LewensbeskouingWorldview

Douw Krüger het hierdie stuk vir ons gemeente opgestel as vertrekpunt — wat glo ons eintlik, en hoe beïnvloed dit die manier waarop ons na die wêreld kyk? Ons is hom baie dank verskuldig vir die werk wat hierin sit.

Lees dit voor jy met die studiereekse begin. Die res van ons materiaal bou hierop voort, so dit help om eers hierdie grondslag onder die knie te kry.

Douw Krüger compiled this piece for our congregation as a starting point — what do we actually believe, and how does it influence the way we look at the world? We owe him a great debt of gratitude for the work that went into this.

Read this before you begin the study series. The rest of our material builds on this foundation, so it helps to master this groundwork first.

Waar begin ons?Where do we begin?

1. Waar begin ons?

Die Christen se vertrekpunt is die openbaring van die Drie-enige God in die Bybel. Die “wat” hiervan kan opgesom word as Skepping, Sondeval en Verlossing, soos verwoord in die Apostoliese Geloofsbelydenis. “Hoe” ons in ons lewe daarmee omgaan is in die liefdesgebod saamgevat. Jesus antwoord in Matheus 22:37-40 die vraag van ‘n Fariseër so:

“Jy moet die Here jou God liefhê met jou hele hart en met jou siel en met jou verstand. Dit is die grootste en eerste gebod. En die tweede, wat hiermee gelyk staan, is: Jy moet jou naaste liefhê soos jouself. In hierdie twee gebooie is die hele wet en die profete saamgevat.”

Hoekom het ons dan ‘n gesprek soos hierdie nodig? Sê die Bybel nie vir ons alles wat ons moet weet nie? Die kort antwoord is dat die Bybel vir ons alles sê wat nodig is om ons eie gebrokenheid en sondige natuur te verstaan. Die almag en genade van God, ons verlossing en ons verhouding met Hom word duidelik uiteengesit.

Die Bybel is egter nie ‘n wetenskaplike en alledaagse lewenshandboek nie. Die skrywers en die eerste lesers was mense in ‘n antieke wêreld wat die taal, terminologie en uitdrukkings van daardie tyd gebruik het. Die wêreld het sedertdien op baie terreine verder ontwikkel en daar het nuwe begrippe en denke ontstaan, asook wetenskaplike vooruitgang, ontdekkings en lewensstyle. Dit is dinge wat ons vandag in die lig van Bybelse beginsels moet oorweeg en interpreteer.

1. Where do we begin?

The Christian’s starting point is the revelation of the Triune God in the Bible. The “what” of this can be summarised as Creation, Fall, and Redemption, as expressed in the Apostles’ Creed. “How” we deal with this in our lives is captured in the commandment of love. Jesus answers the question of a Pharisee in Matthew 22:37–40:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Why then do we need a conversation like this? Doesn’t the Bible tell us everything we need to know? The short answer is that the Bible tells us everything necessary to understand our own brokenness and sinful nature. The omnipotence and grace of God, our redemption, and our relationship with Him are clearly set out.

The Bible is not, however, a scientific and everyday life manual. The writers and first readers were people in an ancient world who used the language, terminology, and expressions of that time. The world has since developed further in many areas, and new concepts and ways of thinking have emerged, along with scientific progress, discoveries, and lifestyles. These are things that we must today consider and interpret in the light of biblical principles.

---

Lees VerderRead More

Die BybelThe Bible

2. Die Bybel

Die gesag vir ons geloof vind ons in die Bybel. Die Bybel is nie ‘n boek wat ‘n mens een of twee keer kan lees en dan wegsit nie. Gelowiges wat lewenslank met die Bybel saamkom, getuig dat Bybelstudie elke dag en regdeur ‘n mens se lewe openbarend, geloofsverrykend en ondersteunend werk. Aan die ander kant weet ons ook dat iemand wat nie meer voortdurend met die Bybel omgaan nie, se geloofslewe kwyn en kan vergaan. Dit is iets om oor diep na te dink.

Die aard en kompleksiteit van die Bybel beteken ook dat ‘n mens dit nie regtig in ‘n kort opsomming kan aanbied nie. Die skets en uiteensetting hieronder probeer ook slegs perspektief gee oor die wese en samestelling daarvan.

Die Bybel se tydlyn:

• Skepping: Die lewe in die Paradys, in harmonie met God, met mekaar en met die wêreld
• Sondeval: Die sondige mens in ‘n gebroke wêreld, met wie God ‘n verbond sluit
• Die koms van Christus: ‘n Nuwe eeu begin vir die wat in Jesus Christus glo
• Die wederkoms van Christus: Die Ewige Lewe op ‘n Nuwe Aarde

Die stryd met die wêreld duur voort.

Ou Testament Die Ou Testament kan soos volg ingedeel word: Die Pentateug, ook bekend as die Boeke van Moses, is die eerste vyf boeke, van Genesis tot Deuteronomium. Dit vertel die verhaal van die skepping van die wêreld tot die dood van Moses en die Israeliete se voorbereiding om die land Kanaän in te gaan. Dit word in drie dele vertel:

• Die eerste deel (Gen. 1-11) gaan oor die Skepping, die Sondeval en die begin van die lewe van die mensdom buite die tuin van Eden. Die stryd tussen Goed en Kwaad word na die Sondeval voortgesit - Kaïn en Abel en die ongehoorsaamheid van die mense wat eers tot die Sondvloed lei en daarna tot die spraakverwarring by Babel.
• Die tweede deel (Genesis 12-50) handel oor die Israeliete se voorsate, hoofsaaklik Abraham, Isak, Jakob en Josef. Dit beskryf die verbond wat God met Abraham sluit en die lewe van sy nasate in Egipte waar hulle tot ‘n afsonderlike volk groei.
• Die derde deel, wat met die boek van Eksodus begin, beskryf die uittog uit Egipte en die vroeë geskiedenis van Israel as ‘n volk onderweg na die beloofde land. Dit bevat verskeie wette oor hoe die Israeliete hulle samelewing moet reël en bou. Deuteronomium is hoofsaaklik Moses se finale toespraak aan die volk waarin hy die liefde van God vir sy verbondsvolk beklemtoon.

Die elf boeke van Josua tot by Nehemia word soms die Geskiedenisboeke van die Ou Testament genoem. Dit deel met ons die geskiedenis van Israel tydens en na die intog in Kanaän en hulle stryd met die volke van Kanaän. Die geweld en menslike lyding wat hier beskryf word, lei steeds vanuit ongelowige kringe tot die bevraagtekening van die bestaan van ‘n liefdevolle God. En dit is nie iets wat met die eerste oogopslag maklik verstaan word nie. Later volg meer hieroor.

Die volgende vyf boeke, Psalms tot by Hooglied van Salomo, staan ook bekend as die sogenaamde Leerboeke van die Ou Testament. Hierdie boeke fokus op die verhouding tussen mens en God en mense met mekaar.

Die res van die Ou Testament word die Profetiese boeke genoem. Soos die naam aandui, handel dit oor die leringe van bepaalde persone nadat hulle openbarings van God ontvang het. Dit begin met Jesaja en eindig met Maleagi. Die eerste vyf boeke van Jesaja tot by Daniël staan bekend as die boeke van die groot profete. Die res is die boeke van die klein profete en hulle is meestal kort en fokus op enkele profesieë.

Die Ou Testament word deesdae in sommige kringe ondergeskik gestel aan die Nuwe Testament. Christus het inderdaad ook die profesieë van die Ou Testament vervul. Dit is egter nie moontlik om ‘n volledige begrip van die Nuwe Testament te ontwikkel sonder ‘n deeglike kennis van die Ou Testament nie.

Die Ou Testament openbaar vir ons die gebrokenheid van die lewe en die wêreld na die Sondeval, maar sê ook dat God in beheer is en wys op die koms van die Verlosser. En in die Nuwe Testament word daar telkens na die Ou Testament terugverwys.

