469 Posts By Hans Kristensen

  • How Jesus Helps us in Our Suffering

    You and I will suffer at some stage in our lives. That is just a fact of life. But the question is how are we going to deal with our suffering?

    The biggest question for a belief system whether it be a religion, a philosophy or some other worldview is how does this belief system help me suffer?

    Christianity is unique among worldviews because at the centre of Christianity is a God who comes into our world and suffered for us and like us and therefore we can go to him when we suffer.

    Here is how Mark Driscoll helpfully puts this idea in his latest book Who Do You Think You Are?: Finding Your True Identity in Christ:

    For those who are afflicted and in Christ, Jesus is a God to whom you can speak personally. You can run to him and walk with him. Jesus Christ didn’t sit back in his heavenly ease and from a safe distance give us mere counsel for our suffering. Instead, he entered into human history to identify with us. He was tempted. He wept. He was poor and homeless. His family rejected him. His friends abandoned him. His disciples betrayed him. His enemies falsely accused him. The government unfairly tried and condemned him. The soldiers mercilessly beat him beyond recognition. He bled, suffered, and died in shame. And he did it all for God’s glory and your good.

     

    Jesus is our sympathetic High Priest, who gives grace to the hurting and promises justice to the unrepentant. He is preparing a place for us, and he’s given us God the Spirit as our Comforter until he returns, so we can live out of our identity in Christ. One day, we will see Christ face to face. Our faith will be sight. His nail-scarred hands will wipe our tears away. One day, all who are in Christ will sing his praises and see his glory together forever. One day, he will work out all things for the good of those who love him. One day, all our questions will be answered, our hopes will be realized, and our fears will be forgotten. Until that day, we will be afflicted, but our identity in Christ need not be affected.

    When we are suffering we have a faithful high priest that can sympathize with us in our weakness! What a great God we serve!

    You may also like:

    God will not forget your suffering but he will reward your faithfulness

    Has God Changed?

    A sermon celebrating Dad’s life

  • 5 Reasons why Some Pastors Finish Poorly

    Everyone in ministry wants to finish well. We all want to hand off the ministries that we have built and created well. Ed Stetzer has written a great blog called  5 Reasons Some Leaders Finish Poorly. Make sure you read the whole blog (especially the great story about Jack Hayford!). But for now, here are the five reasons that Ed gives as to why some leaders finish poorly.

    1. They did not trust the very people they developed for succession.

     

    2. They fought over things which were just not that important.

     

    3. Their identities were too connected to their movement.

     

    4. They grew angrier as they grew older.

     

    5. They could not pass on what they helped create.

     

    Ed elaborates on each of these points. But it made me think as a young man how am I going to work each day to minister well and finish well?

    What are you doing in your life to make sure you finish well?

    You May also like:

    Does Knowing Theology Make you a Mature Christian?

    Church Musicians, Lets Cut the Acting

    What to Pray When You Don’t Know What to Pray

  • How to Overcome the Fear of Man

    Am I more concerned with what God thinks of me or what people think of me?

    Fear of man grips us all at some time. We are all concerned to a certain extent with what other people think of us. Ed Welch in his great book that everyone should read “When People are Big and God is Small” gives the following steps for overcoming the fear of man:

    Step 1: Recognize that the fear of man is a major theme both in the Bible and in your own life.

    Step 2: Identify where your fear of man has been intensified by people in your past.

    Step 3: Identify where your fear of man has been intensified by the assumptions of the world.

    Step 4: Understand and grow in the fear of the Lord. The person who fears God will fear nothing else.

    Step 5: Examine where your desires have been too big. When we fear people, people are big, our desires are even bigger, and God is small.

    Step 6: Rejoice that God has covered your shame, protected you from danger, and accepted you. He has filled you with love.

    Step 7: Need other people less, love other people more. Out of obedience to Christ, and as a response to his love toward you, pursue others in love.

    Step 4 is the crucial one. We need to grow in the fear of God and I think Isaiah 6:1-8 is the passage we need to keep coming back to to get a right perspective on who God is. Because this passage shows God in all his holiness and greatness. If we truly get Isaiah 6 and let it minister to our hearts we will find our fear of man diminishing.

