Shall we use physical force to defend the gathered church?

Christians, it's time for us to have a conversation about the appropriate use of physical force to defend the gathered church.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many Christians are naive about violence (this isn't necessarily a bad thing), have a type of "absolutist pacifist" misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus, or are just plain ignorant (willingly or otherwise) about these issues, or they have a misunderstanding about how God can ordain the ends and means to any action. How to address violence, biblically speaking, is a discussion that is rarely had these days in the church because some pastors consider it a (1) distraction away from the teaching of the Scriptures, (2) addressing it from Scripture on a Sunday morning would breed unnecessary fear, and (3) scare people off, and/or (4) promote a mentality of violence or a violent use of force in the church which they believe to be contrary to Jesus' supposed pacifism.

I am a former pastor and I addressed some of these issues from the pulpit in a sermon I gave titled "Killing Abortionists and Starting Revolutions". Essentially, I argued the following:

(1) We are commanded to avoid *vengeance* as we are forbidden to engage in vigilantism and taking matters into our own hands because the state is the only lawful, God-ordained authority to execute murderers as a form of bringing "God's wrath against the evildoer" [Romans 13:4-5]. Thus, for example, we can't just start killing abortionists because we deem their actions murderous. Only God's duly ordained authority (i.e., the civil magistrate) has the authority to execute criminals for capital offenses, not an individual acting in a vigilante fashion.

(2) Regarding self-defense, a misunderstanding of primarily Matthew 5:39's "resist not an evildoer" has caused much confusion among various branches of the evangelical churches (esp. those from Anabaptist backgrounds) and has been used to promote absolute pacifism. I argue that in the context of 2nd Temple Judaism, Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism when he said "resist not an evildoer", but again, was issuing a command to avoid vengeance by not returning insult for insult and "one-upping" the one that publicly shamed you through a personal insult, thus avoiding escalating the argument into a violent encounter.

(3) Generally speaking, we are to be committed to the principle of non-violence, but the New Testament allows for a *graded pacifism*; in other words, we are permitted to use physical force up to the point of lethal force when the greater good demands it (i.e., protecting our loved ones from crazed murderers who intend them lethal harm). A parallel argument could be lying to or deceiving a bad guy when the greater good demands it. We normally are prohibited from deceiving and lying, but if you lived in Nazi Germany and SS soldiers knocked on your door demanding to know if you're hiding Jews in your basement and you're actually hiding 30 of them there, the greater good would be to lie through your teeth and deny that you were housing Jews in order to protect them from harm. I then appealed to Rahab's deceiving the pagan authorities and sending them out another way to protect the Hebrew spies way as something that God clearly commended as an evidence of justifying faith [James 2:25] and the Hebrew midwives lying about saving the Hebrew babies [Exodus 1:17, 19-21].

(4) Prayer. I agree wholeheartedly that we should always be praying that God will keep us safe. Generally speaking, we must pray above all that he will keep our services peaceful for the purpose of the gospel spreading in our communities through the influence of our churches. However, perhaps God will answer that prayer through having your church employ a uniformed, armed police officer or an armed, well-trained security team and allow licensed concealed-carriers to carry into the facility. When God gave young David the ability to overcome Goliath, he didn't miraculously cause Goliath to have a heart attack, but instead, he saw fit to use David’s self-defense skills that he developed when defending his sheep (i.e. sling and a stone) to kill Goliath. God ordains the means that leads to the ends that you prayed for, namely, safety. And sometimes that involves the normal means of his providence through hiring a police officer, investing in a well-trained security team, or in you, a well-armed and sufficiently trained private citizen.

Objections:

1. "This is depending on the strength of man's abilities to defend the church instead of God through prayer."

Answer: Again, God ordains the ends and the means to the end when answering prayers. Sometimes that includes armed security, sometimes it doesn't. It's not an either/or scenario.

2. "The early church suffered greatly and they didn't resist the evildoers, but suffered persecution and grew exponentially as they followed Jesus' pacifistic teachings."

Answers: First, I'll grant you that the 2nd and 3rd century church grew very quickly through the blood of the martyrs. No argument there. However, (a) the early Christians weren't allowed to have weapons sufficient to defend themselves against their persecutors, which was the Roman war machine, and (b) I believe they were patently wrong about their interpretation and application of passages such as Matthew 5:39's "resist not an evildoer" [see linked article below].

Second, are you seriously implying that you would rather have your entire family murdered at church by a gun-wielding psycho versus having an armed security team take him out?