Nuwe Testament Die Nuwe Testament beskryf die geboorte, lewe, sterwe, opstanding en hemelvaart van Christus en die betekenis daarvan vir die wêreld. Dit kan in drie dele verdeel word:

• Eerstens die vier Evangelies wat die lewe van Christus op aarde beskryf en Handelinge wat gaan oor die werk van die eerste Christene. Handelinge vertel van die weerstand wat die apostels ervaar, van Saulus se vervolging van Christene, sy bekering en sy besondere werk as geroepene onder die naam Paulus.
• Dan volg die Briewe wat die apostels aan gemeentes en individue regdeur die Romeinse Ryk geskryf het om die aanvanklike leringe op te volg en aspekte van die geloofslewe te beklemtoon. Die dwaalleringe wat ontstaan word pertinent aangespreek.
• Die laaste boek is die Openbaring aan Johannes. Dit beskryf die openbarings aan hom oor die eindtyd en die Nuwe Jerusalem. Dit is in simboliese taal geskryf en moet verstaan word in die lig van die kernboodskap dat daar na ‘n tydperk van lyding en beproewing ‘n ewige lewe van saligheid by die Drie-enige God op die verloste mense wag.

Die wêreld bly gebroke na die koms en kruisiging van Christus, maar vir die gelowige Christen het daar ‘n nuwe tydperk aangebreek. ‘n Tydperk van ‘n voortgesette stryd tussen verloste mense en die wêreld, maar ook ‘n tyd van vooruitkyk na die Wederkoms van Christus wanneer die wêreld vernuwe sal word en die stryd vir altyd agtergelaat word. In sy Bergrede (Matheus 5-7) vat Jesus dit volledig saam.

2. The Bible

The authority for our faith is found in the Bible. The Bible is not a book that one can read once or twice and then set aside. Believers who engage with the Bible throughout their lives testify that Bible study works in a revelatory, faith-enriching, and supportive way every day and throughout a person’s life. On the other hand, we also know that the faith life of someone who no longer engages with the Bible regularly can wither and perish. This is something to reflect on deeply.

The nature and complexity of the Bible also means that one cannot really present it in a short summary. The sketch and outline below merely attempts to provide perspective on its essence and composition.

The Bible’s timeline:

• Creation: Life in Paradise, in harmony with God, with one another, and with the world
• The Fall: Sinful humanity in a broken world, with whom God establishes a covenant
• The coming of Christ: A new era begins for those who believe in Jesus Christ
• The return of Christ: Eternal Life on a New Earth

The struggle with the world continues.

Old Testament The Old Testament can be divided as follows: The Pentateuch, also known as the Books of Moses, consists of the first five books, from Genesis to Deuteronomy. It tells the story from the creation of the world to the death of Moses and the Israelites’ preparation to enter the land of Canaan. It is told in three parts:

• The first part (Gen. 1–11) deals with Creation, the Fall, and the beginning of human life outside the Garden of Eden. The struggle between Good and Evil continues after the Fall — Cain and Abel and the disobedience of humanity that leads first to the Flood and then to the confusion of languages at Babel.
• The second part (Genesis 12–50) concerns the ancestors of the Israelites, primarily Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. It describes the covenant that God makes with Abraham and the life of his descendants in Egypt where they grow into a distinct people.
• The third part, beginning with the book of Exodus, describes the exodus from Egypt and the early history of Israel as a people on their way to the promised land. It contains various laws about how the Israelites should order and build their society. Deuteronomy is primarily Moses’ final address to the people in which he emphasises God’s love for his covenant people.

The eleven books from Joshua to Nehemiah are sometimes called the Historical Books of the Old Testament. They share with us the history of Israel during and after the entry into Canaan and their struggle with the peoples of Canaan. The violence and human suffering described here continues to lead, from unbelieving circles, to the questioning of the existence of a loving God. And this is not something easily understood at first glance. More on this will follow later.

The next five books, Psalms through to the Song of Solomon, are also known as the so-called Wisdom Books of the Old Testament. These books focus on the relationship between humanity and God and between people with one another.

The rest of the Old Testament is called the Prophetic Books. As the name indicates, these deal with the teachings of certain persons after they received revelations from God. They begin with Isaiah and end with Malachi. The first five books from Isaiah to Daniel are known as the books of the Major Prophets. The rest are the books of the Minor Prophets and they are mostly short, focusing on individual prophecies.

The Old Testament is nowadays subordinated to the New Testament in some circles. Christ did indeed fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament. However, it is not possible to develop a full understanding of the New Testament without a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament reveals to us the brokenness of life and the world after the Fall, but also declares that God is in control and points to the coming of the Redeemer. And in the New Testament, the Old Testament is repeatedly referred back to.

New Testament The New Testament describes the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ and its significance for the world. It can be divided into three parts:

• First, the four Gospels that describe the life of Christ on earth, and Acts, which deals with the work of the first Christians. Acts tells of the resistance the apostles experienced, of Saul’s persecution of Christians, his conversion, and his remarkable work as one called under the name Paul.
• Then follow the Epistles, which the apostles wrote to congregations and individuals throughout the Roman Empire to follow up on initial teachings and to emphasise aspects of the life of faith. The heresies that arose are directly addressed.
• The last book is the Revelation to John. It describes the revelations given to him about the end times and the New Jerusalem. It is written in symbolic language and must be understood in the light of the core message that after a period of suffering and trial, an eternal life of blessedness with the Triune God awaits the redeemed.

The world remains broken after the coming and crucifixion of Christ, but for the believing Christian a new era has dawned. An era of continued struggle between the redeemed and the world, but also a time of looking forward to the Return of Christ when the world will be renewed and the struggle left behind forever. In his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), Jesus summarises this comprehensively.

---

Lees VerderRead More

Die wêreld, geloof en geloofsgemeenskapThe world, faith, and the faith community

3. Die wêreld, geloof en geloofsgemeenskap

Wat sien ons vandag in die wêreld om ons? Ons sien groot kontraste. Soos nog altyd sedert die Sondeval. Welvaart en armoede, vrede en stryd, ontwikkeling en besoedeling. Ons sien ‘n gebroke wêreld. Op geestelike gebied sien ons in die Westerse wêreld en die voormalige Oosbloklande ‘n proses waar die grootste deel van die bevolking sedert die Tweede Wêreldoorlog die Christelike geloof verlaat het en apaties of afwysend daarteen staan.

En ons sien hierdie kontraste in ons eie lewens en die van ons familie en vriende. Siekte en gesondheid, vreugde en verdriet, depressie, selfdood, beproewing en vrede. Geloof en ongeloof.

Ons sien mense wat in gevaarlike lande met groot persoonlike opoffering en risiko die Evangelie gaan uitdra en ons sien mense hier om ons wat die geloof van ander afkraak.

In dele van Afrika en sekere Oosterse lande is daar ‘n beduidende ontvanklikheid vir die Christelike boodskap. Kerke en geloofsgemeenskappe groei daar daagliks. In die VSA is die kerkgemeenskappe nog veel meer aktief as in die res van die Weste en in die voormalige Oosbloklande.

Suid-Afrika - ‘n tradisioneel Christelike land Waar staan ons nou? Dink na oor jou kollegas en vriende en familie. Hoeveel van hulle besoek die kerk selde of slegs per geleentheid? Hoeveel van hulle volwasse kinders kom nie meer na die kerk nie, behalwe miskien om te trou of ‘n kind te laat doop? Hoeveel van hulle sê hulle glo in God, maar dink nie dit is nodig om deel van ‘n geloofsgemeenskap te wees nie? Hoeveel van hierdie mense het geen aktiewe geloofslewe meer nie?

As mens vandag ‘n opname onder aktiewe lidmate van al die denominasies sou doen oor wat hulle van hulle volwasse kinders se geloofslewens dink, dan sou daar ‘n duidelike kommer tevoorskyn kom.

Die Afrikaanse gemeenskap is tradisioneel as baie godsdienstig beskou. Min Afrikaanssprekendes het vroeër openlik hulle ongeloof bely of openlik verklaar dat kerk en geloof nie ‘n aktiewe rol in hulle lewe speel nie. Dit het by wyse van uitsondering gebeur. Maar hierdie wiel het gedraai en daar is vandag baie voorbeelde van openlike ongelowiges, waaronder bekende persone. Dit lei tot vraagtekens in mense se gemoedere en maak dit vir sommige mense makliker om ook in daardie rigting te beweeg.

