Vladimir Pustan – Interviu la Credo TV

sursa http://credo.tv/

Interviul este realizat de Luiza Ghica la emisiunea “O Viata Noua”.

Alte Interviuri:

1. Vladimir Pustan Interviu la SperantaTV
2. Vasile Oprea din Grupul Rugul Aprins
3. Emil Bartos Interviu si Marturie
4. Daniel Branzai Interviu
5. Cristian Barbosu Interviu Trinity TV
6. Gabi Zagrean Interviu Trinity TV
7. Iosif Ton – interviu CredoTV cu Cristian Ionescu
8. Florin Ianovici – Interviu la Credo TV aici.

Istoria cintecului Maretul Har

De Alex Dorobantu:

Un cintec drag oricui…batrin, tinar, mic, mare…si cu siguranta cunoscut de multi dintre noi. O cintare ce poarta in spate o poveste importanta de-alungul istoriei si cu mare greutate in sufletele noastre, celor care o indragim, celor carora le-am cintat si ascultat versurile cu inima deschisa, simtindu-i importanta chiar si azi, in secolul XXI, adinc in inimile noastre.

O cintare cu o traiectorie de 240 de ani  care de-alungul vietii sale a reusit sa stringa cu sine povesti, taine, dorinte, sperante, bucurii sau dureri, marturii sau cereri…o cintare pe care trebuie sa o cunosti, la fel ca intreaga ei poveste.

Autorul ei este John Newton, nascut in Londra 1725, al carui tata a fost capitan, iar a carui mama, bolnava fiind si constienta de putinul timp ramas pe pamint a avut grija sa-l invete Biblia pe fiul ei. Mama sa a murit cind el avea  7 ani, devenind, asa la o virsta frageda ajutor pe o barca de pescuit cu experiente de-a lungul anilor, periculoase, emotionante, inclusiv dureroase.

Mai tirziu s-a inrolat pe o barca de sclavi unde a ajuns capitan, uitind in tot acest timp de Dumnezeul mamei lui si a Bibliei, devenind unul dintre cei mai mizerabili si de temut comerciant de sclavi. A comerciat cu sute de femei, copii si barbati din Africa, luindu-i de la casele si familiile lor, pentru a fi vinduti ca si sclavi in America. John Newton recunostea ca simtea nevoia sa scape de iad, in realitate iubea pacatul si nu era dispus sa renunte la el.

In fiecare an cadea tot mai jos in pacat, ajungind asa, o persoana josnica pina si pentru echipajul barcii care intr-o ocazie cind beat fiind, a cazut peste bord, acestia pentru a-l salva, au aruncat dupa el un harpon ce i s-a infipt in sold, motiv pentru care a schiopatat toata viata sa.

Biserica la care a predicat Newton

In 1748 o furtuna violenta ameninta cu scufundarea barcii iar Newton cade pe genunchi cerind mila lui Dumnezeu. A fost atunci, imediat dupa ce furtuna s-a oprit, cind a realizat ca exista un Dumnezeu care aude si raspunde rugaciunilor, pina si pentru cel mai rau dintre oameni. A continuat totusi traficul cu sclavi pina cind in finalmente a renuntat caindu-se si devenind predicator si compozitor de cintece religioase.

Image via Wikipedia

A fost deasemenea inspiratia pentru William Wilberforce, un politician englez care timp de 16 ani a luptat impotriva sclaviei propunind guvernului proiecte pentru aceasta, incepind cu 1791 pina cind in 1807 in sfirsit a reusit, multumita credinteianularea sclaviei. A continuat luptind deoarece initial, sclavii deja cumparati nu au fost eliberati, s-a interzis doar continuarea comertului cu sclavi, pina in 1823 cind in sfirsit toti sclavii au fost eliberati.

Probabil ca daca v-as cere un nume de om mare care te inspira vei spune…Napoleon…un om care dupa fiecare batalie mare se culca gindindu-se la batalia ce a purtat-o…la citi oameni a invins pe cimpul de lupta, la citi a omorit…dar William Wilberforce este acel om care atunci cind pune capul pe perna, se poate gindi la toti oamenii pe care i-a eliberat. 16 ani de lupta terminati intr-o victorie asa de mult dorita de catre toate victimele capriciilor economice si de putere ale potentelor mundiale de atunci.

In 1772 John Newton a scris un cintec. Un cintec cunoscut azi sub numele “Maretul Har” sau “Amazing Grace” ca nume original, in engleza…fiind acest cintec marturia sa. A devenit cea mai populara melodie din istorie. Cea mai inregistrata si cea mai cintata de un numar foarte mare de artisti, tradusa in mai multe limbi, ca oricare alta cintare. O cintare cu doar putine note ridica capetele celor fara de speranta si inmoaie inimile celor impietriti… Harul are puterea sa transforme, sa-i indrepte pe cei nedrepti si sa schimbe un om care  odata comercia cu sclavii intr-unul care sa lupte pentru libertatea lor.

Uploaded by AlexD0robantu

Maretul Har

1. Maretul har m-a mintuit
Pe mine din pacat
Pierdut eram, dar m-a gasit
De moarte m-a scapat
2. Maretul har m-a invatat
S-o rup cu orice rau
Ce scump mi-e azi tot harul dat
Traiesc prin el mereu
3. Dureri, batjocuri, prigoniri
Adese-am intilnit
Prin harul marii Lui iubiri
Eu toate-am biruit
4.Prin har ajunge-voi in cer
Cu slava imbracat
Si voi slavii in vesnicii
Pe Cel ce har mi-a dat.

“Dupa multe pericole, eforturi si piedici am ajuns…si a fost harul cel care ne-a adus in siguranta asa departe, harul care ne va conduce…acasa.”
John Newton

Daca cunoasteti Limba Engleza – Vizionati un film biografic despre William Wilberforce (in Limba Engleza) in care arata si rolul lui John Newton in viata lui Wilberforce.

Unusual Music (3) Healing Waters

• Unusual music 1 – Jesus Culture – Holy, You are Holy
• Unusual Music 2 – Misty Edwards – The Harlot

Today’s unusual music video is from Freddy Hayler. What makes it unusual is that he stops in the middle of the song and prays for the sick to be healed and also the fact that Freddy Hayler says that he visited heaven. This song is one song of many that he composed about what he saw in heaven. For more information on the artist click on the link: http://www.freeevangelism.com/testimony/freddy_hayler.htm He has a truly beautiful tenor voice and has produced some of the most beautiful compositions I have ever heard.

The Rationality of the Christian Worldview

via www.Bible.org , a study by myltiple authors.