    Take some time and Read Isaiah 6:1-8 now:

    In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another:

    “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
    the whole earth is full of his glory.”

    At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

    Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    If we truly get how great God is man will seem very small and our fear of man will diminish significantly.

    You may also like:

    What is Your Church Doing to Raise and Train up the Next Generation of Leaders?

    How to talk with a Christian who wants a divorce

    7 Resources you can use to Fight Pornography

  • The Checkered Histories of Christiantiy and Atheism

    One of the most used arguments against Christianity is that the Church, Christians and Religion in general have done some some terrible things throughout the ages. Unfortunately any honest person would have to agree. Religious people have been involved in some seriously terrible atrocities and scandals that drag religion through the mud.

    But if we explore the history of atheism we see that atheism has got it’s own skeletons in it’s closet. But many of the new Atheists are reticent to admit the wrongs of atheism’s past. Paul Copan in his book Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God says this about the New Atheists unwillingness to own up to atheism’s checkered past:

     The New Atheists aren’t willing to own up to atrocities committed in the name of atheism by Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong, yet they expect Christians to own up to all barbarous acts performed in Jesus’s name. In one debate, Dennett refused to connect Stalin’s brutality and inhumanity with his hard-core atheism. In fact, he claimed that Stalin was a kind of “religious” figure! In September 2009, I attended a debate between Hitchens and Dinesh D’Souza in Orlando. Hitchens refused to admit that Stalin killed “in the name of atheism.” Somehow Stalin, who had once attended a Russian Orthodox seminary but later came to convincingly repudiate Christianity, was still “religious” after all. Yet Hitchens insisted that a religious residue still stayed with him. So atheism wasn’t the culprit. Yet in another debate, Hitchens was pressed to make the seemingly rare confession: “It has to be said that some of my non-believing forbears seized the opportunity to behave the same way [as immoral religious persons], sure.

    Why do the New Atheists find it hard to own up to the atrocities that atheists have committed. Copan offers this analysis:

    I think the reason it’s difficult, if not impossible, for these New Atheists to acknowledge immorality in the name of atheism is because it would take much wind out of their sails when criticizing religion. If we’d stop to ask, “Would Jesus approve of the Inquisition or persecuting Jews?” the question answers itself. As a counterillustration, what about serial murderer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer? Dahmer reasoned, “If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.” He wondered, if there’s no God and we all just came “from the slime,” then “what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”

    What a chilling paragraph!

    What can Christians say about the Church and or Christians doing terrible things in the name of Jesus? We can point to numerous things. But I will only give two:

    1. God hates hypocritical religion. All through out the Bible there is hypocritical religion and God judges this sin harshly. So when we think of our hatred of the church doing bad things we must remember that Gods hatred burns even hotter than ours and his anger towards these atrocities will one day come to bear on the perpetrators if they haven’t repented.

    2. Jesus said there will be wolves among the sheep. There will be people in the church who will look like Christians but really they aren’t and these people may do things that are absolutely unspeakable. This doesn’t mean that the church gets off on a technicality but it does mean that churches should be very careful before putting people into leadership.

    Both Atheism and Christianity have a checkered history. This fact points us to the sinfulness of all humanity and our need for a saviour.

    You may also like:

    An Argument for the Existence of God from Beauty

    Why the Claim Jesus Never Existed Should be Put to Bed

     

  • Do You Make the Mistake of Finding Your Identity in Your Work?

    So many people today find their identity in the work they do. Is this a harmful or a good thing? I have been reading Peter Bregman’s book 18 Minutes: Find Your Focus, Master Distraction, and Get the Right Things Done in which he quotes Dr. Paul Rosenfield, Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University who says:

    Establishing your identity through work alone can restrict your sense of self, and make you vulnerable to depression, loss of self-worth, and loss of purpose when the work is threatened

    This seems to me to be exactly in line with what the Bible says about identity. When we find our identity in anything other than Jesus we will always find the thing we build our identity on to be lacking.