Thus, sometimes, the Lord ordains that lethal force be used to answer his people’s prayers of protection when evildoers won't yield to God's saving grace through the gospel.

You certainly can yield up your life in the name of persecution though you have the ability to defend yourself in such situations. I however, will gladly be praying for protection for my family, understanding that the same God who ordained the answer to my prayers sometimes also ordains that I and other armed men are the answer to my prayers.

FOOTNOTE: Jesus’ “resist not an evildoer” statement in Matthew 5:39 wasn't promoting pacifism, but attacking the notion of vengeance: http://ourrabbijesus.com/articles/jesus-view-of-pacifism/

Elección: ¿Corporativa o individuo?

Este tema me recuerda algo que escribió recientemente Ben Wittherington: "La elección es un concepto corporativo y las personas pueden optar por participar o no en el grupo elegido".

Esto, por supuesto, no es más que una estratagema para contrarrestar la doctrina reformada de elección individual, pero esta objeción solo es verdadera si la elección es exclusivamente corporativa. Por el contrario, nos sentimos muy cómodos al afirmar que las elecciones son corporativas e individuales. Entonces, cual es? La respuesta reformada no es, contrariamente al pensamiento popular, que sea individual y no corporativa. Más bien, afirmamos ambos. ¿Por qué?

Si niega la elección individual en Romanos 8:29, 30, termina con la afirmación de que todos los que conocemos están predestinados, llamados, justificados y glorificados como clase, pero no como individuos. Sin embargo, el arminianismo niega el llamado individual efectivo. La apelación a la elección corporativa para la exclusión de personas no funcionará aquí. Las personas aquí son un grupo, eso es cierto, pero se incluye a cada persona en el grupo, mientras que otras personas que están fuera del grupo están excluidas. Ese es el punto del texto, que los elegidos están en posesión de un don precioso y poderoso que otros no tienen, sin otra razón que la misericordia de Dios. Además, Romanos 8 es particularista e individual. "Pero no estás en la carne, sino en el Espíritu, si el Espíritu de Dios mora en ti. Ahora bien, si alguien no tiene el Espíritu de Cristo, él no es Suyo" (Romanos 8: 9). Pablo habla con los elegidos como grupo, porque los individuos mismos son elegidos y tienen el Espíritu de Dios. Dios conoce y predestina a los individuos, llama a los individuos, justifica a los individuos y glorifica a los individuos ". ¿Quién nos separará del amor de Cristo?" (Romanos 8:35). ¿Es esto solo corporativo o también individual?

¿Qué hay de Efesios 1: 4? Si la elección es corporativa aquí, entonces tienes un ejemplo clásico de la falacia regresiva. El demandante fundamentará su reclamo en una explicación que, a su vez, necesita fundamentarse, p. Ej. su afirmación solo mueve un paso la cuestión en cuestión. "Nosotros" está formado por individuos. La elección corporativa es inútil a menos que todos los del grupo sean electos. La elección corporativa presupone la elección individual. "Elegir" aquí significa elegir un grupo, no elegir un grupo abstracto cuyos miembros se llenan más tarde. La objeción de Arminia equivale a decir que Dios elige a Cristo y que cualquiera que elija a Cristo está "en Cristo". De acuerdo, entonces, ¿por qué se elige a Cristo? El texto dice que Dios nos predestinó, no a Cristo, sino a los individuos, para ser adoptados como sus hijos por medio de Jesucristo.

El verbo (eklego) ordinariamente tiene un objeto definido: Cristo eligió a los doce Apóstoles (Lc 6,13; Jn 6,70; 13:18; Hechos 1: 2). El Padre eligió al Hijo (Lc 9:35). La iglesia eligió a Esteban (Hechos 6: 5). La iglesia eligió Silas y Barsabbas (Hechos 15:22). No hay, entonces, ninguna presunción de que el verbo no toma un objeto definido y / o tiene una clase plural y abstracta a la vista. La noción de elección de sentido común implica una elección particular, y la palabra en sí misma generalmente se entiende como "elegir un grupo", no "elegir un grupo". El uso bíblico simplemente confirma esa noción de sentido común.