Classical apologists seek to show that the Christian worldview is rational or reasonable and therefore worthy of belief. The characteristic approach they take to accomplish this task is a two-step or two-stage argument. First, classical apologists seek to demonstrate that theism—the general type of worldview that affirms the existence of one personal Creator God and that is associated historically with Judaism, Islam, and Christianity—is true. Arguments of a deductive logical structure—‘proofs’ in the usual strict sense—are typical of this stage, although many apologists in this tradition also use empirical arguments (especially for creation) and claim only to show that there are good reasons to think that God exists. In the second step or stage of the apologetic, the classical apologist argues that, given the existence of God, the evidence for Jesus Christ and the inspiration of the Bible are sufficient to show that Christianity is true. At this stage the arguments are usually more inductive, and in fact are typically identical to the sorts of arguments used by evidentialists in regards to such subjects as the resurrection of Christ.

William Lane Craig explains the method in just this way. He acknowledges that the main argument he favors in support of belief in God does not prove everything we might like about God, but is rather proof “simply of a Personal Creator of the universe, and then the argument can proceed from there.” Has this Creator remained distant and aloof from the world that he has made, or has he revealed himself more fully to humankind that we might know him more completely? Here one moves to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to be the unique personal revelation of such a Creator. It will then be the Christian evidentialist’s turn to take over the oars from the natural theologian.

C S Lewis narrowed it down to 3 worldviews

Scripture as Conclusion

One of the most fundamental questions concerning apologetic method is the role that Scripture plays in apologetic argument. In general, classical apologists seek to make the existence of Scripture as a body of inspired and authoritative writings the conclusion of the whole apologetic.

For example, B. B. Warfield argued that the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture were the conclusion toward which apologetics worked, not its presupposition or starting point. “In dealing with sceptics it is not proper to begin with the evidence which immediately establishes Inspiration, but we should first establish Theism, then the historical credibility of the Scriptures, and then the divine origin of Christianity.” On the basis of the divine origin of Christianity, one may then go on to argue for the inspiration of Scripture.

Warfield’s placement of Scripture at the end of the apologetic argument is reflected explicitly in the structure of some textbooks on apologetics from a classical approach. Norman Geisler’s Christian Apologetics is a perfect example.³ Geisler discusses apologetic methodology in Part One and argues for the existence of God in Part Two. In Part Three he presents an apologetic for Christianity per se, beginning with a defense of the belief in the supernatural (chapter 14) and continuing with a defense of the possibility of knowing that God had intervened supernaturally in history (15). Next, Geisler defends the historical reliability of the New Testament (16) as a prelude to giving an argument for the deity and authority of Christ (17). Only after all this has been established does he conclude with a final chapter on the inspiration and authority of the Bible (18). “The evidence that the Bible is the written word of God is anchored in the authority of Jesus Christ.” As we saw in our overview of Geisler’s apologetic in chapter 4, the inspiration of Scripture is the twelfth point in his 12-point argument for Christianity.

In treating the authority of Scripture as the conclusion toward which an apologetic is directed, classical apologists seek to avoid begging the question by assuming the authority of Scripture in apologetic arguments directed to unbelievers. These apologists argue that “reason must judge the credentials of any alleged revelation.”⁵ Doing so is not seen as arrogant or impious because, classical apologists explain, God gave us our faculty of reason and directed his revelation to it. Therefore God expects us to employ our reasoning abilities both to both recognize his true revelation and to detect the fraudulent revelations of other religions. As Stephen Neill put it: “Reason is not the affirmation of the arrogant autonomy of man, fashioning a universe according to his own ideas. It is that faculty in man which makes it possible for him to receive the revelation of God, to receive revelation in the form of the Word of God. But, to receive it, he must be humble, and ready to listen to God, whenever and however He speaks.”⁶

Classical apologists believe that human beings are responsible to use their reasoning faculties to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). They deny that testing revelations from God is a manifestation of human autonomy that elevates the mind as the final authority for truth. Rather, just as it is reasonable to look for credentials before submitting to a human authority in any given field, so it is reasonable to submit to the authority of revelation once it is shown to be well founded on the basis of God-given rationality. As Gordon R. Lewis argues, “To be responsible before the Bible, the unbeliever must have enough judgment to know why he should determine his lifestyle by Scripture rather than the Koran or the Book of Mormon. The use of systematic consistency to distinguish the Bible from the Koran in no way detracts from the Bible’s authority. It verifies the Bible’s claim above all competitors..Negatively, classical apologists seek to refute common objections to biblical inspiration. This refutation involves both direct answers to specific objections and observations about the assumptions or presuppositions of those who reject biblical inspiration or inerrancy. Geisler, for example, in Inerrancy, a book he edited for the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, contributed a chapter entitled “Philosophical Presuppositions of Biblical Errancy.” There he examines the modern neoevangelical drift from the historical biblical doctrine of inerrancy. He traces the current crisis in biblical authority to philosophical presuppositions derived from various unbiblical philosophies. Geisler’s thesis is that “contemporary neoevangelical denials of inerrancy borrow from one or more of these alien and unjustified philosophical presuppositions.” The solution to such antibiblical presuppositions, for classical apologists like Geisler, is to reexamine the worldviews of those who hold them and make the case for a theistic worldview in which the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture will not be philosophically scandalous.

Disproving Other Worldviews

A worldview is the sum of a person’s basic assumptions, held consciously or subconsciously, about life and the nature of reality. These assumptions or presuppositions are sometimes “only brought to mind when challenged by a foreigner from another ideological universe.”¹⁰ Classical apologists generally maintain that while there may be many internal variations, the actual number of basic worldviews is quite limited. James W. Sire catalogs and contrasts several of these in The Universe Next Door, and then comments:

The fact is that while worldviews at first appear to proliferate, they are made up of answers to questions which have only a limited number of answers. For example, to the question of prime reality, only two basic answers can be given: Either it is the universe that is self-existent and has always existed, or it is a transcendent God who is self-existent and has always existed. Theism and deism claim the latter; naturalism, Eastern pantheistic monism, New Age thought and postmodernism claim the former.¹¹

There are different ways of categorizing worldviews because of areas of overlap. Sire devotes separate chapters to eight basic worldviews: Christian theism, deism, naturalism, nihilism, existentialism, Eastern pantheistic monism, the New Age, and postmodernism.¹² Norman Geisler and William Watkins in Worlds Apart, another evangelical overview of worldviews, distinguish seven worldviews, and their list differs in some respects from Sire’s (deism, pantheism, panentheism, finite godism, polytheism, atheism, and theism). There is more overlap here than may meet the eye: Sire’s naturalism is the same worldview as atheism, and nihilism and existentialism are philosophies that seek to apply the atheistic worldview to human life. Moreover, pantheism includes both Eastern pantheistic monism and the New Age. Narrowing the options enables the apologist to show non-Christians the fundamental choices that need to be made. Once they realize there are only a few basic worldviews, the excuse that there are so many beliefs in the world drops away.

