A major teaching value to be found in this section of 1 Chronicles (19:1-20:3) is summarized by Joab’s words of trust and encouragement in v. 13: “The LORD will do what is good in his sight.” (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, 400)
The deployment of troops near Medeba, about 16 miles southwest of Rabbah (modern Amman), on the edge of the plain, came as a shock to Joab. The terrain was well chosen by the Arameans as well suited to chariot warfare. Usually the main body of infantry advanced down the center while the chariots, each with an archer on board, moved up and down the flanks, causing difficulties for the enemy. At a disadvantage numerically (at least because the army had to be divided) and technologically, Joab still managed to repulse the Arameans. The Ammonites retreated into the city and the Israelite army returned to Jerusalem. Although a victory for Israel, the battle was indecisive and the Arameans regrouped and sent for reinforcements. (John H. Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Vol. 3, 269-70)
CONCLUSION/APPLICATION: What does this message have to do with Christ and me?:
A- We are to work as if it is all up to us trusting in the Providence of God to work through us (Gen 50:20; Ex 4:14; Dt 8:18; 1 Sam 2:6-9; Psa 33:10; 37:23; 127:1-2; Prov 16:1-9, 33; 19:9, 21; 20:24; 21:1-2, 30; Isa 55:9-11; Jer 20:23; Acts 7:9-10; 27:31-44; Rom 8:28-39; 1 Cor 4:19; 16:7; Eph 1:11; Phil 1:12)
Westminister Confession of Faith:
Chapter 3
I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; [Eph 1:11] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, [Jas 1:13] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. [Acts 2:23]
Westminister Confession of Faith:
Chapter 5
II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; [Acts 2:23] yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. [Gn 8:22]
III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, [Acts 27:31] yet is free to work without, [Hos 1:7] above, [Rom 4:19] and against them, [2 Kngs 6:6] at His pleasure.
The Ammonite campaign of 19:1-20:3 is a long footnote to the mention of the Ammonites in 18:11. It affirms in a different way that God is the giver of victory, in 19:13. Joab’s battle speech polarizes human factors (19:12-13a) and the divine factor (v. 13b). Both have their place, in accord with the famous cry “Put your trust in God and keep your powder dry!” The human factors through which God works are proven ability–here in the sphere of shrewd military tactics–sheer courage, and a loyal love for those for whose good one is laboring (“our people,” “the cities”) and for God (“our God”). In the expression of the divine factor a keen sense of God’s sovereignty is manifested. The commitment of the venture to Him releases from crippling anxiety and enables one to do his or her best in His service. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 134)
People are not the victims of fate they sometimes make themselves out to be. As Cassius says to Brutus in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “Our fate, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Whether or not we allow depression to rule our lives is largely up to us. We can use the past to drive it away. We can use the future to impact it with hope. And in the present, we can choose to do those things that will change our dispositions. What we do influences what we feel. And that is our good fortune, because that gives us control over our emotional destiny. (Tony Campolo, Carpe Diem, Seize the Day, 217-18)
You can’t be free until you are secure. And you can’t be secure unless you know the sovereign God who is ruling this whole show. (Steve Brown, Born Free, 97)
The essential issue is between the authority of autonomous man and of the Sovereign God. To allow God into the universe, provided that we open the door, is to say that the universe is our universe, and that our categories are decisive in human thinking. We can accept the Scriptures as inerrant and infallible on our terms, as satisfactory to our reason, but we have only established ourselves as God and judge thereby and have given more assent to ourselves than to God. But, if God be God, then the universe and man are His creation, understandable only in terms of Himself, and no meaning can be established except in terms of God’s given meaning. To accept miracles or Scripture on any other ground is in effect to deny their essential meaning and to give them a pagan import.
Thus, the consistent Christian position must be this: no God, no knowledge. Since the universe is a created universe, no true knowledge of it is possible except in terms of thinking God’s thoughts after Him. (Rousas J. Rushdoony, By What Standard?, 17)
God is sovereign, but we are also responsible. The Scriptures place these two ideas side by side, without apology and without much explanation. In fact, we see this principle throughout the Bible. Here are a few examples. You undoubtedly could add others:
- “In his heart a man plans his course [our responsibility], but the LORD determines his steps [God’s sovereignty]” (Prv 16:9)
- “The horse is made ready for the day of battle [our responsibility], but victory rests with the LORD [God’s sovereignty]” (Prv 21:31).
- “Unless the LORD builds the house [God’s sovereignty], its builders labor [our responsibility] in vain” (Ps 127:1).
- David wrote, “I do not trust in my bow, my sword does not bring me victory; but you give us victory over our enemies (Ps 44:6). David didn’t trust in his bow, but in God. But neither did he throw his bow away. He used it with all the skill he could muster.