Esto no es una negación de que puede y toma un objeto colectivo. Sin embargo, incluso cuando el verbo toma un objeto colectivo, no existe una disyunción lógica o práctica entre un grupo y sus miembros constituyentes. Una clase se compone de individuos. Cristo no eligió el Apostolado como una clase, sino los Apóstoles individuales, no un conjunto nulo para ser llenado por el anónimo "todo aquel que quiera". Cristo dijo que Dios le dio un pueblo (Juan 6:37), y que nadie que vendrá a Él será rechazado (44). Luego dijo claramente que nadie puede venir a menos que sea atraído, y esa persona será criada en el último día. Estas son personas. El Buen Pastor llama a sus ovejas por su nombre (Juan 10: 3). El Buen Pastor otorga vida eterna a las ovejas (vv10,28). Esta no es una elección corporativa. Las ovejas se nombran como individuos, no solo "ovejas". El Buen Pastor no otorga vida eterna a los reprobados, las cabras. Pablo fue elegido como un individuo. Peter fue elegido como un individuo. John fue elegido como un individuo. Lydia fue elegida como individuo. Cornelius fue elegido como un individuo. El eunuco etíope fue elegido como individuo. El Arminian consistente debe hacer todas estas excepciones para un propósito particular. Si es así, entonces ha admitido que la elección no es un concepto corporativo. No puede decir que la elección salvífica es un concepto corporativo, y luego proceder de inmediato a hacer excepciones. Fuimos elegidos como individuos, y nos convertimos en aquello por lo que fuimos elegidos. Además, la prueba de que Dios elige corporativamente no es prueba de que él no elige individualmente.

Pregunto, ¿es el amor de Dios individual o corporativo? Si la respuesta es "ambos" o "individual", entonces ¿por qué no decir que su elección es corporativa y no individual? ¿El arminiano no toma generalmente los pasajes de pantos y kosmos y los aplica a cada individuo? ¿El amor de Dios es personal o impersonal? El amor y el llamado de Dios se extienden, según la teología de Arminian, a todos sin excepción por medio de la gracia preventiva. Sin embargo, su elección, al parecer, es corporativa y no individual. Eso finalmente significa que Dios elige inicialmente las clases sin miembros de una manera impersonal, un plan, no individuos. Al parecer, Dios no es tan "omnibenevolente" como nos llevan a creer. El acto de elección de Dios no fue ni impersonal ni mecanicista, sino que estuvo impregnado de amor personal por aquellos a quienes eligió. (Grudem) ¿Es justificación corporativa? ¿Adopción? ¿Santificación? ¿Glorificación? ¿Regeneración? ¿Los pescadores no cuentan la cantidad de peces en sus capturas? ¿No conoces a tus hijos por su nombre? ¿Los pastores no nombran y numeran las ovejas en sus rebaños? ¿Los recaudadores de impuestos no agregan y detallan bienes gravables? Los ejemplos podrían ser multiplicados. Una disyunción entre las elecciones corporativas e individuales tampoco está de acuerdo con el individualismo inherente de su soteriología arminiana. ¿Cómo se combina el libre albedrío libertario con un Modelo consistentemente corporativo de nuestro destino espiritual y salvífico? La autonomía personal y la identidad corporativa están en Antipodes, y si, en aras de la discusión, concluimos que los autores del NT no dibujaron una inferencia consciente de las elecciones corporativas a las individuales, la relación clase / miembro sigue siendo también para Arminian como el calvinista, entonces la objeción de Arminia todavía falla.

Un calvinista no niega la dimensión corporativa de la elección. Reconocemos plenamente que una persona puede saber si él es parte de "los elegidos" (el grupo / clase) por medio de la voluntad revelada de Dios (a saber, fe, arrepentimiento, etc., eso es parte de nuestra doctrina de seguridad); pero esto no es un principio que signifique que Dios eligió un plan o que Dios eligió a Cristo y luego cualquier grupo anónimo de voluntarios podría optar por entrar o salir. Más bien, Dios está salvando a un pueblo, un pueblo que comprende a su iglesia, el Amado, los llamados por Dios, pero esto no le autoriza a abrir una brecha entre las elecciones corporativas e individuales, jugando contra las segundas. La elección tiene tanto medios como fines. El ser elegido en unión con Cristo debe ser personalmente designado para la salvación, no aparte de Cristo, sino a través de Cristo, como nuestro Redentor personal. Cuando Pablo continúa diciendo de los elegidos que ellos creyeron el evangelio y recibieron el sello de la salvación (Ef. 1: 13-14), el efecto de la elección y el campo de ella termina en los individuos elegidos. Pablo usa el plural ("nosotros") porque está escribiendo a la iglesia de Éfeso. Él está dirigiendo su carta a una congregación, pero una congregación está compuesta por miembros individuales.