    What are you building your identity on?

    You may also like:

    Who Is Leading Your Church?

    Tim Keller on Pastors and Gospel Identity

    Successful People Plan

  • What do Atheistic Philosophy Professors Really Think of Richard Dawkins?

    Richard Dawkins, Hitchens and the other New Atheists still get quite a big run for their money nowadays. People still say they are atheists and talk about Dawkins or use his arguments to back up their claims of there being no God. But what do academics think of Dawkins? Better yet, what do atheistic academics think of Dawkins and the rest of the new atheists?

    In 2009 atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse )who currently teaches at Florida State University.) Wrote a piece called Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute. The article is about squabbling among atheists.In it he says the following:

    Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, “What caused God?” as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery. Dawkins was indignant when, on the grounds that inanimate objects cannot have emotions, philosophers like Mary Midgley criticised his metaphorical notion of a selfish gene. Sauce for the biological goose is sauce for the atheist gander. There are a lot of very bright and well informed Christian theologians. We atheists should demand no less.

     

    Third, how dare we be so condescending? I don’t have faith. I really don’t. Rowan Williams does as do many of my fellow philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (a Protestant) and Ernan McMullin (a Catholic). I think they are wrong; they think I am wrong. But they are not stupid or bad or whatever. If I needed advice about everyday matters, I would turn without hesitation to these men. We are caught in opposing Kuhnian paradigms. I can explain their faith claims in terms of psychology; they can explain my lack of faith claims also probably partly through psychology and probably theology also. (Plantinga, a Calvinist, would refer to original sin.) I just keep hearing Cromwell to the Scots. “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” I don’t think I am wrong, but the worth and integrity of so many believers makes me modest in my unbelief.

    To Michael Ruse Richard Dawkins is an arrogant embarassment to atheists the world over.

    If you are an atheists I would love to hear what you think.

    You may also like:

    Are all religions just culturally conditioned?

    What Everybody Ought to Know About Atheism

    Why You Should Listen to a Historian and Not a Hack on The Existence of Jesus

  • The Secrets to Having a Good Confrontational Conversation

    From time to time we all have to have them and most of us don’t like them. You know those conversations where you have to confront someone because they hurt you or someone else or they let the team down. If you don’t have this conversation the pattern of behavior may cause more damage and may never be fixed.

    But these kind of conversations make most of us quite nervous. How do you have these conversations well?
    I was bad at having these conversations because I either didn’t have them or I blew up when I did have them. So I spent a lot of time researching how to have a good confrontational conversation. One where the truth is explored and there is a way forward with as little emotional turmoil as possible.
    Here is the method I use to having these hard and yet necessary conversations:
    Mindset
    Firstly you have to change your mindset about the behavior and the conversation. Instead of justifying the behavior you need to imagine the consequences of this behavior keeping on going. What would happen if this behavior kept on going? What date would it do to you or your organisation? This will give you the motivation for having the conversation. Secondly, think of the conversation not as a confrontational one but one where you are both going to explore truth and find a way forward. If you think about the conversation in this frame of mind it is far less nerve wracking. And thirdly, pray thanking God for the person. In the first chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul gives great thanks to God for the people he is about to rebuke. He has a divine perspective on these people. If you and the person you need to have this conversation with are Christians you have to realize that God is working through and in this person by his spirit. Thanking God for the person helps us remind us of what God is doing and it will help is see the person in a balanced frame of mind.
    Now onto the conversation.
    I think a conversation like we are talking about has four elements
    1. Firstly you as the person to explain their side of the story. This helps you hear the person out and they don’t feel like they are being attacked
    2. Talk about the facts. Now these are the facts that you can both agree on. For example “You said x and why to this person” or “You said you would do this and you didn’t”
    3. Talk about your feelings. Without being overly emotional describe the way the issue made you feel. For example “When you said this I felt hurt.”
    4. Talk about the way forward. You have to define the way forward and make it very clear. For example “If this happens again we will have to put you on probation and if it happens again after that we will have to fire you.” Be as clear as you can in this step.
    A few days later make sure you follow the person up. Especially if you are their leader. If you are their leader they need to know that you are in their corner and you want them to flourish. Make sure you tell them this!
    And finally here are two books that I found of great use to me in this area are:
    You may also like:
  • Is the Old Testament History or Story?