Baie van hierdie mense maak die sagter uitspraak dat hulle nie ongelowig is nie, maar dat hulle geen behoefte aan kerklidmaatskap of aktiewe geloofsbeoefening het nie. Sekularisme is ‘n groeiende verskynsel in Suid-Afrika in die algemeen en ook in die Afrikaanse gemeenskap. Dit kan beskryf word as ‘n benadering wat apaties, afsydig of vyandig staan teenoor godsdiens. Nie net teenoor die Christelike geloof nie, maar enige geloof in ‘n opperwese. Spottende en neerhalende uitlatings oor geloof en teenoor gelowiges verskyn toenemend in die Afrikaanse media en ook op sosiale media.

3. The world, faith, and the faith community

What do we see in the world around us today? We see great contrasts. As has always been the case since the Fall. Prosperity and poverty, peace and conflict, development and pollution. We see a broken world. In the spiritual realm, we observe in the Western world and the former Eastern Bloc countries a process in which the majority of the population has abandoned the Christian faith since the Second World War and stands apathetic or hostile towards it.

And we see these contrasts in our own lives and those of our family and friends. Illness and health, joy and sorrow, depression, suicide, trial and peace. Faith and unbelief.

We see people who go to dangerous countries with great personal sacrifice and risk to spread the Gospel, and we see people around us who tear down the faith of others.

In parts of Africa and certain Eastern countries there is a significant receptiveness to the Christian message. Churches and faith communities there are growing daily. In the USA, church communities are still far more active than in the rest of the West and in the former Eastern Bloc countries.

South Africa — a traditionally Christian country Where do we stand now? Think about your colleagues, friends, and family. How many of them attend church seldom or only on occasion? How many of their adult children no longer come to church, except perhaps to get married or have a child baptised? How many of them say they believe in God but do not think it necessary to be part of a faith community? How many of these people no longer have an active life of faith?

If one were to conduct a survey today among active members of all denominations about what they think of their adult children’s faith lives, a clear concern would emerge.

The Afrikaans community has traditionally been regarded as very religious. Few Afrikaans-speaking people previously openly professed their unbelief or openly declared that church and faith play no active role in their lives. It happened only as an exception. But this wheel has turned, and today there are many examples of open unbelievers, including well-known public figures. This raises questions in people’s minds and makes it easier for some to move in that direction as well.

Many of these people make the softer statement that they are not unbelievers, but that they have no need for church membership or active practice of faith. Secularism is a growing phenomenon in South Africa in general and also in the Afrikaans community. It can be described as an approach that is apathetic, aloof, or hostile towards religion. Not only towards the Christian faith, but towards any belief in a supreme being. Mocking and demeaning statements about faith and towards believers appear increasingly in Afrikaans media and on social media.

---

Lees VerderRead More

Hoe word die Christelike geloof vandag uitgedaag?How is the Christian faith challenged today?

4. Hoe word die Christelike geloof vandag uitgedaag?

Dit vind op beide direkte en indirekte wyse plaas. Selfs die psigologiese behoefte aan sekuriteit speel ‘n rol. As dit met ‘n mens goed gaan dan voel jy meer in beheer en die besef van ‘n gebroke wêreld, die behoefte aan genade en ‘n goddelike beskerming kan vervaag. Gelowiges moet altyd die regte perspektief behou oor sake soos welvaart, vrede en gemak.

Sekere mense het so beïndruk geraak met die ontwikkeling van die wetenskap dat hulle alle antwoorde daar soek. Ontdekkings t.o.v. die uitdyende heelal waar die son en die aarde ‘n onindrukwekkende plek beklee asook die ontwikkeling van lewensvorme het nie net letterlike en fundamentalistiese Skrifinterpretasies onder druk geplaas nie, maar selfs talentvolle teoloë na ongeloof verlei.

‘n Baie belangrike aspek van die konflik tussen gelowiges en ongelowiges vandag is die oënskynlike onversoenbaarheid van ‘n liefdevolle God met Kwaad en Lyding in die wêreld. Die verwoesting wat Israel in Kanaän in opdrag van God moes uitvoer word gereeld opgehaal.

Ander mense se geloof vervaag as gevolg van hulle daaglikse ervarings. Hulle beleef niks bewustelik van God nie. Hulle ervaar die lewe en die wêreld bloot as iets wat deur natuurwette en sosiale strukture beheer word. ‘n Lewe ná die dood is vir hulle onwerklik en ondenkbaar.

Wat is die rede vir die geloofsvervlakking van die gemiddelde persoon, Suid-Afrikaner, Afrikaanssprekende? Daar is sekerlik meer as een verklaring. Een ooglopende verklaring het te doen met die invloed van sosiale interaksie. En dit werk verskillend vir verskillende ouderdomsgroepe. Dit is ‘n onderwerp vir baie nadenke en gesprekke. Kortliks net die volgende:

As almal met wie jy daagliks omgaan, ‘n ooglopend aktiewe geloofslewe lei en dit ook met jou deel, versterk dit die vertrouenskomponent van jou eie geloof. As jy voortdurend in ‘n neutrale sosiale omgewing verkeer, dan kan (nie noodwendig sal nie), dit jou eie geloofslewe laat verskraal. En as jy deurlopend blootgestel word aan die skeptisisme of sinisme van ongelowiges, raak die kans groter dat jyself kan begin twyfel, of jou ingesteldheid teenoor geloof kan verander. Sosiale ondersteuning speel dus ‘n belangrike rol.

Dink na oor die waarde van Bybelstudiegroepe, geloofsfamilies en van die jeugverenigings van vroeër. Die bymekaarkom op ‘n Vrydagaand was deel van die jongmense se sosiale lewe. En hulle het dikwels ander vriende saamgebring.

Om oor na te dink: Die Wederkoms van Christus mag vir iemand onwerklik en ondenkbaar ver klink van waar ons nou is. Maar ‘n mens se eie dood is nie ondenkbaar ver van hierdie oomblik af nie. Dink aan jou grootouers, ouers en ander mense wat jy nog as aktiewe en gesonde mense ervaar het en uiteindelik as bejaardes oorlede is. Die tyd vlieg. Dink aan jong en middeljarige mense wat onverwags oorlede is. Elke mens se dood is ‘n beslissende moment vir sy ewige bestemming. As niks anders in hierdie boekie jou tot nadenke stem nie, gaan dink hieroor na. Dit kan vandag met jou gebeur. Lees weer die verhaal van Lazarus (Lukas 16:19-31).

4. How is the Christian faith challenged today?

This happens in both direct and indirect ways. Even the psychological need for security plays a role. When things are going well, you feel more in control, and the awareness of a broken world, the need for grace, and for divine protection can fade. Believers must always maintain the right perspective on matters such as prosperity, peace, and comfort.

Some people have become so impressed with the development of science that they seek all answers there. Discoveries regarding the expanding universe — where the sun and the earth occupy an unremarkable place — as well as the development of life forms have not only placed pressure on literal and fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture, but have even led talented theologians into unbelief.

A very important aspect of the conflict between believers and unbelievers today is the apparent irreconcilability of a loving God with Evil and Suffering in the world. The destruction that Israel had to carry out in Canaan at God’s command is regularly raised.

Other people’s faith fades as a result of their daily experiences. They experience nothing of God consciously. They experience life and the world merely as something governed by natural laws and social structures. A life after death is for them unreal and inconceivable.

What is the reason for the shallowing of faith among the average person, South African, Afrikaans-speaker? There is surely more than one explanation. One obvious explanation has to do with the influence of social interaction. And it works differently for different age groups. This is a topic for much reflection and conversation. Briefly, the following:

If everyone you interact with daily leads a visibly active life of faith and shares it with you, it strengthens the trust component of your own faith. If you constantly find yourself in a neutral social environment, then it can (not necessarily will) cause your own faith life to shrink. And if you are continually exposed to the scepticism or cynicism of unbelievers, the chance grows that you yourself may begin to doubt, or your attitude towards faith may change. Social support therefore plays an important role.

Think about the value of Bible study groups, faith families, and the youth associations of the past. Getting together on a Friday evening was part of young people’s social lives. And they often brought other friends along.

