Before continuing “Comeback Kids”

           Before we resume the study of God’s “Comeback Kids,”  I wanted you to know more than the  sketchy details I wrote earlier about some who’ve encouraged me by their visits.  Or perhaps in other ways.  

          Robert is the attorney who’s written the book about Job.  I’ll include a brief excerpt in the near future, but if you have interest you can click on the highlighted “thingies” below and go into greater detail.  The book being used in the high schools in the U.S. is awesome (as in ‘tons’ of information and a hefty seventy five bucks price tag on the textbook!) Robert’s work is the primary reference used on the book of Job.  Her writes:

Don: 

          Thank you for your kind words in your latest post.  It was helpful to learn more about other posters.  Here is the information you were thinking of disclosing.  It’s authorized.

          It is currently taught in 262 U.S. high schools in 40  States through a much larger textbook “The Bible and Its Influence” http://www.bibleliteracy.org/bibcdocs/TheBibleAndItsInfluence Sample.pdf  (Bible Literacy Project http://www.bibleliteracy.org/site/index2.htm.

         I’m thinking of submitting the attached resume for the Senior Crown position that opened up here.  Closing date is January 5, 2009.  I ask for your prayers.

                                                                      All the best, Rob

 

          (This is don.  I’m back)  In my experience, occasionally I’ve attempted to contact some of the “biggies” on the religious scene.  For various reasons. None has ever responded, unless you count the form letters appealing for donations.  None has addressed a single issue I ever raised.  It came then, as quite a pleasant surprise when Dr. J .L. Williams responded to some recent correspondence I’d had with one of his associates.  J.L. is as busy as anyone I know, and has a long, unblemished record of service to Christ and His Church.  His ministry is deserving of your prayers, interest, and encouragement (whatever form that may take.). His regular posts are not only about his work in far corners.  He’s an excellent Bible teacher.   Between his globe girdling missionary journeys, he wrote:

Dear Don,                                                                                                                                                                               

            Loving greetings in Christ — and belated “Merry Christmas” to you!  I also wish you a “Happy & Holy New Year” in the Lord Jesus.  And just in case you did not  already receive it, I am sending you our annual “Williams Family Christmas Card” so you can see our children and grandchildren.            I am sorry for being a bit late in responding to your email via my associate Daniel.  I was in Kenya and the Congo for nearly 3 weeks right before Christmas.  Then after I got home, we experienced a “Computer Melt-down” at our office!  So I have not been able to receive, read or respond to emails for all of Christmas week — which has been both a blessing and a curse 🙂                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

            But before leaving the country next week for India and Nepal, I wanted to write and thank you for your blog about John 3:16 and “The Gift.”  Thanks for helping keep people focused on the real meaning of Christmas.   Thanks also for linking your blog to my personal one.  I really appreciate your doing that!  And as we go into ’09, know how much I do appreciate your friendship and partnership…             

  In His Love, J.L.

 

               I would also like to do you a favor in reommending the site begun by my friend Mark Ryman at Grahamfriends.org.  You’ll probably find some useful hints you can use if you have responsibility for helping with your Church’s website.  

 

ME AND MY SHADOW

ME AND MY SHADOW

            My Momma told me never to hang out with strangers.  Yours probably told you the same thing, so allow me to introduce me.  Here I am with LadyLuck, my little much-loved Westy.  Lord Fauntleroy, her Shitsu male companion, is outside at present, busily chasing squirrels I reckon.  Incidentally, the earphones are my way of drowning out distractions.  Providing background for my “thinking” sessions, I enjoy Willie Nelson, Roberta Flack, K.T. Oslin, Louis Armstrong, Bev Shea, The Imperials, The Lettermen, Jim Croce, Janis Ian, hummingbirds and morning glories, little newborn babies and ducks and such.  There’s also something very consoling about hearing the ocean waves lapping gently upon the shore a couple hundred yards away.  And I’m always awed when they get churned up by some storm and slap the beach angrily.   I also love the gentle sound of rain on the roof.

              I was just kidding about being in the “witness protection program.”  Honest.  But if you see my mug shot down at the post office, please don’t tell anyone. 

              My next study is going to be on Simon Peter, the fisherman turned to a “Fisher of Men,” and the unlikely subject some have called “The Rock.”  He acted more like a hothead and a spiritual creampuff early on.  But that was before he had dealings with the risen Christ.  You’ll find mention made of him in many places in Scripture.  What I’m searching for as always, specifically, is how he got into some spiritual debacles. . . and how he came back.  There are some very specific times, some critical, defining moments.  I want to identify them.  Try to understand what happened and what it may have meant.  He surely made some large, impetuous blunders.  I really have come to believe that, if Christ can recover the likes of Peter, there’s a strong possibility He can do it again in my life.   