Es imposible tener una elección nacional sin la elección de unidades individuales dentro del grupo nacional, ya que aún debe lidiar con las unidades en el grupo. Entonces, decir que Romanos 9, por ejemplo, tiene que ver solamente con las elecciones nacionales y no con las elecciones individuales, es una imposibilidad; Es decir, es una contradicción en términos. Si decimos que es una elección nacional, entonces tenemos la elección de varias unidades individuales dentro del cuerpo corporativo y nacional, ya que no todos los habitantes de la nación son "elegidos" salvamente. Entonces, estamos de vuelta en la misma pregunta que comenzamos cuando hablamos de elección; ¿Por qué hay una sola persona y no otra "elegida"? Respondemos: el amor personal y la misericordia de Dios a uno y no al otro. Agradecemos a nuestros amigos arminianos por revelar que creen que la salvación es solo una cuestión de justicia impersonal, retributiva, no absoluta, misericordia personal.

Post-script: El artículo del blog anterior fue escrito por mi viejo amigo Gene M. Bridges el 25-10-2006. No he tenido noticias de él en años, pero él solía escribir para mi antiguo blog de la iglesia hace años y quería resucitar este artículo y varios otros en honor de él. Gene, te extraño amigo!

Election: Corporate or Individual?

This topic reminds me of something Ben Wittherington recently wrote: "Election is a corporate concept, and individuals can opt in or out of the elect group."

This is, of course, nothing more than a ploy to counter the Reformed doctrine of individual election, but this objection is only true if election is exclusively corporate. On the contrary, we are very comfortable affirming that election is both corporate and individual. So, which is it? The Reformed answer is not, contrary to popular thinking, that it is individual and not corporate. Rather, we affirm both. Why?

If you deny individual election in Romans 8:29, 30, then you wind up with the assertion that all those foreknown are predestined, called, justified, and glorified as a class but not as individuals. However, Arminianism denies effectual individual calling. The appeal to corporate election to the exclusion of individuals won't work here. The persons here are a group, that is true, but every individual in the group is included, while others outside the group are excluded. That's the point of the text, that the elect are in possession of a precious and powerful gift that others do not have, by no reason other than God's mercy. What's more, Romans 8 is particularistic and individual. "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."(Romans 8:9). Paul is speaking to and of the elect as a group, because the individuals themselves are elect and have the Spirit of God. God foreknows and predestines individuals, calls individuals, justifies individuals, and glorifies individuals."Who will separate us from the love of Christ?" (Romans 8:35). Is this only corporate or is it also individual?

What of Ephesians 1:4? If election is corporate here, then you have a classic example of the regressive fallacy. The disputant will ground his claim in an explanation which needs, in turn, to be grounded, e.g. his assertion only moves the question at issue back one step. “Us” is made up of individuals. Corporate election is useless unless all the ones in the group are elected. Corporate election presupposes individual election. “Choose” here means to pick out of a group, not pick an abstract group whose members are filled later. The Arminian objection amounts to saying God choose Christ and anybody that chooses Christ is "in Christ." Okay, then why does one choose Christ? The text says that God predestined us – not Christ, but the individuals – to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ.

In both of these examples, the disputant fails to grasp that nations are not described as salvifically called and justified. Nations are not described as adopted and united to Christ. Nations are not described as glorified salvifically. In fact, Paul specifically denies the corporate election of Israel with respect to individual salvation in Romans 9. The consistent Arminian needs to find a text where Paul answers the question about why not all Israel is being saved with something like "because God has chosen to elect Gentiles as a nation." What's more, if universal prevenient grace is evenly distributed, then why does one person not resist it while the other does? Why does one believe and not the other?

The verb (eklego) ordinarily takes a definite object: Christ chose the twelve Apostles (Lk 6:13; Jn 6:70; 13:18; Acts 1:2). The Father chose the Son (Lk 9:35). The church chose Stephen (Acts 6:5). The church chose Silas and Barsabbas (Acts 15:22). There is, then, no presumption that the verb does not take a definite object and/or has a plural, abstract class in view. The common sense notion of choice involves a particular choice, and the word itself is generally construed to mean "to pick out of a group," not "pick a group." Biblical usage merely confirms that common sense notion.