    There seems to be a growing kind of scholarship that is seeping into the minds of our students at Bible College. This is the kind of scholarship that sees the biblical text primarily as a story. Seeing the Old Testament as story is a good thing in some respects because it helps us see the whole story of the Bible and not see the Bible as a collection of little stories that we can atomize. Also, seeing the Bible as story is that helps us see the wonderful literary geniuses that wrote the books of the Old and New Testaments.

    But one of the things that is sometimes pushed in reading the OT as story is a “historyless” reading of the OT.  That is that the OT narratives themselves are contain truth but their connection to history is somewhat vague at best or at worst they shouldn’t be considered as history because that is an error of genre. We need to see the texts as story and therefore the writer of the narrative may have embellished facts or added in narratives that may not have happened but contain “truth” in the sense that the narrative is saying something that is true i.e. that God is powerful. To hold onto this “historyless” reading of the story of the Old Testament one must in the end jettison any idea of Biblical inerrancy.

    This sounds like theological liberalism as described by the Liberal theologian Stephen Sykes:

    Liberalism in theology is that mood or cast of mind which is prepared to accept that some discovery of reason may count against the authority of that traditional affirmation in the body of Christian Theology….. For many protestant Christians the most momentous step of theological liberalism is taken when they deny the traditionally accepted belief in the inerrancy of scripture.

     

    Stephen Sykes, Christian Theology Today, 12

    But the proponents of reading the Old Testament as a “historyless” story say that Sykes has got it wrong and we who hold to the inerrancy of scripture of have got it wrong. They aren’t denying the historicity of scripture they are merely seeing that God accomodates himself to us as he speaks through the scriptures by sometimes using human errors or establishments or myth to help us get at what is true. To do anything else would be to have an Apollinarian or a Docetic view of scripture.

    Apollinarianism and Doceticism  are both  early church heresies about the nature of Jesus  They both denied that he was fully man and said in some fashion that he was only God. If we don’t read the Bible in the way our interlocutors have outlined above we are  accused denying the humanity of Scripture. Now for a bible college student the last thing you want to be is a heretic so when an lecturer says something like this you quickly jump to his position because the last thing you want to be is a heretic even if they get to wear cool glasses like Rob Bell.

    But this whole idea that if you hold to a traditional doctrine of scripture where you affirm innerancy you are an Apollinarian or Docetic heretic is just plain stupid. Firstly, the Apollinarian or Docetic heresies are about the person of Jesus and to use them to talk about scripture is a bad category mistake  Secondly, to my knowledge those who held to the  Apollinariius and Docetic heresies never spoke to the doctrine of scripture because the early church (except for the heretic Marcion) held to the full authority and the inerrancy (even if using that word is a bit anachronistic) of the scriptures. Therefore, to my knowledge, even the heretics who held to apollinarianism or doctism would have problems with the view of reading the Old Testament outlined above. And finally, this view is stupid because in the end it is not an argument but a bullying tactic. It is akin to calling someone a name where the content of that name is totally unsubstantiated. is it right to call people names and put them in boxes? Yes as long as the name fits but in this case it clearly doesn’t and therefore it is just bullying.

    But what about the argument that God accommodates himself to us in scripture? Hans are you denying that? No way am I denying that! There is a good way of talking about God accommodating himself to us. I can find no better example of good accommodation than Calvin:

    “Indeed, that they dared abuse certain testimonies of Scripture was due to base ignorance; just as the error itself sprang from execrable madness. The Anthropomorphites, also, who imagined a corporeal God from the fact that Scripture often ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are easily refuted. For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to “lisp” in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.”

    John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, , 1.13.1.