- Paul wrote, “To this end I labor [our responsibility], struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me [God’s sovereignty]” (Col 1:29).
- Paul wrote, “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it [our responsibility], but God made it grow {God’s sovereignty]” 1 Cor 3:6. (Patrick Morely, Ten Secrets for the Man in the Mirror, 96-97)
B- We are to pray as if it is all up to God realizing that God works through our prayers to accomplish what He wills (Gn 45:7; 1 Sm 2:6-9; Job chps 38-42; Ps 33:10-11; 135:6; Isa 43:14; 45:5-6; Dan 4:34-35; Zech 4:6; Mt 6:10; 7:7-15; Mk 11:24; Lk 11:9, 13; Jn 14:13-14; 15:7, 16; 16:23-24, 26; Acts 2:23; 17:25-28; Rom 9:17; Eph 3:20-21; Phil 1:19; Jas 1:5; 4:2-3; 1 Jn 3:21-22; 5:14-15)
Between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Nearly all of our Reformed forefathers stressed that God is fully sovereign and man is fully responsible. How that can be resolved logically is beyond our finite minds. When Spurgeon was once asked how these two grand, biblical doctrines could be reconciled, he responded, “I didn’t know that friends needed reconciliation.”
He went on to compare these two doctrines to the rails of a track upon which Christianity runs. Just as the rails of a train, which run parallel to each other, appear to merge in the distance, so the doctrines of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, which seem separate from each other in this life will merge in eternity. Our task is not to force their merging in this life but to keep them in balance and to live accordingly. We must thus strive for experiential Christianity that does justice both to God’s sovereignty and to our responsibility. (R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Feed My Sheep, 124-25)
God’s control of things is not contrary to the responsibility of man. It is the very foundation of it. If God were not in control He could not hold man responsible. Man is accountable to God because God is sovereign; he should obey God because God is in control of things. Moreover, man has significance because God has sovereignly ordained significance for man. Whatever responsibility we have is founded on God’s sovereignty, not in spite of it. Without God’s sovereignty man would have no responsibility. (Richard L. Pratt, Jr., Every Thought Captive A Study manual for the Defense of Christian Truth, 120)
To think of creature and Creator as alike in essential being is to rob God of most of His attributes and reduce Him to the status of a creature. It is, for instance, to rob Him of His infinitude: there cannot be two unlimited substances in the universe. It is to take away His sovereignty: there cannot be two absolutely free beings in the universe, for sooner or later two completely free wills must collide. These attributes, to mention no more, required that there be but one to whom they belong. (A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, 7-8)
Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. (A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, 111)
C- We need to realize that much of our thinking, values and attitudes are formed by that to which we are exposed and are revealed in our worship. (Ps 32:8; 101:4; ch. 119; Prv 4:23; 14:7; Mt 24:4; Mk 8:15; 12:38; 13:5; Lk 12:15; 17:3; Acts 20:28; Rom 10:17; 16:17; 1 Cor 10:14; 2 Cor 6:14; 1 Tm 4:7, 16; 6:3-11; 2 Tm 2:22; 3:1-5; Ti 3:10; Jas 4:7; 2 Jn 1:8)
And our most lethal negative influence to which we are daily exposed is ourselves.
It is beyond argument that a man who has never been instructed in philosophy or in any branch of learning is a creature quite inferior to the brute animals. Animals only follow their natural instincts; but man, unless he has experienced the influence of learning and philosophy, is at the mercy of impulses that are worse than those of a wild beast. There is no beast more savage and dangerous than a human being who is swept along by the passions of ambition, greed, anger, envy, extravagance, and sensuality. Therefore, a father who does not arrange for his son to receive the best education at the earliest age is neither a man himself nor has any fellowship with human nature. (Richard M. Gamble, The Great Tradition, 363-64)
Paul doesn’t present these two attitudes and life-styles with imperative verbs, urging “do this and don’t do that.” Rather, he uses present participles, adjectives that characterize our existence in continuous action. These describe God’s people as those who are “abhorring the evil; glued to the good.” Constant vigilance against evil is necessary; daily we renew our commitment to what is good. Our lives are constant processes of weeding out negative influences and clinging as tightly as we can to what is upbuilding. (Marva J. Dawn, Truly the Community: Romans 12, 153)
The Spirit may be quenched by someone else’s influence in your life. You’ve probably come to realize that certain folks tend to be spiritual fire extinguishers. Critical people quench the Spirit of God. Their words, like sharp icicles, freeze out the fire of revival in a heart. (Ron M. Phillips, Awakened by the Spirit, 177)
The human heart produces desires as fire produces heat. As surely as the sparks fly upward, the heart pumps out desire after desire for a happier future. The condition of the heart is appraised by the kinds of desires that hold sway. Or, to put it another way, the state of the heart is shown by the things that satisfy its desires. If it is satisfied with mean and ugly things, it is a mean and ugly heart. If it is satisfied with God, it is a godly heart. As Henry Skougal put it, “The worth and excellency of a soul is to be measured by the object of its desire.” (John Piper, Future Grace, 277-78 – red, bold emphasis Pastor Keith)