One way classical apologists demonstrate that the number of worldview choices is finite and manageable is by presenting the major worldviews as the conclusions to a series of choices between two opposing alternatives. Doing so also allows the apologist to identify the critical issues that need to be addressed in choosing a worldview. Here again the classical approach’s characteristic emphasis on logic is evident. The following chart presents this schema.(see chart above).

C. S. Lewis reduced the number of worldviews even further, to three. In broad terms, he held that most if not all people hold to some variation of three views of reality: materialism or atheism, Hinduism (of which Buddhism was a simplification), and Christianity (of which Islam was a simplification). For Lewis, the best options could be narrowed down to Hinduism and Christianity, and from there to Christianity alone because of the person and work of Christ.¹⁴

Having narrowed the worldview options to a manageable number, whether two, three, seven, or more, the classical apologist then examines the alternatives to theism in order to show that they are to be rejected. The basic strategy here is to show that these other worldviews are rationally incoherent. Other considerations may also be pressed (for example, that they are in conflict with certain facts, or that they are unlivable), but the characteristic emphasis of the classical approach to refuting non-Christian worldviews is to show that such worldviews are logically self-contradictory or self-refuting.

If nontheistic worldviews can be eliminated and theism established as the most credible one, this would reduce the number of viable world religions to three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The classical apologist can then point to various evidences that Christianity is the true fulfillment of original (Old Testament) Judaism and that both Judaism and Islam fail to reckon adequately with the claims of Christ.

Although classical apologists argue that non-Christian religions as well as worldviews are false, they do not claim they are false in every respect. Rather, they typically argue that non-Christian belief systems incorporate significant truths, but also contain grave errors about God and his relation to the world, and so in the end must be deemed inadequate. Thus non-Christian belief systems do contain truth, but as a whole their final answers to life’s most fundamental questions are false. Again, the reason for acknowledging truth in other belief systems can be seen graphically from the worldviews chart: most of the worldviews clearly do make one or more right choices.

For example, C. S. Lewis frequently asserted that other religions contained much truth. “And it should (at least in my judgment) be made clear that we are not pronouncing all other religions totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected.”¹⁵ Geisler is careful to note positive features of such worldviews as pantheism, deism, and even atheism before presenting his critical arguments against those beliefs.¹⁶ The Calvinist theologian B. B. Warfield showed himself consistent with the classical tradition when he made much the same point as Lewis:

Christianity does not stand in an exclusively antithetical relation to other religions. There is a high and true sense in which it is also their fulfilment. All that enters into the essence of religion is present in them no less than in it, although in a less pure form. They too possess the idea of God, the consciousness of guilt, the longing for redemption: they too possess offerings, priesthood, temples, worship, prayer. Israel’s Promise, Christianity’s Possession, is also the Desire of all nations.¹⁷

The classical approach to refuting these non-Christian worldviews may be illustrated with pantheism. Most nontheistic religions have affirmed one of the many forms of pantheism, all of which in some way identify or equate God with the All—so that God is in some sense the ultimate and only Reality. Pantheism is closely related to monism, according to which reality is ultimately one and not many, a unity rather than a plurality. The rediscovery of Eastern (particularly Indian) culture and the promulgation of Eastern thought in the West have stimulated pantheistic thinking in Western culture, notably in what has come to be known as the New Age movement.

Geisler notes that pantheism is a comprehensive philosophy that focuses on the unity of reality and seeks to acknowledge the immanence and absolute nature of God. In spite of these positive insights, pantheism is an inadequate worldview because “it is actually unaffirmable by man.”¹⁸ Specifically, it is self-defeating for a pantheist to claim that individual finite selves are less than real. To assert “I believe that I am not an individual” is to utter a self-refuting statement (because it assumes the existence of the individual who says “I” while at the same time denying it). Pantheism wrongly assumes “that whatever is not really ultimate is not ultimately or actually real.”¹⁹ Pantheism also cannot adequately account for evil (its assertion that evil is an illusion is meaningless, since pain that is felt is real), and it is unable even to distinguish good from evil (since in theory all is one, nothing can be evil as opposed to good). Geisler also argues that to say that God and the universe are one says nothing meaningful about God and is indistinguishable from atheism.²⁰

Proving God’s Existence

Disproving nontheistic worldviews and philosophies of life does not necessarily prove theism. Classical apologists, therefore, offer a variety of arguments in support of theism.

The complexity of religious knowledge, and the fact that it concerns a transcendent reality, makes proving God’s existence quite complex. There is considerable disagreement among apologists over the value and relevance of the theistic proofs. Immanuel Kant’s critique of the traditional theistic proofs continues to be influential, and most philosophers and theologians have moved away from the scholastic mentality of solid and unequivocal arguments for God’s existence. Classical apologists, while upholding the validity of most or all of the traditional theistic proofs, are generally more cautious about how compelling they are. They believe that arguments for God’s existence can show the reasonableness of belief in God even though they may be less than definitive or not persuasive to everyone.

In brief, four major arguments for God’s existence have dominated classical apologetics. The first is the ontological argument. First formulated in explicit terms by the eleventh-century philosopher Anselm of Canterbury, this argument reasons from the idea of God as the greatest, most perfect, or necessary being to the existence of that God. The second and third theistic arguments have ancient roots but received their classical formulation from Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, and are known as the cosmological and teleological arguments. The cosmological argument reasons from the existence of the world (Greek, cosmos) to the existence of God. The teleological argument (from the Greek telos, “goal”) reasons from the evidence of design in the world to the existence of God as the one who created things with a specific purpose or goal. The fourth major theistic argument emerged in modern times and is the moral argument, which reasons from the objectivity and absolute character of moral judgments to the existence of a transcendent God as the ground of morality.

One of the most vigorous twentieth-century defenses of the theistic proofs is The Resurrection of Theism, by the evangelical classical apologist Stuart Hackett. In this book Hackett defends the cosmological and teleological arguments specifically against Kant’s criticisms. He concludes that the traditional arguments for God lead “to the firm conclusion that theism alone actually poses a solution to the metaphysical problem.”²¹

Respect among philosophers for the traditional theistic arguments was at an all-time low for much of the twentieth century. In the late 1960s the Calvinist philosopher Alvin Plantinga helped revive serious interest among professional philosophers in the ontological argument. And in the early 1980s a detailed defense of the cosmological argument by the evangelical classical apologist William Lane Craig (a student of Hackett) prompted philosophers to take it far more seriously as well. The seriousness with which these and other theistic proofs are now viewed can be seen by reviewing academic philosophy journals such as Religious Studies and the International Journal of Philosophy and Religion.

Classical apologists are careful to issue certain caveats about the use of theistic proofs. One such caveat is that the theistic arguments as they are popularly understood are often invalid; that is, they need to be formulated carefully and rigorously if they are to be valid. Second, most people actually do not need to hear theistic arguments, since they are not atheists. What they need is evidence that God is the kind of God found in Scripture. ²²

Another caveat, issued by classical apologetics in the Calvinist tradition, is that theistic arguments remind unbelievers of what they already know but have been trying to deny. Warfield, for example, argued that from one perspective everyone already has knowledge of God, though most do not own up to it. People cannot be completely ignorant of God, although they can completely ignore God.²³ We cannot escape all awareness of God. “God is part of our environment.”²⁴ The arguments, though, are still useful and valid.