Something to reflect on: The Return of Christ may sound unreal and inconceivably far from where we are now. But one’s own death is not inconceivably far from this moment. Think of your grandparents, parents, and other people whom you knew as active and healthy individuals and who eventually passed away in old age. Time flies. Think of young and middle-aged people who passed away unexpectedly. Every person’s death is a decisive moment for their eternal destiny. If nothing else in this booklet gives you pause for thought, go and reflect on this. It could happen to you today. Read again the story of Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31).

---

Lees VerderRead More

Geloof - is dit aanvaarding of denke, is dit die hart of die verstand?Faith — is it acceptance or reasoning, the heart or the mind?

5. Geloof - is dit aanvaarding of denke, is dit die hart of die verstand?

Ons ontvang die geloof deur die werking van die Heilige Gees. Die geloof berus op twee komponente. Die een is kennis en logika, waar ek dit wat in die Woord van God geopenbaar word en wat ek in die wêreld om my sien, verwerk en verstaan. Die ander komponent is die vertroue en aanvaarding dat dit wat in die Woord staan, waar en seker en lotsbepalend is. (Johannes 20:30, Markus 1:15)

Dit klink asof die bestaan van God nie bewys kan word nie. Ek moet dit net aanvaar, of hoe? Die bestaan van die Drie-enige God van die Bybel (of enige ander god) kan nie bewys word soos wat ‘n mens kan bewys dat 3 x 4 = 12 nie. Maar net so kan die ateïs ook nie bewys dat God nie bestaan nie. Die stelling dat daar nie ‘n God is nie, het dus ook ‘n “geloofsbasis”.

Daar is sterk getuienis en rasionele argumente wat die bestaan van God ondersteun. Nie net as Skepper nie, maar as Drie-enige God. Later meer hieroor.

Die Christen-gelowige glo en aanvaar eerstens dat God homself en sy Genade in sy Woord aan ons openbaar het en dit moet vir ons in hierdie lewe genoeg wees. Wanneer ons eendag in sy teenwoordigheid is, het die geloof soos wat ons dit vandag verstaan, sy doel gedien. Later meer hieroor (Punt 14 en 15).

5. Faith — is it acceptance or reasoning, the heart or the mind?

We receive faith through the work of the Holy Spirit. Faith rests on two components. The one is knowledge and logic, where I process and understand what is revealed in the Word of God and what I see in the world around me. The other component is the trust and acceptance that what stands in the Word is true, certain, and destiny-determining. (John 20:30, Mark 1:15)

It sounds as if the existence of God cannot be proved. I must simply accept it, right? The existence of the Triune God of the Bible (or any other god) cannot be proved in the way one can prove that 3 x 4 = 12. But equally, the atheist cannot prove that God does not exist. The claim that there is no God therefore also has a “faith basis.”

There is strong evidence and rational arguments that support the existence of God. Not only as Creator, but as Triune God. More on this later.

The Christian believer first of all believes and accepts that God has revealed himself and his Grace in his Word to us, and this must be enough for us in this life. When we are one day in his presence, faith as we understand it today will have served its purpose. More on this later (Points 14 and 15).

---

Lees VerderRead More

Die gesag van die BybelThe authority of the Bible

6. Die gesag van die Bybel

As ons geloof op die openbaring van God in die Bybel berus, dan moet ons wel een of ander versekering hê dat die Bybel outentiek en geldig is. Hoe weet ons dat dit nie ‘n versameling mites is wat van geslag tot geslag oorgedra is nie?

Eerstens en baie belangrik, net soos wat vertroue die vernaamste element van ons geloof in God is, is vertroue in die egtheid van die Bybel die vernaamste element van ons aanvaarding van die gesag daarvan. Hierdie vertroue word deur die Heilige Gees in ons harte bewerk. Maar daar is ook sterk aardse getuienis oor die egtheid van die Bybel.

Ons lees in die Bybel dat God deur sy Woord sy openbaring aan die mens oordra. En die Bybel dra self ook sekere merktekens van die egtheid van hierdie openbaring. Ons sien dit in Ou-Testamentiese profesieë wat reeds vervul is wanneer die Nuwe Testament geskryf word. Byvoorbeeld, Jesaja 53 is ongeveer 600 jaar vC geskryf maar dit vertel die toekomstige verhaal van Jesus se lyding en sy verlossing van die mensdom, soos wat dit dan daarna in die Nuwe Testament beskryf word.

Die verskillende Bybelgeskrifte is deur ‘n hele klomp skrywers van verskillende kulture, tale en omstandighede geskryf. Tog vertoon dit ‘n merkwaardige eenheid. Nie ‘n duplikasie soos wat mens sou verwag as dit die produk van ‘n sameswering of blote kopiëring of mites was nie, maar ‘n wesenlike eenheid in die verloop van die hooftrekke van die openbarings en verlossingsplan van God. En tog op verskillende wyses en beklemtonings deur verskillende mense verwoord.

Die Evangelies van die Nuwe Testament dra die merktekens van egtheid. Dit is binne ‘n geslag of twee na die geboorte van Jesus geskryf. Legendes aan die ander kant neem heelwat langer om werklik beslag te kry en dan word dit in die proses gesaniteer van alles wat vraagtekens kan veroorsaak.

Al die Evangelies is dit byvoorbeeld eens dat dit vroue was wat Jesus eerste gesien het na sy opstanding. As ons in ag neem dat vrouens se getuienis in daardie era as onbetroubaar beskou is en nie in ‘n hof toegelaat is nie, dan wonder mens hoekom hierdie feit so pertinent in die Evangelies weergegee is. As die Evangelies net legendes was, sou die verhaal dan nie ‘n meer “polities korrekte” lyn gevolg het om op die getuienis van mans staat te gemaak het nie?

Die Bybel openbaar en verklaar nie vir ons die totale historiese verloop van dinge nie. Ons kry ook net ‘n basiese begrip van bepaalde gebeurtenisse. Ons weet min van die wanneer en die hoe van die skepping van die hemelwesens en die “Eerste Sondeval” toe die Satan as invloedryke engel saam met sy volgelinge teen God in opstand gekom het. As die Bybel werklik mities van aard was en legendes weergegee het, sou hierdie “sensasionele gebeurtenisse” dan nie ‘n baie meer prominente rol gespeel het nie?

Hierdie argumente gaan waarskynlik nie sommer iemand wat reeds ‘n ongeloofsbestemming gekies het, oortuig nie. Maar dit is nie asof so ‘n persoon oor meer oortuigende getuienis tot die teendeel beskik nie. Die gelowige aanvaar die getuienis onder die leiding van die Heilige Gees, terwyl die ongelowige dit bloot verwerp.

6. The authority of the Bible

If our faith rests on the revelation of God in the Bible, then we must have some assurance that the Bible is authentic and valid. How do we know that it is not a collection of myths passed down from generation to generation?

First and very importantly, just as trust is the chief element of our faith in God, trust in the genuineness of the Bible is the chief element of our acceptance of its authority. This trust is wrought in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. But there is also strong earthly evidence for the genuineness of the Bible.

We read in the Bible that God conveys his revelation to humanity through his Word. And the Bible itself bears certain hallmarks of the authenticity of this revelation. We see this in Old Testament prophecies that had already been fulfilled by the time the New Testament was written. For example, Isaiah 53 was written approximately 600 years BC, yet it tells the future story of Jesus’ suffering and his redemption of humanity, as it is then described in the New Testament.

The various biblical writings were written by a great many authors from different cultures, languages, and circumstances. Yet they display a remarkable unity. Not a duplication such as one would expect if it were the product of a conspiracy or mere copying or myths, but an essential unity in the course of the main features of God’s plan of revelation and redemption. And yet expressed in different ways and with different emphases by different people.

The Gospels of the New Testament bear the hallmarks of authenticity. They were written within a generation or two after the birth of Jesus. Legends, on the other hand, take considerably longer to truly take shape, and in the process they are sanitised of everything that might raise questions.

All the Gospels agree, for example, that it was women who first saw Jesus after his resurrection. If we consider that women’s testimony in that era was regarded as unreliable and was not admitted in court, then one wonders why this fact is so pointedly recorded in the Gospels. If the Gospels were merely legends, would the story not have followed a more “politically correct” line by relying on the testimony of men?

The Bible does not reveal and explain to us the complete historical course of events. We also receive only a basic understanding of certain events. We know little of the when and the how of the creation of heavenly beings and the “First Fall” when Satan as an influential angel, together with his followers, rebelled against God. If the Bible were truly mythical in nature and recorded legends, would these “sensational events” not have played a far more prominent role?

