eChurch Christian Blog

Lovely, as always from John Piper

We use the term “glory of God” so often that it tends to lose its biblical force. But the sun is no less blazing, and no less beneficial, because people ignore it.

Yet God does not like to be ignored. “Mark this, then, you who forget God, lest I tear you apart, and there be none to deliver!” (Psalms 50:22). So let’s focus again on the glory of God. What is it? How important is it?

What Is the Glory of God?

The glory of God is the holiness of God put on display. That is, it is the infinite worth of God made manifest. Notice how Isaiah shifts from “holy” to “glory”: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” (Isaiah 6:3). When the holiness of God fills the earth for people to see, it is called glory.

The basic meaning of holy is “separated” from the common. Thus, when you carry that definition all the way to the infinite “separation” of God from all that is common, the effect is to make him the infinite “one of a kind”—like the rarest and most perfect diamond in the world. Only there are no other diamond-gods. God’s uniqueness as the only God—his God-ness—makes him infinitely valuable, that is, holy.

The most common meaning for God’s glory in the Bible assumes that this infinite value has entered created experience. It has, as it were, shined. God’s glory is the radiance of his holiness. It is the out-streaming of his infinite value. And when it streams out, it is seen as beautiful and great. It has both infinite quality and infinite magnitude. So we may define the glory of God as the beauty and greatness of God’s manifold perfections.

I say “manifold perfections” because specific aspects of God’s being are said to have glory. For example: “the glory of his grace” (Ephesians 1:6) and “the glory of his might” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). God himself is glorious because he is the perfect unity of all his manifold and glorious perfections.

But this definition must be qualified. The Bible also speaks of God’s glory before it is revealed in creation. For example, Jesus prays, “Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” (John 17:5). So I would suggest a definition something like this: God’s glory is the outward radiance of the intrinsic beauty and greatness of his manifold perfections.

I am aware that words are poor pointers here. I have replaced one inadequate word with two others: glory with beauty and greatness. But we must try. God has revealed himself to us in words like “the glory of God.” And he does not want them to be meaningless.

We must constantly remind ourselves that we are speaking of a glory that is ultimately beyond created comparison. “The glory of God” is the way you designate the infinite beauty and the infinite greatness of the Person who was there before anything else was there. In other words, it is the beauty and the greatness that exists without origin, without comparison, without analogy, without being judged or assessed by any external criterion. It is the all-defining absolute original of greatness and beauty. All created greatness and beauty comes from it, and points to it, but does not comprehensively or adequately reproduce it.

“The glory of God” is a way of saying that there is objective, absolute reality to which all human admiration, wonder, awe, veneration, praise, honor, acclaim, and worship is pointing. We were made to find our deepest pleasure in admiring what is infinitely admirable, that is, the glory of God. The glory of God is not the psychological projection of human longing onto reality. On the contrary, inconsolable human longing is the evidence that we were made for God’s glory.

How Central Is the Glory of God in the Bible?

The glory of God is the goal of all things. “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). All things were created for God’s glory (Isaiah 43:6-7).

The great mission of the church is to declare God’s glory among the nations. “Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples!” (Psalms 96:1-3; Ezekiel 39:21; Isaiah 66:18-19).

What Is Our Hope? Seeing the Glory of God

Seeing the glory of God is our ultimate hope. “We rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Romans 5:2). God will “present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” (Jude 24). He will “make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (Romans 9:23). “He calls you into his own kingdom and glory” (1 Thessalonians 2:12). “Our blessed hope [is] the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

Jesus, in all his person and work, is the incarnation and ultimate revelation of the glory of God. “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3). “Father, I desire that they . . . may be with me where I am, to see my glory” (John 17:24).

What Is Our Hope? Sharing in the Glory of God

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed” (1 Peter 5:1). “The creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:21). “We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory” (1 Corinthians 2:7).“This light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Corinthians 4:17). “Those whom he justified he also glorified” (Romans 8:30).

Summary

Seeing and sharing in God’s glory is our ultimate hope through the gospel of Christ.

Hope that is really known and treasured has a huge and decisive effect on our present values and choices and actions.

Get to know the glory of God. Study the glory of God, the glory of Christ, the glory of the world that reveals the glory of God, the glory of the gospel that reveals the glory of Christ.

Treasure the glory of God above all things.

Study your soul. Know the glory you are seduced by, and know why you treasure glories that are not God’s glory. Study your own soul to know how to make the glories of the world collapse like Dagon (1 Samuel 5:4) in the pitiful pieces on the floor of the world’s temples.

Hungering to see and share in more of the glory of Christ, the image of God,

Pastor John

By Bob Allen – Associated Baptist Press

Russian Baptist leaders have raised concerns about proposed revisions to the nation’s religion law — changes they contend would greatly curtail religious freedom in Russia.