          I hope you’ll read all you can about Simon Peter, think about what you discover, and then share it with me when you have opportunity.  My prayers and best wishes are for you and those whom you love as you journey through the New Year.

God’s servant, your friend, brother, and fellow student    ><>  donkimrey

 

Advertisements

8 responses to “Before continuing “Comeback Kids”

  1. wonderful to see a photo of you, don, and of the lovely ladyluck.

    my husband’s name is peter, and i have hope that he will some day believe in Jesus as the son of God.

    he was brought up catholic with five brothers and one sister. somewhere along the line he decided that he believes in God in some way, but not in Jesus as the Son of God.

    my oldest daughter is 21 and went from believing for the sake of pleasing others to being a physics major in college and not having a belief any more.

    my other daughter is 12 and says she believes.

    anyway…peter, i hold out hope for him and my daughter, sydney.

    and i hope that casey and i will continue to live in faith.

    love to you.
    n.

  2. Thanks for the post and the picture! I have a “squirrel chaser” as well. It keeps him in shape.

    Looking forward to the Peter series!

  3. Nancy:

    Here are some points to ponder for your husband.

    (1) God possesses perfect love.
    (2) Perfect love exists only where there are relationships involving three separate but equal persons.
    (3) Therefore, God exists in three separate but equal persons.

    In other words, Jesus is the divine Son.

    Here is a fleshing out of some of the points.

    (1) The major premise “God possesses perfect love”, is a self-evident truth. God, by definition, is the greatest, the most perfect being, “that than which none greater can be conceived”. Since it is more perfect to be truly and fully loving than less than truly and fully loving, God, by definition, possesses perfect love.

    (2) The minor premise “perfect love exists only where there are relationships involving three separate but equal persons”, is an objective factual truth. Let me explain.

    (a) First, love, by definition, is relational. It involves activities such as loving and being loving, giving and receiving, sharing that are inherently relational. Self-love can exist within the “I-self” relationship. But mutual love and altruistic love can only exist within “I-thou” and “I-them” relationships. These are relationships that require the existence of persons beyond the self. The “I-thou” relationship requires two persons; the “I-them” relationship, three persons. Generosity, sharing, all these aspects of love require relationships with persons beyond the self. And that is why a solitary individual, whether human or divine, can never possess perfect love by himself or herself. Perfect love, the fullness of love, can never exist when there are less than three persons in existence.

    (b) Second, perfect love, by definition, is egalitarian; it is a love between equals. Love may still exist in relationships of inequality, say the relationship of a dominant male and a submissive female in a patriarchal society. But there will always be something profoundly inadequate about such a love. Perfect love can only exist where the parties, the partners, regard each other as having equal worth and dignity. This latter point has some important implications. If a divine person is to have relationships of perfect love with others, it can only be with other divine persons. It cannot be with lesser beings such as angels or men, because those relationships are inevitably and invariably relationships of inequality. No finite being, only an infinite being, being can fully receive and fully return an infinite love. Perfect love demands nothing less than the existence of three separate but equal divine persons. Perfect love requires Trinity.

    (c) But why a Trinity? Why three divine persons and no more? The answer is the principle of simplicity, “Ockham’s razor”. The existence of three divine persons is unavoidable if we are to explain the idea that God is love. To posit the existence of four or more persons is unnecessary. It is to multiply entities without necessity. “Ockham’s razor” requires that we accept that which is unavoidable and we reject or “razor” off that which is unnecessary. That is why we proceed to three persons and we proceed no further. “What can be explained by the assumption of few things is vainly explained by the assumption of more things.”

    (3) The conclusion therefore follows logically and inescapably that God is Trinity, three divine persons, one God.

    This is a modern formatting of a medieval Catholic argument from Richard of St.Victor. In my opinion, it works. Others such as Augustine and Aquinas have tried to explain Trinity in terms of knowledge: knower, known, knowing. But that argument is not as readily understandable or as persuasive as the argument from love.

    All the best, Rob

    PS. Can’t wait for the Peter series. I find Don’s work illuminating and encouraging.

  4. Rob, I second your “PS”! I think Don’s work is magnificent. I know it sure has helped me. I count Scripture Student as one of the highlights of my 2008.

    Ebby

  5. Nancy, your heartfelt words were very touching. Thank you for sharing what you did with all of us.

    People generally gravitate to what’s good and right; just keep living your faith. That will be a light and testimony to your husband and daughter. (smile)

    Bless you!

    Ebby

  6. Ebby Dickens,

    You are a real peach!

    Mike

  7. Why, thanks Mike. Living in Georgia must be paying off! (Get it? Georgia peach!) Arrrgh!

    I’m curious Mike. How did you know my last name?

  8. Ebby, sorry if it was private, but the blog moderator did post it.

    Mike

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s