Skip to main content

Everything changes?

We live in a changing world. Everything changes. Nothing remains the same. This is life - as we know it; but what if there's something else, something that's unchanged, unchanging and unchangeable! You may ask the question, "Is such a thing possible?" In the Bible - in the heart of the Old Testament, there's a long Psalm, containing twenty-six verses. It's Psalm 136. The second part of every single one of these twenty-six verses says this: "God's love endures forever." Some things are worth repeating - again and again and again ... We read the same thing, again, in Lamentations 3:22 - "The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases." Here, we read something else about the enduring love of God, the "forever" love of God -  "His mercies ... are new every morning" (Lamentations 3:22). New! That's the word many people like to hear. In our ever-changing world, the old is thrown away. It's out-of-date. Here, we have God's unchanging love described as new! When we're reading Psalm 136 and Lamentations 3 , we're reading words from a very long time ago - but they are words that speak to us of something that doesn't grow old, something that's always new - the love of God. In today's world, something that starts off new, very soon, becomes old. The love of God isn't like that - His "mercies never come to an end." (Lamentations 3:22). When everything else is going past its "sell by date", the love of God remains the same. His love is for today - not just yesterday. His love is not only for today. It's for tomorrow. It's for every tomorrow. His love is a faithful love - "Great is Your faithfulness" (Lamentations 3:23). "New every morning" - Day-by-day, God chooses to be faithful. He chooses to keep on loving us. He chooses to never stop loving us. Love - this is His eternal choice, the choice that He affirms to us, again and again and again ...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Carl Bangs, “Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation”

In this post, I will draw comparisons between Arminius and Berkouwer.  * Bangs points out that the historical situation in Holland was not a simple one - Calvinism coming in, Arminius nearly ruining it and the Synod of Dort restoring it: “The earliest Dutch Reformed leaders don’t seem to be Calvinists at all. They rise out of the soil, here and there, nurtured by the old Dutch biblical piety, not seized by dogmatic insights, but steadily pressing toward a purified life of faith according to Scripture” (p. 21). This emphasis is similar to Berkouwer’s insistence that election is not a special gnosis for the theological elite. Rather, it is a confession of faith, arising from the hearts of those who have come to know the grace of God ( Divine Election (DE), p. 216).    * Bangs observes that Arminius’ theological method is “practical and through faith”: “For the Theology which belongs to this world, is practical and through faith: Theoretical Theology belongs to the o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Faith in Scripture as God's Word

Berkouwer criticizes "an incorrect conception of theology, a conception of theology, a conception which considers it possible to discuss Holy Scripture apart from a personal relationship of belief in it, as though that alone would constitute true 'objectivity'." (Holy Scripture, pp. 9-10). He holds that those who view Scripture in this way "wrongly ... see involvement and correlation as subjectivism" (Holy Scripture, p.10). Such a misguided fear of subjectivism lapses into a false objectivism with its suggestion that Christian truth can be considered without direct reference to the believer's personal involvement with that truth. Berkouwer maintains that there must be a proper understanding of the correlation between faith and its object. He emphasizes that "faith is decisively determined by the object of faith, namely God and His Word". He rejects the idea that "Scripture ... derives its authority from the believer's faith...
Post a Comment
Read more

John McLeod Campbell on the Atonement (1)

We begin with the charges brought against McLeod Campbell by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1831: “ the doctrine of universal atonement and pardon through the death of Christ, as also the doctrine that assurance is of the essence of faith and necessary for salvation are contrary to Holy Scripture and to the Confession of Faith … ” This does not provide us with the full content of the differences between McLeod Campbell and the Westminster Confession. It does provide us with a historical starting - point since it highlights the differences as they were defined by the General Assembly. To understand the full extent of the differences, we must set these charges within the broader context of McLeod Campbell’s thought. A particular doctrine cannot be understood in isolation from the whole system of theology which lies behind it. After the 1831 trial, there were further developments in McLeod Campbell’s thought. There was an increasing emphasis on the nature of the at...
Post a Comment
Read more