Yuri Sipko, president of the Russian Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists wrote Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Oct. 20 expressing “alarm and puzzlement” at the new and unexpected development in church-state relations.

Sipko said that restrictive changes to Russia’s 1997 law “On the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations,” were not revealed in a roundtable of religious leaders he attended in September, while the legislation is reportedly supported by Russia’s four designated “traditional” religions — Russian Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism.

Vitaly Vlasenko, director of external church relations for the Baptist union, said he believed the proposed changes were directed toward Roman Catholics and Protestants, which do not have their own geographical territories in Russia.

The document, which first appeared in mid-October, for the first time defines “evangelical activities.” It stipulates that only religious groups registered in Russia for at least 15 years can engage in missionary activity. Only leaders of evangelical organizations would have the right to preach. All others, including foreign visitors, would need written permission.

It would exclude from missionary work anyone ever convicted of inciting religious or ethnic hatred and other crimes of an extreme nature. Religious leaders said that would unduly burden pastors, who often do not know who has been convicted of what. It would also require religious bodies to close their doors to some members, effectively giving the government veto power over who may or may not join.

Other problematic changes include a requirement that minors not be present for religious activities without the express permission of their parents or guardians. Baptist leaders said requiring pastors to turn away young people would force them to violate Jesus’ commandment to “let the little children come to me and do not hinder them” recorded in the Gospels.

They also called it absurd that young people would be barred from attending church but not movie theaters, stadiums or discos. “Is a place of worship more dangerous than a secular location?” Sipko’s letter asked. “This legislation wants to define religious organizations as harmful, and that is clear discrimination.”

Sipko said the legislation would lead to “further moral decline” in Russian society and lead to “greater alienation between the privileged and non-privileged faiths.”

He said Russian Baptist leaders were also concerned about ambiguity in the law. For example, it prohibits religious organizations from “offering material or social benefits” to potential new recruits and bans the use of “psychological pressure or manipulation of consciences.”

Sipko said promising an alcoholic sobriety through treatment and church attendance might be interpreted as a “social benefit” and that a sermon on the last judgment and the need to repent could be deemed “psychological pressure.”

Vlasenko said the Russian Baptist group “is not against regulation of missionary activities per se, but we are certainly against their prohibition.” He said the union was asking its 1,750 congregations and groups to “unite for prayer and fasting” about the proposal and invited foreign churches to participate as well.

Vlasenko said he is also interested in hearing foreign legal expertise and from other churches that have had similar experiences in their relations with their governments.

Previous related Posts:-

Ami Ortiz Case Solved – ’Orthodox Jewish Terrorist’ Confessed – Watch Him Plant The Bomb

Another Arrest in Yaakov Teitel Case

Breaking news: Yaakov Teitel arrested in Ami Ortiz case

Potential breakthrough in Ami Ortiz case

Why did Yaakov Teitel terrorise Christians and Messianic Jews?

This is an excellent analysis from Yeze over at the Rosh Pina Project

Why did terrorist Yaakov Teitel act in the way he did?

Dina Kraft writes:

This Jack/Yaakov Teitel is being described as someone who acted alone in his attacks and planned attacks. But in an interview with Israel Radio yesterday, Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service (basically Israel’s FBI), said that even such loners need a spiritual or ideological base in order to thrive.

Leah Ortiz, mother of Ami Ortiz, remarks:

The public is being reminded that the investigation is continuing to root out terrorist sleeper cells that are hiding and camouflaging themselves among the local residents. The newspapers report, and journalists have told us, about an Orthodox group who hold to the doctrine of what is called “Redemption” which claims that the reason the coming of the Messiah has been delayed is because of the tolerance of the State of Israel for Christians, left wingers and Homosexuals. All of these groups are classified as false prophets that have to be dealt with.

Indeed, Teitel’s actions were the product of a worldview of despair, in which rational debate is cast aside in favour of brashness and combat. Treating Messianic Jews as deceivers and tricksters, Teitel became the ultimate deceiver. Teitel deceived Ami Ortiz with a gift disguised as a Purim package. Teitel deceived Israel’s authorities, living for years in freedom as past victims lay dead. Teitel deceived his own family, and ultimately I suspect, Teitel deceived himself into thinking that he was in some way doing God’s will.

The case of Yaakov Teitel should serve as a warning as to how far people can take their prejudices. In this case, violent words have bred violent actions – a fact acknowledged by Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. And there are surely more Yaakov Teitels out there, plotting domestic terrorism. The mother of one of the victims of the shooting in the gay nightclub in Tel Aviv has warned that there is another Teitel out there.

Tonight, another man from Shvut Rachel who was an acquaintance of Teitel, Yosef Spinoza, has now been arrested.