This immediate perception of God is confirmed and the contents of the idea developed by a series of arguments known as the “theistic proofs.” These are derived from the necessity we are under of believing in the real existence of the infinitely perfect Being, of a sufficient cause for the contingent universe, of an intelligent author of the order and of the manifold contrivances observable in nature, and of a lawgiver and judge for dependent moral beings. . . . The cogency of these proofs is currently recognized in the Scriptures, while they add to them the supernatural manifestations of God in a redemptive process, accompanied at every stage by miraculous attestation. From the theistic proofs, however, we learn not only that a God exists, but also necessarily, on the principle of a sufficient cause, very much of the nature of the God which they prove to exist.²⁵

We will now consider three of the four major theistic arguments, focusing on their classical formulation as philosophical proofs for God’s existence. (The teleological argument will be discussed in chapter 10.) Because of its continuing importance in the classical apologetic tradition, the cosmological argument will receive special attention.

The Moral Argument

The moral argument can be viewed as one aspect of a larger argument for God’s existence known as the anthropological argument. This broader argument reasons from certain aspects of human nature to the existence of God, and includes arguments from morality, aesthetics, human thought and reason,²⁶ and the need for meaning, purpose, and hope.

The moral argument relates to the universality of moral experience and holds that unless there is a God, there is no ultimate basis for moral law. Classical apologists answer the objection that ethical judgments vary from place to place by arguing that, regardless of time or culture, there is a built-in concept of normative conduct, a universal sense of “ought” and “should.” It is true that people can acknowledge the moral law without seeing this as a theistic proof, but this does not mean that such a law could have real validity apart from God. The real thrust of this argument lies in the fact that when people express approval or criticism of the actions of others, they are behaving as if theism were true, that is, as if there are such things as absolute rights and absolute wrongs.²⁷ Classical apologists typically argue that one would have to assume this position in order to criticize it as wrong.

A good example of the moral argument in classical apologetics is the opening section of C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity. Lewis begins that book by noting that human beings have the idea that they ought to behave in certain ways—what Lewis calls the Law of Human Nature—and yet they do not behave in those ways (26).²⁸ After arguing that this Law is real and does not derive from human beings themselves but is instead “something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behaviour” (30), he asks what lies behind the Law. “We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is” (33). The Law shows us that there is such “a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide” (34). Lewis hastens to caution, “We have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the God of that particular religion called Christianity. We have only got as far as a Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law. We are not taking anything from the Bible or the Churches, we are trying to see what we can find out about this Somebody on our own steam” (37). Lewis goes on to argue that we can infer that this Somebody is rather like a mind, one unyielding in his moral expectations of us, and one whose expectations we have failed to meet (37-38). This strategy of formulating an argument for a general notion of God prior to introducing specific Christian claims is characteristic of the classical approach.

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is the only philosophical theistic proof that reasons in a purely a priori fashion (from certain assumptions or ideas as given). The first form of this argument as developed by Anselm was largely ignored until René Descartes revived it in the seventeenth century. The Cartesian formulation was later refuted by Kant, but it continues to resurface in contemporary philosophy of religion, along with Anselm’s second form, which adds the concept of necessary existence. Influential advocates of some form of the ontological argument have included Charles Hartshorne (a process theologian who uses it to support a panentheist worldview) and Alvin Plantinga (a Reformed philosopher).²⁹

There are many forms of the ontological argument, some too technical to discuss here. Perhaps one of the simplest forms (if any of them may be called simple) is based on Anselm’s second version of the argument as restated by various modern philosophers.³⁰

1. The existence of a necessary Being must be either (a) a necessary existence, (b) an impossible existence, or (c) a possible but not necessary existence.

2. But the existence of a necessary Being is not an impossible existence because (so far as we can see) there is nothing contradictory about this concept.

3. Nor is the existence of a necessary Being a possible but not necessary existence, since this would be a self-contradictory claim.

4. Therefore, the existence of a necessary Being is a necessary existence.

5. Therefore, a necessary Being necessarily exists.

Although classical apologists employ a wide variety of arguments for God’s existence, most do not accept the ontological argument. Most apologists and philosophers continue to accept the rebuttal that the ontological argument commits the fallacy of deducing the existence of God from the concept of God. For example, the formulation given above can be criticized by alleging that all point 4 means is that if a necessary Being exists, his existence must be a necessary existence. This still leaves open whether a necessary Being exists in the first place. Most classical apologists concur with Geisler’s conclusion: “No valid ontological proof has been given that makes it rationally inescapable to conclude that there is a necessary Being.”³¹

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument reasons from the nature of the world as temporal and contingent to the conclusion that an eternal, necessary being must exist. Proponents argue that if anything now exists, something must be eternal, or else something not eternal must have emerged from nothing. Since the notion of something emerging from an absolute nothing is generally considered absurd, the principal options are that either the universe is eternal or it is the product of an eternal and necessary being. Two main forms of the cosmological argument enjoy widespread support among contemporary classical apologists.

One form reasons from the fact of a beginning for the universe to the existence of a Beginner. This argument is known as the kalām cosmological argument, and was first developed by medieval Muslim philosophers. As articulated by William Lane Craig, the kalām argument is essentially a philosophical, deductive proof.³² It may be formulated as a series of logical alternatives, as follows.

Craig himself offers the following simple form of the argument:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Craig argues that the first premise is “intuitively obvious” and should be accepted without trying to base it on something else.³⁴ He then defends the second premise on both philosophical and scientific grounds. His principal argument here is a philosophical argument based on the impossibility of a temporally infinite past. The idea of time extending backward infinitely (what is known as an infinite regress), through an actually infinite series of moments or events, is said to be inherently irrational. Therefore, on a priori philosophical grounds, this argument concludes that the universe must have had a beginning.³⁵ The third statement is a conclusion that follows necessarily from the foregoing two premises but leaves open the question of what this cause is. Craig offers additional philosophical and scientific arguments in support of the belief “that it is a personal being who caused the universe.”³⁶

Although the kalām argument as originally formulated is a deductive philosophical proof, Craig and other classical apologists supplement this rather abstract argument with the scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. The argument here is based on the virtual consensus among cosmologists that this beginning occurred in what is called the big bang. It has been pointed out that even if a series of big bangs were postulated (for which there is no evidence), it is clear that the universe would not oscillate through such a series from eternity.³⁷

The second major form of the cosmological argument originates from Thomas Aquinas; its most notable advocate among contemporary apologists is Norman Geisler.³⁸ Geisler developed a modified form of the Thomistic cosmological argument that begins with the premise, not that the universe must have had a beginning (as in the kalām argument), but that there are undeniably finite, contingent, and temporal things. According to Geisler, the kalām argument is suggestive but not demonstrative. In brief, his argument states that “if any finite being exists, then an infinite Being exists as an actual and necessary ground for finite being.”³⁹ If the universe is contingent, it requires a cause—and its ultimate cause cannot be contingent because of the problem of infinite regress. (Note that both Craig’s and Geisler’s versions of the cosmological argument appeal at some point to the impossibility of an infinite regress.) There must be, then, an uncaused or necessary being. Geisler sets out the argument in several of his books; here is one of his earliest and simplest versions:

1. 1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist(s).