These arguments will probably not easily convince someone who has already chosen a destination of unbelief. But it is not as if such a person possesses more convincing evidence to the contrary. The believer accepts the evidence under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, while the unbeliever simply rejects it.

---

Lees VerderRead More

Kerkbesoek en godsdiensbeoefeningChurch attendance and the practice of religion

7. Kerkbesoek en godsdiensbeoefening

Godsdienstigheid en ‘n aktiewe geloofslewe het ‘n verband en ‘n interaksie met mekaar, maar dit is nie dieselfde nie. ‘n Mens kan gereeld kerk besoek en bid voor ete maar nie ‘n werklik aktiewe geloofslewe hê nie. ‘n Aktiewe geloofslewe kan beskryf word as die beoefening van ‘n bewuste, daaglikse of deurlopende geloofsverhouding met God. Om Hom daagliks opreg en met oortuiging te aanbid, te loof en te dank vir sy almag en genade. Om voortdurend van hierdie verhouding bewus te wees - nie net per geleentheid nie. En net so belangrik, om met liefde met die wêreld om te gaan.

Die vraag is nou, kan ‘n mens in ‘n werklike geloofsverhouding met God staan as jy jouself van die kerk, die geloofsgemeenskap, losmaak? Die antwoord wat mens soms hoor is dat die persoon op sy eie, daar in die natuur, die wonder van die Skepping opnuut besef en sy geloof daardeur verryk. ‘n Kort antwoord daarop is dat as dit die wese van jou geloofslewe is, dan is dit ‘n soort spirituele ervaring wat spruit uit dit wat vir jou fisies aantreklik is en jou goed laat voel.

Daar is niks verkeerd met aanbidding in die natuur of in ‘n inspirerende omgewing nie. Die probleem kom wanneer dit ‘n plaasvervanger raak vir die geloofsgemeenskap en as die natuur of die omgewing die fokuspunt raak. Die Bybel maak dit op verskeie plekke, maar veral in die sendbriewe, duidelik dat die verhouding met Christus nie bloot tussen Hom en individue bestaan nie, maar ook tussen Hom en die kudde - die geloofsgemeenskap. En dit is net so duidelik oor die rol wat gelowiges teenoor mekaar het.

Efesiërs 5:25-27 is baie bekend:

“Mans julle moet julle vrouens liefhê soos Christus die kerk liefgehad het en sy lewe daarvoor afgelê het. Dit het hy gedoen om die kerk aan God te wy, nadat Hy dit met die water en die woord gereinig het, sodat Hy die kerk in volle heerlikheid by Hom kan neem, sonder vlek of rimpel of iets dergeliks, heilig en onberispelik.”

Joh 10:11:

“Ek is die goeie herder. Die goeie herder lê sy lewe af vir die skape.”

Handelinge 20:28:

“Pas julleself op en die hele kudde wat die Heilige Gees onder julle sorg gestel het. Soos wagters ‘n kudde versorg, so moet julle die gemeente van God versorg wat hy vir hom verkry het deur die bloed van sy eie Seun.”

Ons moet ook oor die rol van die kerkgebou nadink. Dit is ‘n plek van samekoms, maar dit gaan nie primêr oor die plek nie. Die gemeente, die geloofsgemeenskap, kan op enige geskikte plek vergader. Dit maak nie die kerkgebou onbelangrik nie, maar dit is nie ‘n kritiese komponent van die geloofsgemeenskap nie. Die waarde van ‘n kerkgebou lê daarin dat dit spesifiek vir samekomste en aanbidding ingerig is en dit speel ‘n belangrike, praktiese rol in die lewe van die geloofsgemeenskap. Dit kan ‘n samebindende en selfs inspirerende faktor wees, maar dit is nie self ‘n element van die geloof nie en dit moet veral nie ‘n voorwerp van aanbidding word nie.

Om oor na te dink: Besef jy wat jou voorbeeld aan die geloofslewe van jou kinders en familie kan doen as jy jouself van die geloofsgemeenskap vervreem? Dalk ‘n moeiliker vraag: Gaan die kerkgemeenskap in die rigting van ‘n eKerk of ‘n eGemeenskap neig, soos wat besighede in ander gemeenskappe doen? Kan die geloofsgemeenskap produktief funksioneer as eKerk, vandag of oor 30 jaar?

7. Church attendance and the practice of religion

Religiousness and an active life of faith are related and interact with each other, but they are not the same. A person can attend church regularly and pray before meals yet not have a truly active life of faith. An active life of faith can be described as the practice of a conscious, daily, or ongoing faith relationship with God. To worship, praise, and thank Him daily, sincerely and with conviction, for his omnipotence and grace. To be continually aware of this relationship — not only on occasion. And equally important, to engage with the world in love.

The question now is: can a person stand in a real faith relationship with God if you detach yourself from the church, the faith community? The answer one sometimes hears is that the person, on their own, out in nature, realises anew the wonder of Creation and enriches their faith through it. A short response to that is that if that is the essence of your faith life, then it is a kind of spiritual experience arising from what is physically attractive to you and makes you feel good.

There is nothing wrong with worship in nature or in an inspiring environment. The problem comes when it becomes a substitute for the faith community and when nature or the environment becomes the focal point. The Bible makes it clear in several places, but especially in the epistles, that the relationship with Christ does not exist merely between Him and individuals, but also between Him and the flock — the faith community. And it is equally clear about the role that believers have towards one another.

Ephesians 5:25–27 is well known:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.”

John 10:11:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

Acts 20:28:

“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”

We must also think about the role of the church building. It is a place of gathering, but it is not primarily about the place. The congregation, the faith community, can meet at any suitable location. This does not make the church building unimportant, but it is not a critical component of the faith community. The value of a church building lies in the fact that it is specifically arranged for gatherings and worship and it plays an important, practical role in the life of the faith community. It can be a unifying and even inspiring factor, but it is not itself an element of faith and it must especially not become an object of worship.

Something to reflect on: Do you realise what your example can do to the faith lives of your children and family if you alienate yourself from the faith community? Perhaps a harder question: Will the church community tend towards an eChurch or an eCommunity, as businesses in other communities are doing? Can the faith community function productively as an eChurch, today or in 30 years?

---

Lees VerderRead More

Christelike apologetiekChristian apologetics

8. Christelike apologetiek

Die begrip apologetiek kan beskryf word as die verduideliking of regverdiging van ‘n bepaalde siening of leerstelling. Die doel van Christelike apologetiek is om Christene toe te rus om verantwoording te kan doen oor wat hulle glo, veral teenoor die wêreld maar ook teenoor hulle eie twyfelgedagtes.

Dit rus gelowiges toe om aan skeptici te kan demonstreer dat die Christelike geloof nie ‘n fantasiesprong is nie, en om soekendes uit te nooi om die aansprake van die geloof deeglik te oorweeg.

In 1 Petrus 3:15b-16a lees ons:

“Wees altyd gereed om ‘n antwoord te gee aan elkeen wat van julle ‘n verduideliking eis oor die hoop wat in julle lewe. Maar doen dit met beskeidenheid en met eerbied vir God.”

Is apologetiek ‘n onderdeel van die Christelike geloof? Die verskillende apologetiese argumente is nie opsigself noodsaaklik vir die Christelike geloof nie. Maar dit speel ‘n produktiewe rol in geloofsgesprekke en is geneig om geloofsversterkend te werk, veral wanneer mens deur die wêreld uitgedaag word. Dit help om die logiese gapings in argumente ten gunste van ongeloof te identifiseer.

Die webblaaie ratiochristi.co.za en antwoord.org.za bevat baie artikels wat verskeie aspekte van die Christelike geloof verduidelik en verdedig. Gaan kyk gerus daarna.

8. Christian apologetics

The concept of apologetics can be described as the explanation or justification of a particular view or doctrine. The purpose of Christian apologetics is to equip Christians to give an account of what they believe, especially to the world but also in response to their own doubts.

It equips believers to demonstrate to sceptics that the Christian faith is not a flight of fantasy, and to invite seekers to carefully consider the claims of the faith.