Cultural anthropologists tell us that almost every society has had “elders” of some kind. Whether they be tribal chieftains, village headmen, clan leaders, or family patriarchs—most every social unit across history and around the globe has clearly recognized adult role models or “wisdom figures.” These “elders” are generally older, more experienced, stronger members of the group to whom the younger look for identity. However, this role is conspicuously absent from modern American culture, at least in formal social structures. Nevertheless, informally—even subconsciously—we long for mentors. We seem to do better when they are in our lives. And when we don’t find positive mentors, by default, negative ones usually find us! (Dr. Lynn Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep, 49)
Plato believed that “no state can be happy which is not designed by artists who imitate the heavenly pattern.” (The Republic VI. 500 E.) (The Interpreter’s Bible Vol. V, 707)
Role modeling is the most powerful form of teaching, even as it was when Aristotle crystallized the idea for his students in ancient Greece: “The soul never thinks without a picture.” (Newsweek, June 29, 1998, “Uneasy Days For Schools” by Timothy C. Brennan Jr. )
The means of worship influences the worshipers’ apprehension of God. So, Christian corporate worship both requires and shapes our understanding of the Bible’s teaching about God. The doctrine of God informs our corporate worship, and, in turn, our corporate worship refines our practical comprehension and embrace of the doctrine of God. It is true, of course, that worship in all of life impacts our corporate worship. Those who do not “present [their] bodies a living and holy sacrifice” are both unprepared to enter into the fullness of corporate worship as it is envisioned in the world and are not expressing one of its principal intended ethical effects. In fact, the person in whom there is an experiential dissonance between activity in gathered worship and worship in the rest of life is in danger of creating a parallel but juxtaposed life, the breeding ground of a fatal spiritual hypocrisy. (Philip Graham Ryken, Give Praise to God, A Vision for Reforming Worship, 52-53)
Bertheau thus rightly understands the sentence: “If the powerful King Solomon was powerless to resist the influence of foreign wives, and if he, the beloved of God, found in his relation to God no defense against the sin to which they seduced him, is it not unheard of for you to commit so great an evil? (Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament Vol. 3, 294)
It is sad when someone who has been a Christian for awhile is illiterate when it comes to the things of the Bible. Probably one of the greatest problems we are seeing in the church today is a complete ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches. After conducting a study that revealed that less than one in every 10 believers possess a biblical worldview as the basis for his or her decision-making and behavior, researcher George Barna pointed out that the Christian body in the United States is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy. The most widely known “verse” among adults and teens who claimed to be believers was “God helps those that help themselves.” The problem is that you won’t find it in the Bible.
Your worldview matters. And it is not a question as to whether you have a worldview; it is whether you have a biblical one. Your worldview, the way that you see life, is formed by many things. It can be formed by the culture you are raised in, by your upbringing, by the books you read, by your education, and by the media you expose yourself to. And the reason your worldview is important is that it is comprehensive. It affects everything you do, from your personal morality to the way you spend your money to the way you vote to the way you live.
So what is a Christian worldview? Simply put, there is a living God, and He has revealed himself in Scripture. Therefore as Christians, we believe that we can find absolute truth from the Bible, regardless of what is politically correct, regardless of what we feel is right or not right. We base our beliefs on what the Bible teaches. That is what it means to have a Christian worldview. (by Greg Laurie)
Until you can confidently state your values, every philosophy, every behavior and every desire known to humankind is a potential substitute. Your values become the filter through which you determine right from wrong, value from worthlessness and importance from insignificance. If you do not specifically identify your values, they will be defined for you by the whims and influences of the world. (George Barna, Turning Vision, 91)
Worship point: Realize that how and what we worship will have a significant effect on our loved ones, those around us and ourselves. BEWARE what you worship. It will change your world.
Example is not the main thing in influencing others, it is the only thing. — Albert Schweitzer
Spiritual Challenge: Take inventory of your labors, of your thoughts and dreams, of your prayer life. Are you working as if it were all up to you and trusting God for the results? And at the same time are you praying as if it were all up to God knowing that God wants to work through you and your prayers for the results? Do you have the proper influences in your life to help you nurture this kind of a spirit and attitude?
“What you do influences who you are and how you feel about yourself. By changing what you do, you change who you are.” (Steve Brown, Living Free, 149)
The worth and excellency of a soul is to be
measured by the object of its desire.
— Henry Skougal
Christ:
The greatest
Leave a Reply