2. 2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.

3. 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.

4. 4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.

5. 5. The first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable, and one.

6. 6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.⁴⁰

Geisler explicates and defends each premise in detail, and then systematically argues that none of the usual objections validly apply to his restated cosmological argument. According to him, this argument from “existential causality,” while not rationally inescapable, passes the test of undeniability.

Opponents have raised a variety of objections to these arguments. For example, they claim that reasoning from the finite, temporal, or contingent nature of all things in the universe to the conclusion that the universe itself is finite, temporal, or contingent commits the fallacy of composition. This fallacy occurs when the attributes of the parts are attributed to the whole (for example, it would be a mistake to reason from the premise that all atoms are invisible to the conclusion that all physical objects, since they are composed of atoms, should also be invisible!). One answer to this objection is that arguments appealing to composition are often valid (for example, if all the pieces of a puzzle are red, the puzzle as a whole will also be red). Furthermore, at least some forms of the cosmological argument do not appeal to composition. For example, Geisler’s argument appeals to the existence of any or some finite beings; it does not require the assumption that the universe as a whole is finite.

Another criticism of the cosmological argument is that it moves from finite effects to an infinite cause. A finite effect, it is argued, requires only a finite cause. Classical apologists maintain that this criticism misunderstands the argument. It is true that a finite effect implies for itself only a finite cause, but such a finite cause must itself have been caused, and so forth. That is, a finite effect can be directly produced by a finite cause, but ultimately the whole reality of finite causes requires an infinite cause—an “uncaused cause,” as it is often called.

Yet another objection is that the argument begs the question by assuming what it sets out to prove. The kalām argument, in particular, is often criticized for reasoning from the inconceivability of an actual infinite series to its nonexistence. It is suggested that what seems inconceivable to the human mind is not necessarily nonexistent. Defenders of this form of the cosmological argument typically respond that the issue is not subjective inconceivability (what one person’s mind can conceive) but objective irrationality (whether the concept is rationally coherent).

The Deductive Problem of Evil

PAGINA – Predici Gabi Zagrean

Pastorul Gabi Zagrean predica in 23 Ianuarie, 2012 si reviziteaza textul din Luca 2:8-20 – aratarea Ingerului si vestirea nasterii Mintuitorului adusa pastorilor in cimp. Pastorul Zagrean mentioneaza ca si-a ales textul din motiv ca la sarbatori, din cauza oboselii s-ar putea ca unii frati nu au luat aminte la mesajele aduse.

Puncte din predica:

• De ce a ales Dumnezeu sa se descopere lor? Pentru ca erau saraci? Nu, caci mai tirziu s-a revelat magilor care erau instariti. Dumnezeu vrea sa fie Dumnezeul tuturor si El se reveleaza oamenilor care sunt dispusi sa Il asculte.
• Exista o liniste periculoasa. O liniste care seamana cu atipire. O liniste pe care daca Dumnezeu n-ar zdrobi-o, n-ar sparge-o, poate foarte multi oameni ar fi inghesuit deja drumul spre iad.
• Daca de multe ori Dumnezeu ar fi facut exact cum ii ceream noi, noi nu ne-am mai fi intors cu cainta. Doamne tulbura-ne in Biserica ca sa ne putem linisti in prezenta Ta.
• Noi ne-am obisnuit cu lumea, cu intunericul, cu pacatul. Da ce, mai este cineva surprins in seara asta ca a divortat un cuplu celebru? Mai este cineva aici surprins ca eu va spun ca au fost 15 milioane de copii avortati dupa revolutie pina azi? Nu ne mai surprinde aproape nimic pentru ca ne-am obisnuit cu raul, cu pacatul, cu stirile proaste, cu tot ce se-ntimpla. Suntem aproape imuni. Nu ne mai socheaza nimic. Dar cind vine lumea si se apropie asa in mod mai agresiv de noi, de-odata spunem: “Ba, da ce se intimpla?” Pentru ca intunericul si lumea asta si-a infipt coltii in mentalitatile noastre, in gindirea noastra si am inceput sa il vedem pe Dumnezeu ca si pe noi. Si cind Dumnezeu iese din tipare vrem sa-i facem cu mina: “Doamne, te rog…indeparteaza-te ca se sperie prietenii si oamenii. Doamne, te rog! Du-te dupa colt…Doamne, lasa-te, fi linistit, comporteaza-te linistit in Biserica Doamne, nu cumva sa se sperie cineva…ca doar suntem noi obisnuiti cu aia, cu linistea… cu pacatele astea. Nu ne scutura! Nu ne scutura Doamne ca s-ar putea sa se intimple ceva cu noi. Si noi vrem sa raminem aceiasi oameni. Dar vreau sa va spun ceva, exact ce i-a spus Dumnezeu unui psalmist printr-un psalm: “Ai crezut ca Eu sunt ca tine. Eu nu sunt ca tine. Eu nu sunt ca tine. Eu sunt Dumnezeu si vin sa-ti pun totul sub ochi.

• Citi dintre noi am ramas blocati la o experienta si am ramas acolo si tot aia o povestim ca o banda stricata, de ani de zile? “Sa vezi eu…..” Si de multe ori cind ne intilnim, de astea povestim. Intotdeauna in centrul discutiilor astea nu-i Dumnezeu. Sint EU, si ramin EU ca pe tron. Multi oameni sunt multumiti de astfel de povestiri, de experiente colosale, chiar de socat (cum a fost aratarea ingerului in cimpia pastorilor), uneori chiar si noi predicatorii o facem. Vrem sa spunem ce n-a mai spus nimeni, ca deodata toti sa intre pe Youtube. Noi mergem si suntem miscati la lucruri pe care nu le putem proba. Si, iata-ne o gramada de Romani care suntem invirtiti de experiente care sunt posibile, sau nu sunt posibile, de ginduri, primitivisme, de crezuri care n-au legatura cu Dumnezeu si cu Biblia.