This is not a denial that it can and does take a collective object. However, even when the verb takes a collective object, there is no logical or practical disjunction between a group and its constituent members. A class is composed of individuals. Christ didn't choose the Apostolate as a class, but the individual Apostles, not a null-set to be filled in by anonymous "whosoever wills." Christ said that God gave Him a people (John 6:37), and that no one individual that comes to Him will be turned away (44). He then clearly stated that no one can come unless drawn, and that person will be raised on the last day. These are individuals. The Good Shepherd calls his sheep by name (John 10:3). The Good Shepherd grants eternal life to the sheep (vv10,28). This is not corporate election. The sheep are named as individuals, not just "sheep." The Good Shepherd does not grant eternal life to the reprobate, the goats. Paul was elected as an individual. Peter was elected as an individual. John was elected as an individual. Lydia was elected as an individual. Cornelius was elected as an individual. The Ethiopian Eunuch was elected as an individual. The consistent Arminian must make these all exceptions for a particular purpose. If so, then he has admitted that election is not a corporate concept. You can’t say that salvific election is a corporate concept, and then immediately proceed to make exceptions. We were elected as individuals, and we become that for which we were chosen. Moreover, proof that God elects corporately is not proof that he does not elect individually.

I would ask, is God's love individual or corporate? If the answer is "both" or "individual," then why not say that His election is corporate and not individual? Does the Arminian not take generally the pantos and kosmos passages and apply them to every individual? Is God's love personal or impersonal? God love and calling are extended, according to Arminian theology, to all without exception by way of prevenient grace. Yet, His election, it would seem, is corporate and not individual. That ultimately means God elects initially memberless classes in an impersonal fashion, a plan, not individuals. Apparently, God is not as "omnibenevolent" as we are led to believe. God's act of election was neither impersonal nor mechanistic, but was permeated with personal love for those whom he chose. (Grudem) Is justification corporate? Adoption? Sanctification? Glorification? Regeneration?

Don’t fishermen count the number of fish in their catch? Don't you know your children by name? Don’t shepherds name and number the sheep in their flocks? Don’t tax-collectors add and itemize taxable goods? Examples could be multiplied. A disjunction between corporate and individual election is also out of sorts with the inherent individualism of his Arminian soteriology. How do you combine libertarian freewill with a
consistently corporate model of our spiritual, salvific destiny? Personal autonomy and corporate identity are at Antipodes, and if—for the sake of argument—we were to grant that the NT authors did not draw a conscious inference from corporate to individual election, the class/ member relation still remains for the Arminian as well as the Calvinist, so the Arminian objection still fails.

A Calvinist doesn’t deny the corporate dimension of election. We fully acknowledge that a person can know if he is part of "the elect" (the group/class) by way of God's revealed will (viz. faith, repentance, etc.; that 's part of our doctrine of assurance); but this is not a priniciple that means that God elected a plan or God elected Christ and then any anonymous set of volunteers could opt in or out. Rather, God is saving a people—a people comprising his church, the Beloved, those called by God, but this does not authorize you to drive a wedge between corporate and individual election, playing the former off against the latter. Election has means as well as ends. To be chosen in union with Christ is to be personally appointed to salvation, not apart from Christ, but through Christ, as our personal Redeemer. When Paul goes on to say of the elect that they believed the gospel and received the seal of salvation (Eph. 1:13-14), the effect of election and the field of it terminates on elect individuals. Paul uses the plural (“us”) because he is writing to the church of Ephesus. He is addressing his letter to a congregation, but a congregation is made up of individual members.

It is impossible to have a national election without the election of individual units within the national group, because you must still contend with the units in the group. So, to say that Romans 9, for example, has to do only with national election and not with individual election is an impossibility; that is, it is a contradiction in terms. If we say that it is national election, then we have the election of a number of individual units within the corporate, national body, since not everybody in the nation is "elected" salvifically. So, we’re back at the same question that we started with when we talk about election; why is any one person and not another "elect?" We answer: God's personal love and mercy to the one and not the other. We thank our Arminian friends for revealing that they believe salvation is just a matter of impersonal, retributive justice, not absolute, personal mercy.

Post-script: The above blog article was written by my old buddy Gene M. Bridges on 10-25-2006. I haven't heard from him in years, but he used to write for my old church blog years ago and I wanted to resurrect this article and several others in honor of him. Gene, I miss you buddy!

Lento a la ira

INTRODUCCIÓN: Sólo Dios es el máximo digno de ser alabado (Salmo 18:3). Alabamos a las personas, pero a menudo no consideramos la grandeza, la majestad y la bondad de nuestro Dios.