    Most doctrines have an ugly sister (or brother if you want) and the doctrine of accommodation has one too. This is the Socinian view of accommodation  The Socinian view of accommodation is where God stoops to use erroneous conceptions of humans as vehicles for divine communication. Or in other words God uses human errors or establishments or myth to help us get at what is true. What is the difference in the Socinus’ view of accommodation and Calvin’s view? Calvin appealed to accommodation to reconcile apparent contradictions in scripture, Socinus accepted the contradictions and used accommodation to explain why and how they happened. These two men we see two ways of using the historical doctrine of accommodation. Calvin’s orthodox view uses accommodation to hold to the integrity of the scriptures. Socnius’ view uses accomodation  to undermine the scriptures. (This section is heavily indebted to ““The Peril of a ‘Historyless’ Systematic Theology” By Graham Cole  in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?)

    If you are being taught to see the Scriptures as story in a way that is undercutting the historicity of the scriptures by saying things didn’t happen as they are in scripture or something similar to this be wary. This kind of teaching comes about every few decades and ultimately it is not the generation that hears this teaching that suffers but the ensuing generations that suffer as the line of what is correct gets moved further and further to the left of biblical orthodoxy. (On this point see “‘Intellectual Respectability’ and Scripture” in Iain Murray’s book  Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000.)

    The view of scripture I have confronted in this blog is taught by Godly men who think they are doing the right thing. They are kind, fun to be around and some of the guys who teach this I would consider my friends. But ultimately their view of the scriptures is out of line with traditional orthodoxy and should be rejected. The future of the preaching of the gospel is at stake.

    If you want to read further on these issues read the book that I think should be required reading by everyone at Bible College called  Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? edited by  James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary.

    You may also like:

    Inerrancy and the Character of God

    Deny inerrancy and you will kill your church

    The Enemy is within Part 4: The decline in the Doctrine of Scripture

     

     

  • Bill Maher Helps A Cocaine-Dealing Atheist Come to Know Jesus

    This is an amazing testimony!

    For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes Romans 1:16

    You may also like:

    Do You Have to Believe in a Historical Adam to Believe the Gospel?

    A Question About Predestination

    Spiritual warfare is more boring than you think

     

  • Bible Reading Plan For April

    it is so important for all Christians to hear from God as we read the Bible. Every Month Resolved puts out a Bible reading plan for it members and we would like to bless you guys with it. The Instructions for the plan are below. Please use this plan, tweet what you are getting out of it and give it to anyone that you may think could use it. If you want a hard copy of the plan you can download it here Resolved Bible Reading Plan For April.

    Read the Bible passage that is assigned for the day of month (e.g. read 1 on the 1st of April and 15 on the 15th of April) and meditate on what hits you from the passage about God’s love. Thank him for his love for you and then pray the prayer below that is based on 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 for yourself and two other people at your church. Tweet what you are getting out of these readings using the hashtag #thegodwhosaves

    1. Isaiah 1
    2. Isaiah 2
    3. Isaiah 3
    4. Isaiah 4
    5. Isaiah 6
    6. Isaiah 9
    7. Isaiah 11
    8. Isaiah 13
    9. Isaiah 19
    10. Isaiah 22
    11. Isaiah 24
    12. Isaiah 25
    13. Isaiah 27
    14. Isaiah 30
    15. Isaiah 33
    16. Isaiah 40
    17. Isaiah 43
    18. Isaiah 45
    19. Isaiah 48
    20. Isaiah 49
    21. Isaiah 50
    22. Isaiah 51
    23. Isaiah 52:12-53:6
    24. Isaiah 54
    25. Isaiah 55
    26. Isaiah 59
    27. Isaiah 60
    28. Isaiah 63
    29. Isaiah 65
    30.  Isaiah 66

    Pray this prayer based on 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 for yourself and two others at your church every day for the month of April.

    Our great saviour,

    May you God, the God of peace, sanctify _____ through and through. May ____ whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. I pray that _____ would always remember that the God who calls you is faithful and he will do it.

    Amen

    You may also like:

    How to be a Not Perfect Christian

    How do You Know if You Are Falling Away?

    Two Distinct Errors in Thinking About the Holy Spirit