~ 2013 ~

• Gabi Zagrean – Talharul – Saptamana de Evanghelizare Biserica Sfanta Treime Bistrita 22 Ianuarie 2013
  

~ 2012 ~

• Gabi Zagrean cu Speranta – Program de Colinde la Biserica Happy Valley, Phoenix Arizona 26 Noiembrie 2012
• Speranta la Palatul Copiilor din Bucureşti 2011 cu Gabi Zagrean
• Gabi Zagrean – Despre Inchinare
• Vasile Oprea si Gabi Zagrean la Biserica Philadelphia Wels 20-21 Octombrie, 2012
• Gabi Zagrean - Vreau sa traiesc vesnic – Evanghelizare in aer liber
• Gabi Zagrean la Cortul Intalnirii – Ţintea, jud. Prahova + Emma si Cristi Repede
• Gabi Zagrean – Perseverenta – Patru motive pentru care oamenii renunta
• Gabi Zagrean – Pericolele Unui Crestinism Fara Biblie – Marsul Invierii la Biserica Elim, Timisoara
• Gabi Zagrean – Revenirea Domnului Isus Hristos
• Gabi Zagrean – Unde vei fi in eternitate?
• Gabi Zagrean – Despre Inchinare
• Gabi Zagrean – Predica la Botosani
• Gabi Zagrean: Cum si de ce m-am pocait (via) Trinity TV (vezi video mai jos)
• Interviu Gabi Zagrean, Pastorul Bisericii Beclean, Bistrita la Radio Hope
• Gabi Zagrean – Evanghelizare in Sala de Sport Bistrita
• Gabi Zagrean la Saptamina de Evanghelizare Biserica Betania, Arad-Gradiste
• Gabi Zagrean – “Popas la cruce” la Barbulesti
• Gabi Zagrean si Vladimir Pustan – Predici de la Saptamina de Evanghelizare Bis. Gloria,Arad-Bujac vezi predica Gabi Zagrean mai sus)
• Gabi Zagrean – Emanuel – Esti singuratic? Dumnezeu este cu tine!
• Gabi Zăgrean – Crestinii fără Biblie – Biserica Happy Valley, Arizona
• Gabi Zagrean – Fata in fata cu dragostea Lui Dumnezeu – La Biserica Elim Timisoara
• Gabi Zagrean – Intre crapatura stancii si coapsele Lui Dumnezeu
• Gabi Zagrean – Familia in trei cuvinte
• Gabi Zagrean la Rugul Aprins Ponoara 2011
• Gabi Zagrean – Cer deschis
• O chemare la cruce – Gabi Zagrean in Bucuresti
• Gabi Zagrean – Analiza Finala – La Portland, Oregon – Predica Esentiala
• Gabi Zagrean la Biserica Poarta Cerului
• Gabi Zagrean – Responsabilitatile parintilor in educatia copiilor (Predica Esentiala)

Cum si de ce m-am pocait

In Awe of God’s Creation – Is it a River or a tree? Coplesit de Creatia lui Dumnezeu

Visit In Awe of God’s Creation Page for more awe inspiring posts.

Water flowing into the desert in the Mexican state of Baja California…

APA CURGE dintr-un riu care umple crapaturile  unui DESERT MEXICAN al Statului Baja, seamana bine cu un ….pom.

via www.news.nationalgeographic.com & twentytwowords.com

The Three Dominant Worldviews in the University and Their Relationship to the Christian Worldview

“Humanism is a utopian view of human nature. You have to disregard almost everything you know about human beings to believe this.” – Mary Poplin. Poplin is professor of graduate education,in this short clip she talks about worldviews in the academy, and how they relate to the Christian worldview. From The Veritas Forum at UCSB, 2011. Watch this and other full-length talks at veritas.org or watch the full length video below this one.

The Three Dominant Worldviews in the University and

Their Relationship to the Christian Worldview

Mary Poplin  UC Santa Barbara 2009 veritas.org

Human trafficking at the Indianapolis Superbowl? Some things just can’t be ignored any longer!

I have to admit that had not Louie Giglio focused Passion 2012 around the plight of human trafficking maybe millions of us would be none the wiser today. Did this plight just start recently? Most likely no. So why haven’t we heard of human trafficking before? Maybe because we called it something else, like prostitution and maybe that  has a particular connotation, one that maybe caused us to blame the prostitute, never once giving a thought to the circumstances of how one gets to the point of prostituting herself. Apparently it is not voluntary in many if not most cases. It can’t be voluntary when a 13 or 14 or even older girl or boy is held captive and forced to do it at will. From a very early age, we need to make our children aware of the dangers they face if they were to ever contemplate running away. Yet, besides praying for them, how do you protect your children from abductors who prowl through our towns and cities looking to kidnap children into the sex slave trade? And what must we teach our boys about sexual purity and sexual ethics? Would there be a need for the sex trafficking of children if there was not a demand for them from despicable men? And for such a serious issue as this, do we not need to hold our legislators accountable for passing stiff laws for these abhorrent criminals?

Human trafficking now ranks as one of the fastest growing criminal industries in the world, and profits are over $32 billion annually.Read below and be appalled like I am.

from Mission Network News -  a site that usually reports on persecution of Christians outside the borders of the U.S. reports that there are combined efforts to try and stem the deplorable practice of human trafficking that is already underway, including the passing of a new bill for stiff penalties for the traffickers. It turns your stomach at the depravity of the traffickers and the consumers when reading that most of these victims are pre-teens (probably because that is age of most runaways who get coerced into the sex slave trade):

USA (MNN) ― This week is full of sales in the U.S. for chips, soda and household appliances as Americans prepare for the annual football Super Bowl. But other less advertised–and far less innocent–sales are also beginning.

Human lives are for sale at the Super Bowl.

The Super Bowl has been called the largest sex trafficking event in the United States. Women, men, boys, and girls are all sold on the underground for the sexual pleasure of fans caught up in football mania, parties, and alcohol. Thousands of girls will be brought into Indianapolis for this single event.

Indiana has responded. Indiana rushed a bill through state legislature to ramp up penalties for sex-traffickers two weeks ago. Hundreds of cab drivers have been trained to know whether or not they are hauling a prostitute, pimp, or john. Catholic nuns have even been making phone calls to all the hotels and motels within a 50-mile radius of Indianapolis to make sure the management knows how to spot trafficking.

Despite any lengths Indiana has gone to, however, girls will still be coerced and kidnapped into the trade because the demand is so high.

Theresa Flores knows all too well what horrors will take place. She was a victim of trafficking for two years as a teenager living in Detroit’s ritzy suburbs.

“You have traffickers that are businessmen and looking for this opportunity and exploiting vulnerable people. So they will be bringing in literally vans full of girls who work. They’ll be putting their pictures up on Backpage and Craigslist, and offering them for sale. They’ll be going to area motels to service these men,” explains Flores. She says most girls will be domestically trafficked runaways–American preteens.

