A few points about the Lord’s supper: The problem at Corinth with regard to the Lord’s supper was probably that one group ate before the other group (cf. 1 Cor. 11:21-22). However, the root problem was that of division. Moreover, Paul was not a moralist. In approaching the solution, he did not want people merely to change their behavior. He wanted the divisions to dissolve because of a deeper understanding of the work of Christ. Communing with each other is not about getting a full belly. You can do that on your own (1 Cor. 11:34). In communion, we are to serve each other as Christ has served us. (1 Cor. 11:33, cf. John 13) In communion, we remember who we are in relation to each other. (1 Cor. 11:28-29) The Lord’s supper is not about the bread and wine. The bread and wine serve as a vivid reminder, an object lesson, directing our affections to God and to each other because of what Christ has accomplished. T
The Diagnosis: Blindness Take a look around your group of friends. I think we can agree that most of us do not know what pains exist in each individual. Not only do we not know what pains exist, but we also do not know at what depths they reside. A clear illustration is the dim-sighted Eli’s encounter with Hannah in 1 Samuel 1:9b-16. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of the Lord . She was deeply distressed and prayed to the Lord and wept bitterly. And she vowed a vow and said, “O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head.” As she continued praying before the Lord , Eli observed her mouth. Hannah was speaking in her heart; only her lips moved, and her voice was not heard. Therefore Eli took her to be a drunken woman.
One of the arguments used by some atheists is: Can God, an omnipotent being, create a stone so large that he cannot lift it? They argue that if he is omnipotent, then he will be able to do it. However, if he does create such a stone, then his omnipotence fails when he is unable to lift it. Clever, eh? Well, there is a problem with this argument. It is logically absurd. Omnipotence is not thrown into question when we say that God cannot make a crayon so red that it is blue. By definition, this is absurd. In the end, the atheist is asking if, in God’s omnipotence, he can make himself not omnipotent. What looked clever becomes absurd because “omnipotence” actually has a meaning. Syrian king Ben-hadad made some demands of Ahab, the king of Israel (1 Kings 20). When Ahab denied Ben-hadad his demands, the countries went to war. We read, “And the servants of the king of Syria said to him, ‘Their gods are gods of the hills, and so they were stronger than we. But let us fi
Comments