Considera que Jehová es lento para la ira:

Jehová pasó por delante de él y exclamó:"¡Jehová! ¡Jehová! Dios fuerte, misericordioso y piadoso; tardo para la ira y grande en misericordia y verdad" Exodo 34:6 RV 1995 

"Jehová es tardo para la ira y grande en misericordia, perdona la maldad y la rebelión, aunque de ningún modo tendrá por inocente al culpable, pues castiga el pecado de los padres sobre los hijos hasta la tercera y la cuarta generación.” Números 14:18

"No quisieron oír, ni se acordaron de las maravillas que con ellos hiciste; antes endurecieron su cerviz y, en su rebelión, pensaron poner caudillo para volverse a su servidumbre. Pero tú eres Dios perdonador, clemente y piadoso, tardo para la ira y grande en misericordia, pues no los abandonaste." Nehemías 9:17 

"Mas tú, Señor, Dios misericordioso y clemente, lento para la ira y grande en misericordia y verdad," Salmos 86:15"Clemente y misericordioso es Jehová, lento para la ira y grande en misericordia." Salmos 145:8

Y debemos ser como él en este aspecto:

"Por esto, mis amados hermanos, todo hombre sea pronto para oír, tardo para hablar, tardo para airarse" Santiago 1:19

A menudo no olvidamos que Dios no sólo es sorprendentemente paciente con nosotros, sino porque su Espíritu permanece con nosotros y nos enseña a negar la impiedad y los deseos mundanos, podemos descansar en él y confiar en que él nos dará la capacidad de llegar a ser " lento a la ira ", como lo ha sido con nosotros.

CONCLUSIÓN: Estás vivo porque Dios es lento para la ira. Si estás en Cristo, eres amado porque Dios es lento para la ira y abundante en la misericordia (חַסְדְּךָ֗). Él ha ejercido una cantidad asombrosa de paciencia a la luz de su condición vil y depravada hasta el punto que él lo atrajo hacia sí mismo y le hizo atractivo a su hijo (Juan 6:37-44; 65). Piensa en esto.

Slow to anger

INTRODUCTION: God alone is maximally worthy to be praised (Psalm 18:3). We give praise due to people, but we often don't consider the greatness, majesty, and lovingkindness of our God.

Consider that Yahweh is slow to anger:

"Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth..." Exodus 34:6 NASB

"‘The Lord is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.’" Numbers 14:18

“They refused to listen, And did not remember Your wondrous deeds which You had performed among them; So they became stubborn and appointed a leader to return to their slavery in Egypt. But You are a God of forgiveness, Gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness; And You did not forsake them." Nehemiah 9:17

"But You, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, Slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth." Psalm 86:15

"The Lord is gracious and merciful; Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness." Psalm 145:8

And we are to be like him in this regard:

"This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger..." James 1:19

We often to fail to forget that not only is God amazingly patient with us, but because his Spirit abides with us and teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires, we can rest in him and trust that he will give us the ability to become "slow to anger" just like he has been with us.

CONCLUSION: You are alive because God is slow to anger. If you are in Christ, you are loved because God is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness (חַסְדְּךָ֗). He has exercised an amazing amount of patience in light of your vile and depraved condition up until the point that he drew you to himself and made his son attractive to you (John 6:37-44; 65). Think on this.

It's not about you...

INTRODUCTION: It is not about you. It's not about your life. You are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. All is Christ alone. You must decrease as he increases (John 3:30).

Our lives are filled with temptations to make something great of ourselves for the benefit of ourselves and not the benefit of others. Jesus says that it is not about us, but about others,

"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus..." Phil. 2:3-5 NASB

Consider this and act upon it.

Es todo acerca de Cristo

INTRODUCCIÓN: No se trata de usted. No se trata de tu vida. Eres insignificante en el gran esquema de las cosas. Todo es sólo Cristo. Debes disminuir mientras él aumenta (Juan 3:30).

Nuestras vidas están llenas de tentaciones de hacer algo grande de nosotros mismos para el beneficio de nosotros mismos y no el beneficio de los demás. Jesús dice que no se trata de nosotros, sino de los demás.

"Nada hago por egoísmo o por vanagloria, sino que con actitud humilde cada uno de vosotros consideran otro como más importante que un sí mismo, 4 no buscando cada uno sus propios intereses, sino más bien los intereses de los demás 5 Haya, pues, en vosotros esta actitud que hubo también en Cristo Jesús, "Phil. 2:3-5 LBLA

Considere esto y actúe sobre él.