InterVarsity students at the Indiana University/Purdue University commuter campus in Indianapolis are making people aware about this tragic consequence of the Super Bowl. InterVarsity campus leader Bob Shultz says students have decided to hand out fliers and send out anti-trafficking videos in preparation for the event.

It’s a way to follow Christ’s command to care for the least of these, but it’s also a reminder to non-believers about who Christ really is.

“[Advocacy is] something we think that anybody–not just Christians, but people who are exploring the faith–can sink their teeth into and get a taste of what it means to be Kingdom-minded, and to see what Christ does in and through the life of a person,” explains Shultz.

InterVarsity students are excited to raise awareness during this event, but to also use this as a launching pad for a series of anti-slavery campaigns. Students hope to advocate on behalf of victims in multiple ways from now on.

The Super Bowl comes with all sorts of unintended consequences, but thankfully the Lord has the power to take even the world’s darkness and turn it into opportunities for light. Pray for victims of this year’s trade to be brought to safety through the efforts of S.O.A.P. and to experience the peace of Christ.

Pray also for InterVarsity students as they advocate, and for the hearts of those they reach. Pray that their work would have a real impact on the sex trade, helping to abolish it for good in the future.

You can get involved yourself through prayer, advocacy and even financial support. Partner with S.O.A.P. at future events when you visit www.traffickfree.com. Read the entire article here.

Related articles

• The Connection Between Internet Porn And Child Sex Trafficking (stopchildslavery.com)
• TRAFFICKED with Dottie Laster: Trafficking at the Super Bowl (imaginepublicity.com)
• The IN State House: Protect Victims & Punish Human Traffickers by Polaris Project (socialactions.net)
• Cab drivers enlisted to combat sex-trafficking at the Super Bowl (fourbluehills.com)
• Police Bust Prostitution & Human Trafficking Ring In Rockville (baltimore.cbslocal.com)
• FBI: Human Trafficking Prevention Help Us Identify Potential Victims (gloucestercitynews.net)
• Peter Thomas Senese Releases Major Study on Pitfalls of WHTI Program as Human Trafficking Prevention and Anti-Slavery Advocates Meet at HUMAN HOPE 2012 in Los Angeles (prweb.com)
• Ask your Senator to Put an End to Human Trafficking by Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy (socialactions.net)

Florin Ianovici la Biserica Betania, Arad,Gradiste la Saptamina de Evanghelizare

Saptamana de evanghelizare la Biserica Betania din Arad, cartierul Gradiste 26 Ianuarie,2012. Pastorul Bisericii – Pavel Rivis Tipei.

Numeri 14:24

²⁴Iar pentrucă robul Meu Caleb a fost însufleţit de un alt duh, şi a urmat în totul calea Mea, îl voi face să intre în ţara în care s’a dus, şi urmaşii lui o vor stăpîni.

Puncte din predica:

• Diferenta dintre omul care este al lui Dumnezeu si omul care nu-l cunoaste pe Dumnezeu este ATITUDINEA. Omul lui Dumnezeu va fi intotdeauna insufletit de un alt fel de duh.
• Modalitatea de raspuns in fata problemelor vietii te recomanda cine esti. Modul la care te raportezi la evenimentele din jur arata cita tarie ai tu si cit de mult te-ai ancorat in ceia ce se numeste Hristos.
• Multi oameni nu au succes pentru ca nu stiu sa se evalueze. Sa nu parem ceia ce nu suntem. Daca ne recunoastem putem primi solutii de la Dumnezeu.
• Pentru fiecare din noi se apropie un test al examinarii credintei noastre. Va trebui sa raspundem intrebarilor puse de Dumnezeu. Sa ne facem si noi acest test si sa nu fugim de intrebarile grele.

1. Ce facem noi cu temerile noastre in fata greutatilor?  Noi nu ne luptam doar cu circumstantele economice, nu ne luptam doar cu o mentalitate Romaneasca, ci noi ne luptam cu duhurile rautatii, cu capeteniile si duhurile care sunt in locurile ceresti. (Aici fratele Ianovici discuta ce inseamna fraza “afara sunt fricosii”. Daniel 6:13 – Cel mai important lucru cind imi este frica e sa fug la Dumnezeu in rugaciune. Curajul e o frica care si-a spus rugaciunea. Alearga la rugaciune. Lipsa de rugaciune expune omul la tactici ale celui rau. In momentul cind vin in viata noastra necazurile ne loveste o ciudata amnezie. Cel rau are puterea asta sa ne faca sa ne centralizam atit de mult pe necaz ca nu  mai vedem nimic in viata noastra. O femeie a dorit sa stie daca sinuciderea este pacat de neiertat. Da, pentru ca raiul nu este o evadare de greutatile pamintului ci o continua pregatire pentru a intra acolo unde Dumnezeu ne-a chemat. Raiul nu este un loc pentru oameni invinsi ci pentru oameni invingatori. Cind nu te rogi se intimpla un lucru ciudat pe care l-am vazut in viata de multe ori si de aceia noi nu avem acel dug si acea tarie launtrica-Uiti ca esti copilul lui Dumnezeu.
2. Ce inseamna sa ai un altfel de duh? Daca spuneam ca va trebui sa fim mai intii realisti si sa apreciem lucrurile intr-un mod obiectiv, in al doilea rind va trebui sa faci un lucru. Va trebui sa nu mai pierzi timpul cu VORBARIE. Ce lucruri triste sa stai sa comentezi si sa ai dispute, timp in care toata energia noastra se consuma. Mai bine decit sa-ti consumi energia vorbind, acumulind informatii de la televizor, mai bine te ridici in Numele Domnului Isus Hristos si mai faci un pas in lupta care iti sta inainte. Este mult mai de folos sa iti consumi energia facind si luptind decit vorbind si sa n-ajungi la niciun inteles pina la urma.