Both men are being defended in the media by Adi Kedar of the Honenu organisation.

When Teitel was arrested in October, Honenu spokesman Shmuel Meidad protested:

“They have accused him [Y. T.] of every [unsolved] murder [in the State of Israel] from [Haim] Arlosorov [in June 1933] to the murder in the gay bar,” Shmuel Meidad, head of the Honeinu Legal Aid Organization, said. “They even reported that he confessed but [defense attorney] Adi Kedar or any one else has not met with him.”

Who or what is Honenu?

It is an Israeli legal group which campaigns for the release of Jewish murderers from Israeli jails when Arab murderers are released. They are headed up by Shmuel Meidad, known in right-wing circles as ‘Zangi.’ Meidad has previously spent time in prison, as has Ariel Groner, responsible for handling prisoner affairs in Honenu, who was arrested in 2006 and spent three months under house arrest. Groner was recently arrested after he was noticed handing out leaflets inciting violence against homosexuals, as was Teitel.

This past week Israelis have marked the anniversary of the murder of Yitzchak Rabin in 1994.   Guess which organisation tried to raise money for Rabin’s assassin in 2005? That’s right: Honenu.

Haaretz reported:

Honenu is headed by a resident of Kiryat Arba, Shmuel Meidad. It was established in 2002 and rose to prominence for its defense of people arrested in protests against the disengagement plan. The Amir fund was started recently, and is being kept under wraps. No mention of it is made on the Internet site. The organization has a telephone center for donations that can be made via standing bank orders, by check or by credit card.

To ensure that the money goes to the Amirs, the donor must write “for the fund promoting Yigal and Larissa Amir’s rights” on the reverse side of the check. For a credit-card donation, the donor must speak to the fund’s directors.

Concerning Honenu, Nadav Shrangai wrote in Haaretz in May 2008:

In their requests to current MKs, Hanenu notes that not a single Jewish terrorist who was released early returned to hurting Arabs, and that the organization disagrees with comparisons between Arab terror and Jewish terror.

As far as Hanenu is concerned, even if justification of Jewish terror is wrong, it derives from “mistaken judgment against a background of compromised security, or personal factors related to judgment and the sense that one needs to exact revenge.”

Zangi himself recalls that president Weizman showed him both sides of his hand when he explained to him, in Weizman’s coarse style, why he decided to reduce the sentences of Jewish terrorists. “See my hand, Zangi? Everything I think – you think the opposite. And everything you think – I think the opposite. We both come from different worlds, but one thing we agree on: If you release Arab murderers, release Jewish murderers as well.”

Let’s assess: The likes of the child-murdering Samir Kuntar deserve to be locked away for life, and never allowed into free society again. Hezbollah’s campaigns to free Kuntar shows their utter contempt for society (if it wasn’t blindingly obvious already), and reveal a total lack of human decency. Yet Honenu’s argument is just as disgusting.

Arab murderers are freed in exchange for the the bodies of Israeli soldiers to be returned, so why not free Jewish murderers when Arab murderers are freed?

Let’s put the question another way: what if Israel frees an Arab paedophile for political reasons? Should it then free a Jewish paedophile, just to make things ‘fair’?

Consider also the way that Honenu latched on to the politics surrounding Gilad Shalit, not campaigning for Shalit’s return, but for the release of Jewish nationalist prisoners. Honenu cynically tried to exploit an impossible situation, focusing on the release of guilty criminals rather than the innocent Shalit.

Among those listed by Honenu for release were Ami Popper, murderer of seven Arabs.

And guess who has previously championed Honenu’s cause?

Shas leader, and Israel’s Interior Minister and Deputy PM Eli Yishai, whom we last met enabling Yad L’Achim to run riot, subverting Israel’s democratic law and abusing his position in the process.

Quite frankly, it is little wonder, that Gideon Levy describes Yishai as Jean Marie Le Pen with a beard. Yishai does nothing to counter the assumption by religious and political zealots that Redemption will only come when Eretz Israel is cleansed of its postmodern Amaleks.

More Teitel links Provided Via Rosh Pina

Woah, Greg Craven (vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University) has really had enough of atheists. He certainly doesn’t pull any punches in this article and I must say that I rather enjoyed it. I have to tip my hat to P Z Myers, who identified this article for my enjoyment.

TheAge.com.au

FROM time immemorial, this world has been troubled by plagues. From bogong moths in Canberra to frogs in biblical Egypt, unwelcome and unlovely creatures have the awkward habit of turning up in bulk.

Just now, we are facing one of our largest and least appealing infestations. Somewhat in advance of summer’s blowflies, we are beset by atheists. Worse, they are not traditional atheists. These tended to be quiet blokes called Algie with ancillary interests in nudist ceramics, who were perfectly happy as long as you pretended to accept a pamphlet in Flinders Lane.