In 1 Peter 3:15b–16a we read:

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

Is apologetics a component of the Christian faith? The various apologetic arguments are not in themselves essential to the Christian faith. But they play a productive role in faith conversations and tend to strengthen faith, especially when one is challenged by the world. They help to identify the logical gaps in arguments in favour of unbelief.

The websites ratiochristi.co.za and antwoord.org.za contain many articles that explain and defend various aspects of the Christian faith. Do take a look at them.

---

Lees VerderRead More

Hoe loop die pad na geloof … of na ongeloof?How does the road to faith … or to unbelief … run?

9. Hoe loop die pad na geloof … of na ongeloof?

Dit volg nie vir almal dieselfde roete nie. En al die argumente, debatte en inligting het nie dieselfde uitwerking op almal nie. Paulus (Saulus) het voor sy bekering waarskynlik reeds al die getuienis oor Jesus se koms na die aarde gehoor. Tog het hy dit nie aanvaar nie en het hy die Christene probeer uitroei.

Handelinge 9:1 sê:

“Intussen het Saulus soos ‘n besetene voortgegaan om die volgelinge van die Here met die dood te dreig.”

Hy het die moord op Stefanus deur die Joodse Raad goedgekeur. Maar tydens ‘n reis na Damaskus om nog meer Christene gevange te laat neem, is hy deur ‘n openbaring van Jesus Christus gekonfronteer en daarna met die Heilige Gees vervul.

Vir ander mense volg die reis na ‘n ware en aktiewe geloofslewe ‘n ander roete. Net so met die reis na ongeloof. Daar is heelwat voorbeelde van bekende mense in die kerkgemeenskap, ook predikante, wat na ‘n lang periode van groeiende twyfel ‘n bestemming van ongeloof bereik het, of bloot onverskillig oor geloof geraak het.

Die dryfkrag van ‘n reis na ongeloof is nie eerstens argumente vir of teen die geloof nie. Dit is eerder die bestemming wat vir die persoon wink - ‘n geloofsbestemming of ‘n ongeloofsbestemming. Soos wat ‘n mens meer van daardie bestemming bewus word, leun jy oor na die getuienis en argumente wat dit steun.

Die gesag van logiese denke in plaas van aanvaarding is ‘n kernkomponent van die argumente van ongelowiges en veral van ateïste. Maar daar is baie voorbeelde van ongelowiges wat inkonsekwent en onlogies te werk gaan as hulle oor geloofskwessies praat. Dit is eintlik opvallend. Hulle fokus egter so sterk op die ongeloofsbestemming dat dit hulle denke oorheers.

Die twee aspekte wat gelowiges kan verlei is eerstens die argument dat daar geen bewys van ‘n Skeppergod is nie en tweedens die onversoenbaarheid van ‘n liefdevolle God met die wreedheid en lyding wat deur die geskiedenis plaasgevind het.

Aan die ander kant is daar gelowiges wat dalk nie die ingesteldheid of die vermoë het om al die logiese beredenerings rondom geloof te verstaan en te verwerk nie, maar vir wie die geloofsbestemming, vertroue en aanvaarding opsigself genoeg is.

Dit toon duidelik vir ons dat ‘n geloofsreis futiel is as dit sonder gebed, genade en die werking van die Heilige Gees plaasvind.

9. How does the road to faith — or to unbelief — run?

It does not follow the same route for everyone. And all the arguments, debates, and information do not have the same effect on everyone. Paul (Saul), before his conversion, had probably already heard all the evidence about Jesus’ coming to earth. Yet he did not accept it and tried to destroy the Christians.

Acts 9:1 says:

“Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples.”

He had approved of the murder of Stephen by the Jewish Council. But during a journey to Damascus to have yet more Christians arrested, he was confronted by a revelation of Jesus Christ and afterwards filled with the Holy Spirit.

For other people, the journey to a true and active life of faith follows a different route. The same applies to the journey to unbelief. There are many examples of well-known people in the church community, including ministers, who after a long period of growing doubt reached a destination of unbelief, or simply became indifferent towards faith.

The driving force of a journey to unbelief is not primarily arguments for or against the faith. It is rather the destination that beckons the person — a destination of faith or a destination of unbelief. As one becomes more aware of that destination, you lean towards the evidence and arguments that support it.

The authority of logical thinking instead of acceptance is a core component of the arguments of unbelievers and especially of atheists. But there are many examples of unbelievers who proceed inconsistently and illogically when they talk about matters of faith. It is actually striking. However, they focus so strongly on the destination of unbelief that it dominates their thinking.

The two aspects that can lead believers astray are firstly the argument that there is no proof of a Creator God, and secondly the irreconcilability of a loving God with the cruelty and suffering that have occurred throughout history.

On the other hand, there are believers who may not have the inclination or ability to understand and process all the logical reasoning surrounding faith, but for whom the destination of faith, trust, and acceptance is enough in itself.

This shows us clearly that a faith journey is futile if it takes place without prayer, grace, and the working of the Holy Spirit.

---

Lees VerderRead More

Gesprek tussen gelowige en ongelowigeConversation between Believer and Unbeliever

10. Gesprek tussen gelowige en ongelowige

Baie mense kan getuig van ‘n vriend of familielid wat gelowig grootgeword het en na baie jare as aktiewe kerklidmaat die kerk en geloof verlaat het. “Ek het met hom daaroor probeer praat, maar die gesprek vorder nie. Nie eens die argumente van bekende teoloë en Christen-apologete het hom oortuig nie. Hy het ook baie opgelees oor geloofsake en kon my soms in ‘n hoek druk.”

Dit is ‘n voorbeeld van hoe die bestemming wat vir mens wink jou denke kan oorheers.

Is daar ‘n beproefde manier om iemand wat ‘n besluit ten gunste van ongeloof geneem het, weer te bekeer? So ‘n persoon het dikwels al baie nagedink, wyd gelees en het al die argumente gehoor en oorweeg. Maar die ongeloofsbestemming het harder geroep en hy het daarna geluister. Dit is nie ‘n eenvoudige situasie nie.

Om oor na te dink: Dit is die Christen se plig om die evangelie uit te dra. As ‘n persoon naby aan jou al alles deurdink het en ‘n duidelike wilsbesluit ten gunste van ongeloof geneem het, dan is die mees sinvolle optrede meestal om te sorg dat die verhouding met die persoon behoue bly en om beskikbaar te wees vir ‘n geloofsgesprek. Eerder as om so op te tree dat die ander persoon die verhouding verbreek. Dis nie altyd maklik nie. Maar ons moet verstaan dat ons instrumente van die Heilige Gees is. Ons moet ons plig doen, maar dit is die Gees wat die harte van mense verander. Daarvoor moet ons voortdurend bid.

---

10. Conversation between Believer and Unbeliever

Many people can testify of a friend or family member who grew up as a believer and after many years as an active church member left the church and the faith. “I tried to talk to him about it, but the conversation goes nowhere. Not even the arguments of well-known theologians and Christian apologists convinced him. He had also read widely on matters of faith and could sometimes corner me.”

This is an example of how the destination that beckons can dominate one’s thinking.

Is there a proven way to convert someone who has made a decision in favour of unbelief? Such a person has often already thought deeply, read widely, and has heard and considered all the arguments. But the destination of unbelief called louder and he listened to it. This is not a simple situation.

Something to reflect on: It is the Christian’s duty to proclaim the gospel. If a person close to you has already thought everything through and has made a clear decision of the will in favour of unbelief, then the most meaningful course of action is usually to ensure that the relationship with that person is preserved and to remain available for a conversation about faith. Rather than acting in such a way that the other person severs the relationship. It is not always easy. But we must understand that we are instruments of the Holy Spirit. We must do our duty, but it is the Spirit who changes the hearts of people. For this we must pray continually.

---

Lees VerderRead More

Kerk, Geloof en SamelewingChurch, Faith and Society

11. Kerk, Geloof en Samelewing

Is mense wat aan ‘n kerk behoort beter mense as dié wat nie aan ‘n kerk behoort nie? Is ‘n gelowige sakeman ‘n beter sakeman as ‘n ongelowige persoon?