• In fiecare zi murim din cauza compromisurilor. In fiecare zi murim pentru ca nu stim pentru ce sa traim. Orice om al lui Dumnezeu nu va trebui sa traiasca doar pentru binele lui si comfortul sau. In viata, trebuie sa fi insufletit de un gind, de o motivatie, de un tel. Traiesc pe pamintul acesta pentru ca eu nu sunt un purtator jalnic de cuvinte si pareri omenesti. M-am nascut cu un destin de la Dumnezeu si Biblia a spus ca “va trebui sa fi o lumina pe pamintul acesta, o sare a pamintului acesta, un cetatean al cerului, un purtator de Dumnezeu, un om care sa raspindeasca o viata catre viata, un om care sa aduca mingaiere si cuvintele lui Dumnezeu.
• Unii simt fiorul mortii in fiecare zi – cu fiecare infringere, cu fiecare compromis, cu fiecare cedare vin oamenii si mai smulg un pic din tine. In fiecare zi te inmorminteaza altii. Nu o sa mai aiba ce sa puna in sicriu caci cu fiecare zi ne-am ingropat credinta, ne-am ingropat valorile, si-am cedat…si-am cedat…si am muscat din noi si am ramas foarte putin. Dar zic in seara aceasta, Doamne daca va fi necesar sa stam in fata ta sa dam un raspuns pe pamintul acesta, ajuta-ma sa mor o singura data, nu de mai multe ori. Sunt satul ca in fiecare zi sa experimentez sentimentul acela de zadarnicie. Recunoasteti, iubitii Domnului, ca apatia noastra de multe ori, lipsa noastra de orizont spiritual se datoreaza faptului ca am acceptat sa murim putin cite putin. Biblia spune ca trebuie sa traim o altfel de lege, a Duhului de viata.
• Venim Duminica dimineata si spunem, “Iarta-ma Doamne de 70,000 de ori ca am pacatuit, si am zis una si am facut alta.” Ipocriziile noastre ne ucid stima noastra de noi insine. Ne ucide oglinda aceasta sufleteasca. Noi nu mai credem in noi insine. De ce? Pentru ca ar trebui sa inveti sa traiesti vertical. Cu fiecare fapta dincolo de care n-ai cedat, creste in tine taria si puterea si curajul. (Matei 16:25)
• Satana va minte. Cu fiecare fapta a credintei, nu veti muri ci veti trai. Cu fiecare fapta a credintei veti urca, nu veti cobori si va creste in voi vigoarea si veti fi mai tari si in omul dinlauntru si in omul din afara. Oameni buni, sa iesim din aceasta ilogica a noastra. Dezertam casatoriile, slujbile noastre. Adevaratul curaj nu este sa mergi pe drumul pe care il merit uneori in viata. Pentru ca daca esti un om care ti-ai facut datoria bine si ai trait cinstit in viata aceasta, ar trebui sa inaintezi. Dar Dumnezeul nostru nu este un Dumnezeu care a zis, “Va las la jumatatea de drum,” pentru ca Biblia spune ca Isus i-a iubit pe ai Sai si i-a iubit pina la capat. Dumnezeu nu te abandoneaza pe drum. Dar uneori viata iti ofera surprize. Dar, adevaratul curaj nu este sa mergi inainte fara sa-ti pese nimic. Uneori curajul adevarat e sa ramii intr-o casnicie falimentara si sa lupti de dragul lui Dumnezeu. Sa ramii intr-un loc in care nu doresti. Un loc pe care nu-l meriti, un loc in care n-ar trebui sa fi dupa cum traiesti. Dar este un curaj deosebit sa ramii si sa lupti in continuare.
• Transmite visul, nu virusul.Frati cu perii albi, noi nu ne vom putea ruga niciodata ca voi. Nu vom fi pocaiti cum veti fi voi si nu suntem pocaiti cum sunteti voi, dar, ramine sa transmiteti visul si nu virusul. Nu loviti in ceia ce reprezinta tinara generatie. Vorbitile despre Isus al vostru. Faceti-i sa fie indragostiti de ceia ce voi a-ti experimentat. Nu le dati in cap spunind, “Pe vremea noastra…” asta-i virus nu-i vis. Incurajati-i pe cei de linga voi pentru ca impreuna, cu ajutorul lui Dumnezeu, intr-o zi vom pasi acolo! Suntem slabi. Atunci ajutati-ne sa fim tari. Generatia tare sa ridice generatie slaba. Invatati-ne sa stam in picioare cu ajutorul lui Hristos. Dar, transmiteti-ne visul, nu virusul! Asa cum sunt, si asa cum suntem, Dumnezeu se va folosi de generatia asta. Nu stiu cum, dar, Dumnezeu va trezi El intr-un fel sau altul. Dumnezeu va ajuta si vom ajunge si noi la capatul credintei.

• Predica

• Trebuie sa fim insufletiti de o altfel de ATITUDINE. Noi nu ne mai dam nici Penticostali, nici Baptisti, nici Ortodoxi. Noi trebuie sa avem o viata care sa semene cu a lui Isus. Si, ca sa semene cu a lui Isus, noi trebuie sa avem atitudinea lui Isus.

1. Mai intii de toate am inteles ca am voie pe pamintul acesta sa imi fie frica. Dar, o frica care si-a spus rugaciunea. Mi-e frica, alerg la rugaciune. Mi-e frica, ma duc sa spun Domnului. Si fac o lista. Eu am o lista cu tot ce imi este frica. Linga fiecare raspunsul este “isus”.
2. In al doilea rind, in viata aceasta am inteles caci curajul inseamna sa simti gustul mortii doar odata in viata.
3. In al treilea rind am inteles ca curajul in viata inseamna sa faci un lucru. Sa cobori cind ar trebui sa urci.
4. In ultimul rind, cea mai inalta forma de curaj e sa recunoastem ca nimic bun nu locuieste in noi. Fara Dumnezeu, pur si simplu nu suntem nimic. Cel mai mare curaj e sa spui: Doar Dumnezeu daca are mila de mine voi sta si eu in picioare.

Programul in intregime:

Cantari crestine

O pagina noua realizata – usor accesibila – puteti intra pe aceasta pagina de la orice alta pagina. Doar cautati aceasta poza in partea dreapta a blogului si faceti click pe ea ca sa intrati aici. Aici vom adauga linkuri la pagini cu ‘muzica crestina’, programe speciale, cantareti crestini si articole la subiect.

photo via feature pics.com

Citeste-

• ASPECTE NENEGOCIABILE IN TEOLOGIA INCHINARII
• Citate Muzicale din cartea El rămâne credincios, Carol Cymbala (dirijoare a corului Brooklyn Tabernacle), Editura Casa Cartii, Oradea, 2004

Exemplu: ”No stim ca inchinarea cea mai adanca nu se intampla atunci cand ridicam mainile si strigam “Aleluia”, sau cand cantam acele cantece la care se poate bate din palme. Inchinarea cea mai adanca se produce atunci cand ne predam mereu si mereu pe noi insine lui Dumnezeu.” si

“…slujba noastra nu este sa facem spectacol ci sa conducem oameni in prezenta lui Dumnezeu. De fapt, Biblia nu spune absolut nimic despre un grup de credinciosi care sa urce pe o scena pentru a face un alt grup de credinciosi sa se simta bine. Imparatul David nu a cantat si nu a dansat inaintea Domnului pentru a-i distra pe oameni ci pentru a se inchina lui Dumnezeu. Oricat de mult ai cauta, nu vei gasi nicaieri in Biblie conceptul de concert sau spectacol. Lucrarea noastra este sa ii conducem pe oameni spre o intalnire cu Isus Cristos. Pentru noi, sa dam un spectacol, ar fi un pas urias in jos. Insa nu ii putem conduce pe oameni la Dumnezeu daca mai intai nu I-am permis sa ne umple pe noi insine de Duhul Sau cel Sfant si de dragostea Sa.”  citeste mai mult aici - http://www.eldad.ro/