No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity. Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.

Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.

Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?

The answer is twofold. First, the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever. After all, you are at least much brighter than all those dumb-asses who believe in a supreme being, such as Sister Perpetua down the road, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So satisfying.

The second factor has to do with wit. For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny. Its proponents only have to wheel out one of the age-old religious libels to lose control of their bladders. To outsiders, of course, it is a bit like watching a giggling incontinent drunk at a party. This is not to say that believers – and perhaps especially Catholics – do not get seriously irritated by atheists. They do, but not because atheists are fearfully clever or Wildely funny.

Frankly, the prime reason the average believer finds the common or garden atheist as appealing as a holiday in Birchip is because they consign them to that sorry category of individuals who spend their lives loudly congratulating themselves on their own intelligence without noticing that no one else is joining the chorus. Thus, as a Catholic, I do not normally sense in some tabloid atheist the presence of a supreme discerning intellect. I simply place him or her in much the same pitiable bin of intellectual vulgarians as the chartered accountant who cannot see the art in Picasso, the redneck who cannot admit of indigenous culture, and the pissant who cannot see the difference between Yeats and Bob Ellis.

It is not deep perception we encounter here, but a critical failure of imaginative capacity. It is a bit like the old joke: how many atheists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None – no matter what they do, they just can’t see the light.

The second wearying thing about the new atheism is that it is not new at all. It is so banally derivative of every piece of hate mail ever sent to God that I am amazed Satan has yet to sue for copyright infringement. No old chestnut is too ripe, rotten or sodden, especially when it comes to the Catholics as accredited suppliers of what apparently is the Christian equivalent of methamphetamine.

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

Applied to the average totalitarian dictatorship, this charge sheet would be over the top. Ascribed to virtually any ethnic minority, it rightly would result at least in public revulsion and quite possibly in criminal charges. But applied to Christians, it seems to be accepted as just another modern blood sport, like the vilification of refugees and the elimination of the private life of the families of public figures.

At the bottom, of course, lies hate. I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do. There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.

Greg Craven is vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.

(CNA).- Speaking to almost 15,000 people in St. Peter’s Square during the Wednesday General Audience, Pope Benedict XVI continued last week’s comparison of the monastic and scholastic theology in the twelfth century. In the area of theological discussion, the Holy Father cautioned against ethical relativism influencing the Faith.

Pope Benedict dedicated his catechesis to the twelfth-century debate between St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Abelard. He began by recalling, “to understand this confrontation between the two great masters, we must remember that theology is the search for a rational understanding, as far as possible, of the mysteries of the Christian faith.”

For St. Bernard, Benedict XVI explained, “faith itself is endowed with inner certainty, strengthened by the testimony of the saints and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, and in case of doubt, by the exercise of the Magisterium of the Church.”

The Pope added, “In his view, the critical examination of reason risks intellectualism, the relativization of truth, that could even lead to questioning one’s own faith.”

“For Bernard, theology has the sole purpose of promoting the intimate experience of God, to love the Lord more and more,” he continued. “There are varying stages in this journey until the culmination is reached, when the soul of the believer is intoxicated by the summits of love.”

Above all, the abbot of Clairvaux taught that theology “must be nourished by contemplative prayer,” the Pope said.

Turning to Abelard, the Pontiff noted that “among other things introduced the term ‘theology’ as we understand it today, … originally studied philosophy then applied the results achieved in this discipline to theology.”

However, Abelard was a conflicted person. Pope Benedict explained that he had a “religious spirit but a restless personality, and his life was rich in dramatic events: he challenged his teachers and had a child by a cultured and intelligent woman, Eloise. … He also suffered ecclesiastical condemnations, although he died in full communion with the Church to whose authority he submitted with a spirit of faith.”

On the academic plain, the Holy Father said an “excessive use of philosophy rendered Abelard’s Trinitarian doctrine dangerously fragile.” In the field of morals Abelard’s teaching was not without ambiguity as he insisted on considering the intention of the subject as the only source for describing the goodness or malice of moral acts, ignoring the objective moral significance and value of actions.

“This aspect”, Benedict XVI went on, “is highly relevant for our own age, in which culture often seems marked by a growing tendency to ethical relativism.”

The Pope also underlined “some of Abelard’s insights, such as when he says that in non-Christian religious traditions there is already a preparation for the reception of Christ, the Word of God.”

The Holy Father concluded by stressing that “the theological confrontation ended with a full reconciliation between the two, thanks to their mutual friend, Peter the Venerable. Abelard showed humility in recognizing his errors, Bernard great kindness. ”

The below link from Albert Mohler, looks at the impact and implications of postmodernist pluralist thinking on faith:-

Is Truth Really Plural? Postmodernism in Full Flower