Enige persoon, gelowig of ongelowig, kan ‘n goeie sosiale gewete hê, sy werk goed doen en goed wees vir diegene wat op sy pad kom. Geloof en kerklidmaatskap is opsigself ook nie ‘n waarborg vir goeie gedrag nie. Daar is baie voorbeelde deur die eeue van wangedrag deur kerke en kerklidmate. Dit was meestal omdat hulle geloofslewe ondergeskik geraak het aan wêreldse voorkeure en ideologieë.

Gelowiges is nie volmaak nie. Hulle maak foute en kan ook verlei word. Die essensie van die lewe van ‘n gelowige behoort te wees dat hy elke dag aan sy verhouding met die Here moet werk en daarmee saam gehoorsaam moet wees aan die volledige liefdesgebod. Hy moet sy medemens behandel soos wat hyself behandel wil word.

Om oor na te dink: Watter voorbeelde is daar van godsdienstige gemeenskappe wat liefdeloos, gewelddadig of moorddadig teenoor ander opgetree het? Wat was die dryfveer en hoe is dit geregverdig? Leef onsself die liefdesgebod volledig uit? Of fokus ons net op aanbidding? Is ons bereid om ons eie geloofsgemeenskap/kerk krities te ondersoek?

---

11. Church, Faith and Society

Are people who belong to a church better people than those who do not? Is a believing businessman a better businessman than an unbelieving person?

Any person, believing or unbelieving, can have a good social conscience, do their work well, and be kind to those who cross their path. Faith and church membership are in themselves also not a guarantee of good conduct. There are many examples through the centuries of misconduct by churches and church members. This was mostly because their life of faith had become subordinate to worldly preferences and ideologies.

Believers are not perfect. They make mistakes and can also be led astray. The essence of a believer’s life should be that he works on his relationship with the Lord every day and alongside that is obedient to the full commandment of love. He must treat his fellow human beings as he himself wishes to be treated.

Something to reflect on: What examples are there of religious communities that acted without love, violently, or murderously towards others? What was the driving force and how was it justified? Do we ourselves live out the commandment of love fully? Or do we only focus on worship? Are we willing to critically examine our own faith community/church?

---

Lees VerderRead More

Is daar in die Bybel 'n duidelike reël vir elke probleem wat mag opduik?Does the Bible Have a Clear Rule for Every Problem That May Arise?

12. Is daar in die Bybel ‘n duidelike reël vir elke probleem wat mag opduik?

Ons lewe in ‘n gebroke wêreld en het onvoldoende kennis en insig in die kompleksiteit van die wêreld - m.a.w. die natuur en die samelewing.

Die Bybel leer dit vir ons in 1 Korinthiërs 13:12:

“Want nou sien ons deur ‘n spieël in ‘n raaisel, maar eendag van aangesig tot aangesig.”

Daar is situasies wat as grys areas opduik. Kwessies waar die antwoorde nie klinkklaar is nie. Die res van 1 Korinthiërs 13 wys egter vir ons die rigting aan. Die eerste agt verse brei uit oor die aard en die krag van die liefde. Die laaste vers, vers 13, maak dit duidelik hoe krities belangrik die liefde is.

Die les hieruit te leer is, as ons kennis en insig nie vir ons duidelike antwoorde gee nie, dan moet ons biddend dit doen wat die liefde van ons vra - dit wat in die beste belang van almal betrokke en tot eer van God is (Matheus 22:37-40).

In die baie bekende Matheus 5:38-48 beskryf Jesus hoever die naasteliefde werklik moet strek. Draai die ander wang en stap die ekstra myl. Hierdie beginsels het soveel waarde in die praktyk dat dit selfs in ‘n sekulêre wêreld inhoud gee aan die sielkundige fondament van konflikbeslegting. Plaas jouself in die ander persoon se skoene - dan eers verstaan jy sy emosies en motiewe. ‘n Opregte verskoning berei die grond voor vir versoening. En die heel belangrikste reël is, soek saam na ‘n oplossing wat in almal se belang is.

Maar alle probleme het nie altyd maklike antwoorde nie. Soms moet ons wroeg oor ‘n besluit. Dit mag nodig wees om in situasies waar ons nie die lig sien nie, die saak biddend aan God oor te laat en te vertrou dat Hy dit op sy tyd en sy wyse sal aanspreek. Jesaja 49:8:

“…Op ‘n tyd wat Ek goeddink sal ek jou gebede verhoor, op die dag wat ek wil red, sal Ek jou help.”

Om oor na te dink: Watter probleme het vir jou nie ‘n duidelike antwoord nie? Wat van genadedood, die beëindiging van ‘n swangerskap wat risiko’s vir moeder en kind inhou? Wat dink ons van transgender kwessies? Is daar altyd klinkklare antwoorde? Beteken die lering van Jesus in Matheus 5:37-48 dat ek myself altyd moet opoffer? Waar trek ek die streep? Is dit nie dalk so dat as ek te opofferend is ek die ander persoon se wangedrag bevorder en uiteindelik daardeur ander mense ook benadeel nie? Vandag is voorbehoeding die norm, maar in die middel van die vorige eeu is dit as onchristelik beskou. Wat sou die beredenering hieragter gewees het? Hoe hanteer ons ‘n situasie waar ‘n kind of ander geliefde keuses maak waarmee ons ‘n beginselprobleem het? Verstaan ons dat ons nie alles kan beheer nie? Verstaan ons dat die liefde behoue moet bly en dat daar sake is wat ons in die hande van die Here moet laat? En dat ons moet nadink oor wat die Here moontlik vir ons daardeur wil leer. Dinge soos nederigheid, afhanklikheid van Hom, ‘n dieper empatie met ons naaste en sulke dinge.

---

12. Does the Bible Have a Clear Rule for Every Problem That May Arise?

We live in a broken world and have insufficient knowledge and insight into the complexity of the world — that is, nature and society.

The Bible teaches us this in 1 Corinthians 13:12:

“For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.”

There are situations that emerge as grey areas. Issues where the answers are not clear-cut. The rest of 1 Corinthians 13, however, shows us the direction. The first eight verses elaborate on the nature and the power of love. The last verse, verse 13, makes it clear how critically important love is.

The lesson to be learned from this is that when our knowledge and insight do not give us clear answers, then we must prayerfully do what love asks of us — that which is in the best interest of all involved and to the glory of God (Matthew 22:37-40).

In the well-known Matthew 5:38-48, Jesus describes how far love for one’s neighbour must truly extend. Turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. These principles have so much practical value that even in a secular world they give substance to the psychological foundation of conflict resolution. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes — only then do you understand their emotions and motives. A sincere apology prepares the ground for reconciliation. And the most important rule of all is: seek together for a solution that is in everyone’s interest.

But not all problems always have easy answers. Sometimes we must agonise over a decision. It may be necessary in situations where we do not see the light, to prayerfully leave the matter to God and trust that He will address it in His time and in His way. Isaiah 49:8:

“In the time of my favour I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you.”

Something to reflect on: Which problems have no clear answer for you? What about euthanasia, the termination of a pregnancy that poses risks to mother and child? What do we think about transgender issues? Are there always clear-cut answers? Does the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:37-48 mean that I must always sacrifice myself? Where do I draw the line? Is it not perhaps the case that if I am too self-sacrificing, I enable the other person’s misconduct and ultimately harm other people as well? Today contraception is the norm, but in the middle of the previous century it was considered unchristian. What would the reasoning behind that have been? How do we handle a situation where a child or other loved one makes choices with which we have a principled objection? Do we understand that we cannot control everything? Do we understand that love must be preserved and that there are matters we must leave in the hands of the Lord? And that we must reflect on what the Lord may want to teach us through it. Things such as humility, dependence on Him, a deeper empathy with our neighbour, and such things.

---

Lees VerderRead More

IdeologieëIdeologies

13. Ideologieë

‘n Ideologie kan ligweg beskryf word as ‘n stel voorkeure en denkwyses, hoofsaaklik op ekonomiese, kulturele, politieke en religieuse gebied. Ideologieë is geneig om denke te oorheers en hulle eie beginsels te ontwikkel. Dit voorsien mettertyd die riglyne vir die aanhangers se lewe. Voorbeelde is sosialisme, kapitalisme, nasionalisme, patriotisme, liberalisme en marxisme. Daar is ook oorvleueling tussen sekere ideologieë. Patriotisme en nasionalisme loop byvoorbeeld dikwels hand aan hand. Maar dit is ‘n komplekse onderwerp. Mense se uitsprake word soms oorinterpreteer en dan word hulle te maklik as aanhangers van ‘n ideologie bestempel.

