Thoughts on Revival...

This is a response to a question regarding Christian revival that a friend recently e-mailed to me. I figured I'd share it with you, my reader(s):

...do Christians NEED revival, even when we've been made alive in Christ? Well, there is a difference between being "regenerate" and being "filled with the Spirit". Paul commands the latter in Ephesians 5:18, and he commands that of Christians. Essentially, Christians need to be increasingly under the control of the Spirit, growing in obedience to God's word.

That is one of the reasons why Paul wrote all his epistles to Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, etc. They needed to be instructed by the Lord how to "walk in the Spirit" more than they currently were. But when you read Paul's epistles, you also recognize that Paul was writing to people who WERE Christians. They just were not walking in complete obedience to the Lord...hence they needed revival; the stirring up of the Spirit in them, teaching their minds the truth of God and stirring their hearts to obey.

So yes, we always need THAT kind of revival.

We don't need to get "psyched up" or "on fire for God". That's useless.

Getting "excited" or "on fire" is not revival. That's sheer emotionalism that then leads people to make oaths to God as to how they plan to "be better people" or "serve him more", and those self-driven oaths always crap out, leaving people frustrated that they cannot sustain that level of emotional commitment to God.

When, in modern "revival", people get all psyched up and commit to doing things, they do so usually in response to a "let's get going" sermon; one designed to drum up an emotional response. (I admit that it's a lot easier to preach LOUD than to preach WELL, and most people are clueless as to the difference.) But making oaths to God in a frenzy of emotion consistently leads to frustration, for we lack the resources in ourselves to produce righteous fruit in our lives.

True revival comes from God's Spirit changing hearts via the insertion of truth (in expository preaching, though it can also occur from personal study of the word, or group study of the word) and the scripture doing it's work in the human heart. People often don't recognize true revival because it's often quiet.

It lacks emotionalism, sensationalism, and volume (usually...). But, when the word is effectively delivered to the heart and starts renewing the mind, empowered by the Spirit, then deep heart changes (down in the depths) occur and lives are overhauled. That is what is needed. The core of the heart is where change needs to occur, and that is where real revival happens.

Just some rambling thoughts on revival.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Oh really? More thoughts from a psycho...

Well, I've gotten guff from people who don't like my comments on atheistic evolution. I say that atheistic evolutionists are trying to have their cake and eat it too:

They dismiss the existence of God's person and word, but still attempt to hang on to his moral standards and orderly universe...all the while not really explaining how they attempt to do this moral slight of hand. Law without a lawgiver. Universal Morals without a Universal Moralist.

They don't want God to tell them how they came to be but they still want him to tell them how to live.

But then, tragedies happen and I read something like this:

"'In the rambling text posted on the site, Auvinen said that he is 'a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist'.

"' am prepared to fight and die for my cause,' he wrote. 'I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.'"

Oh really now? Mr Pekka Eric Auvinen openly declares that a key factor in his decision to go on a killing spree was that he saw himself as "a natural selector, (who) will eliminate all who I see unfit..."

Call me crazy, but that kinda sounds like some sort of atheistic evolutionary thought.

What's more, in the atheistic evolutionary worldview, who's to say he's wrong?

And on what basis?

1. On the basis that he has done something that has harmed individuals?

Well, he's dead and so are they. What does he care?

2. On the basis that he's brought greater displeasure to his community than would have occured if he had not done it?

Again, he's dead. Most likely, he doesn't care about other people's pain.

3. On the basis that he was selfish and not working to further the community?

Why is being selfish wrong? He brought himself pleasure by killing. Now he's dead and he died doing what brought him pleasure, so he must have died happy. More over, it happened quickly (though I think he was in a coma for a while). Doesn't every 85 year old want to die happy, quickly and painlessly? What more could a person want?

I mean, he did clear out the gene pool a bit. He probably weeded out the kids that were too stupid to run away from the sound of gunfire (or hide). He had a gun; he was more fit than those around him who didn't. He was ruthless and impersonal, like nature is. It seems to me that he actually did nothing wrong...in fact, he was probably just doing what nature would have done anyways.

I just don't get how this doesn't happen more. Atheistic evolutionary thought is all over. Why are people shocked when intelligent kids actually live like they're atheistic evolutionists?

If humanity is overrated, why not just kill a few people for giggles?

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian