Disqus - Latest Comments for tim_wonil

Re: New Poll: Second Coming?

tim_wonil — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:58:25 -0000

That is one tricky question!
My answer hops between Yes and Unsure. Yes, because as a Christian living in this "end times", I expect Jesus to return at any moment. In fact, it isn't simply just an expectation, but I have a great longing and hope for His return. Time to time, often when things in life drain me, I look up to the sky and ask, "Lord, are you coming today?"
However, when you added that clause "in your lifetime", I think you meant more than a simple Christian expectation of seeing Jesus' return at anytime, but actually, whether I think the Day of Judgement to be as close as few decades of time. To that question, I can only say "unsure". I think it goes against what the Bible teaches about the Lord's return when we put a time-constraint on when Jesus' second coming will actually be. Although the Bible talks about the discerning of the Age, and increasing tribulations and so on, what Jesus said about His second coming, which will be like a coming of a thief, unpredictable and sudden still stands clear and consistent.

Re: Fun With Facebook Lexicon

tim_wonil — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:35:31 -0000

that's a good one. nice!

Re: Those Words You’re Saying, They Don’t Mean What You Think They Do

tim_wonil — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:03:51 -0000

Thank you for this post. While I am not ready to embrace what the emergents are saying simply based on what Jan had said, I see the merit in trying to figure out what the other person/generation is saying, not merely the words, but the meaning they mean by them.
I found Eugene Peterson's "Eat this book" was helpful in understanding the importance of engaging people in the language they can understand.

Re: Disqus - Better Blog Comments

tim_wonil — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:45:20 -0000

comment!

Re: The dangers of the prosperity gospel

tim_wonil — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:56:14 -0000

> Jesus became poor so we could become rich.
Yes, but that didn't mean that we were to become financially rich.

>Having prosperity enables us to give to other people, not live off just enough to cover our needs, that's selfish.
Prosperity may make it easier for us to give to others a little, but it won't enable us to give as the Gospel demands. True Gospel not only enables us to give the excess we have, but will empower us to give even when it costs us and that with gladness and joy.

Re: The dangers of the prosperity gospel

tim_wonil — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:14:54 -0000

rickd,
I think what you said was fairly reasonable.
However, I do not think that Piper is promoting a gospel of suffering and loss, but only preaching the gospel with no extra, human agenda attached to it (as much as a sinful man can do of course). When he mentioned the death of a child, he was merely saying that the true gospel is and must be powerful enough to preserve love for and faith in God in a believer despite such suffering, not just to provide an easy escape route from such suffering.
Also, I do believe (and I think Piper would agree too) that in general, God wants good things for us including health and wealth. And just as you said, we are free to pray for health, food, jobs, cars and so on for He is our loving Father who hears our prayers. However, God is ready and willing to cause us pain and suffering when He has a good purpose for it, just as much as He does provide me with nice things (I didn't go hungry today and I even had a cup of coffee! Plus, I'm typing this on my own laptop. I figure I have nice things.) according to His greater purposes. Looking at Job, there is no guarantee that we will always find out that purpose in detail, but one thing is sure that when we face God (and we will on the Day of the Lord), we will completely be satisfied by Him and Himself only.

By any means though, the clip was an excerpt from a longer talk he gave I presume. And since it is a partial talk, it may come across as a harsh opposite end to the "prosperity gospel" but what he says in it, I believe, still holds true. I'm not just trying to defend Piper, but I agree with his stance against what he calls the prosperity gospel, which includes health promoting "gospel" as well as the wealth promoting "gospel".