Iemand wat aan ‘n vryemarkstelsel glo is nie noodwendig ‘n kapitalis nie. ‘n Kapitalis is eerder iemand wat glo aan ‘n survival-of-the-fittest ekonomie, met geen of absolute minimum staatsinmenging en met die ruimte om vir sy eie gewin alle kompetisie uit die weg te probeer ruim. Eiebelang staan voorop.

Net so ‘n persoon wat lief is vir sy land. Hy is nie noodwendig ‘n aanhanger van patriotisme nie. Patriotisme is ‘n oordrewe weergawe van vaderlandsliefde waar die vaderland verabsoluteer word en dit van ander mense verwag word om dieselfde waarde daaraan te heg.

Politieke kommentators word soms as kommuniste, liberaliste of nasionaliste uitgekryt bloot omdat hulle bepaalde standpunte kritiseer of ondersteun.

Is ideologieë onchristelik? ‘n Ware ideologie se beginsels en denkwyses kan nie maklik aan Bybelse riglyne voldoen nie. Daarom is die antwoord, “ja, waarskynlik”. Maar dit is makliker om sekere ideologieë as onchristelik uit te ken as ander. Die moeiliker gevalle is waar ‘n ideologie hom tot ‘n mate in die gelowige gemeenskap kom tuismaak het. Die Bybelse beginsel wat ons in ‘n wêreldse omgewing moet nastreef is om in harmonie met mekaar en die wêreld te leef. Om bewus te wees van die balk in die eie oog. As ons spesifieke wêreldse sienings verhef en verabsoluteer dan neig dit na eiebelang en skade aan die belange van ander en dit beïnvloed ons gesindheid teenoor ander.

Om oor na te dink: Kies ‘n ideologie en beskryf sy eienskappe. In wie se belang is dit? Kan ‘n gelowige daardeur op ‘n dwaalspoor verlei word? Is daar ‘n verskil tussen onmin tussen volke en onmin tussen individue? Kan ‘n persoon se liefde vir sy volk ooit verskonend of versagtend werk? Hoe verklaar ons dit dat iemand wat in sy onmiddelike omgewing na ander uitreik en baie goed doen, maar nie wroeg oor die skade en geweld wat een groep mense teenoor ‘n ander pleeg nie? Byvoorbeeld oorlogsituasies waar die ander party se mense, burgerlikes inkluis, gedood en hulle lewens verwoes word. En wat sê ons vandag van slawerny?

---

13. Ideologies

An ideology can be loosely described as a set of preferences and ways of thinking, mainly in the economic, cultural, political, and religious spheres. Ideologies tend to dominate thought and develop their own principles. Over time they provide the guidelines for their adherents’ lives. Examples include socialism, capitalism, nationalism, patriotism, liberalism, and Marxism. There is also overlap between certain ideologies. Patriotism and nationalism, for example, often go hand in hand. But this is a complex subject. People’s statements are sometimes over-interpreted and then they are too easily labelled as adherents of an ideology.

Someone who believes in a free market system is not necessarily a capitalist. A capitalist is rather someone who believes in a survival-of-the-fittest economy, with no or absolute minimum state intervention and with the freedom to try to eliminate all competition for personal gain. Self-interest comes first.

Similarly, a person who loves his country is not necessarily an adherent of patriotism. Patriotism is an exaggerated form of love of country where the fatherland is absolutised and others are expected to attach the same value to it.

Political commentators are sometimes branded as communists, liberals, or nationalists simply because they criticise or support certain positions.

Are ideologies unchristian? A true ideology’s principles and ways of thinking cannot easily comply with biblical guidelines. Therefore the answer is, “yes, probably.” But it is easier to identify certain ideologies as unchristian than others. The more difficult cases are where an ideology has to some degree made itself at home in the believing community. The biblical principle we must pursue in a worldly environment is to live in harmony with one another and the world. To be aware of the plank in one’s own eye. If we elevate and absolutise specific worldly views, it tends towards self-interest and harm to others’ interests, and it affects our attitude towards others.

Something to reflect on: Choose an ideology and describe its characteristics. In whose interest is it? Can a believer be led astray by it? Is there a difference between conflict between peoples and conflict between individuals? Can a person’s love for their people ever serve as an excuse or mitigating factor? How do we explain that someone who reaches out to others in their immediate environment and does much good, yet does not agonise over the damage and violence that one group of people inflicts on another? For example, war situations where the other party’s people, civilians included, are killed and their lives destroyed. And what do we say today about slavery?

---

Lees VerderRead More

FundamentalismeFundamentalism

14. Fundamentalisme

Sekere kerke, gelowe en opvattings word soms as fundamentalisties beskryf. Wat beteken dit en waar lê die probleem?

Fundamentalisme is nie ‘n selfstandinge ideologie nie, eerder ‘n ingesteldheid oor die interpretasie van beginsels en reëls. Die term word dikwels gebruik om godsdienstiges (enige geloof) te etiketteer wanneer hulle ‘n rigiede, ongenuanseerde en letterlike interpretasie van hulle geloofsbronne nastreef. Die term word ook gebruik om die rigiede aanhang van ander dogmas en ideologieë te beskryf.

‘n Bietjie anders gestel: ‘n (Geloofs)beginsel word bv. in isolasie geïnterpreteer en daaromheen ontwikkel dan reëls en formaliteite wat self beginsels word, wat letterlik nagestreef word en die risiko inhou dat die werklike saak waaroor dit gaan afgeskeep kan word. Bysaak word verhef tot hoofsaak of daaraan gelykgestel. Perspektief verdwyn. Fundamentalisme was deur die jare ‘n groot bron van tweespalt in gemeenskappe en kerke.

Geloof en kerk word vanuit sommige ongeloofskringe per definisie as fundamentalisties beskou, onder andere op grond van wat hulle noem die gelowiges se “verdoemenis van almal wat nie soos hulle glo nie”.

Jesus het die sakrament van die nagmaal ingestel deur kort voor sy kruisiging saam met sy dissipels in ‘n bovertrek aan die tafel te sit en die pasga te vier. Die gebruik in daardie tyd was dat die brood aan tafel gebreek word en dat wyn om die beurt uit ‘n beker gedrink word. Jesus het na die wyn verwys as sy bloed en na die brood as sy liggaam en die opdrag gegee dat daar voortaan wyn gedrink en brood geëet moet word tot sy gedagtenis.

Die essensie van die nagmaal gaan om die eet van die brood en die drink van die wyn ter nagedagtenis aan die kruisiging. Dit gaan nie om die bovertrek, die tafel of die tipe houer waarin die brood of die wyn is nie. Tradisie en gebruike deur die eeue het egter die plek (tafel) en die wyse waarop die wyn gedrink word (uit dieselfde beker of uit ‘n beker) ‘n eie waarde gegee en ‘n essensiële deel van die nagmaalviering gemaak. ‘n Benadering wat ‘n tyd lank taamlik roeringe in die kerk veroorsaak het.

‘n Ander voorbeeld gaan oor kleredrag. Die beginsel van respek en toewyding wanneer ons in die naam van die Here vergader is uitgebrei en spesifieke kleredragreëls het ontstaan. Vyftig jaar gelede was ‘n baadjie en das “verpligte” kerkdrag vir mans. Ook by kerkraadsvergaderings is pakke klere gedra. Vrouens het hoede, rokke en sykouse aangetrek kerk toe - langbroeke was taboe. Kinders het selfs kerkklere aangehad by die jaarlikse katkisasie-piekniek. Kulturele gebruike rondom die begrippe netjies en gepas is dus self verhef tot beginsels, ook nadat die kulturele gebruike verander het.

Om oor na te dink: Het styl en gebruike dan geen waarde in die kerk nie? Wat is die kruks van die saak? Sê die klemverskuiwing vanaf wettiese reëls en gebruike (Ou Testament) na die liefdesgebod (Nuwe Testament) dalk vir ons iets in hierdie verband?

---

14. Fundamentalism

Certain churches, faiths, and views are sometimes described as fundamentalist. What does this mean and where does the problem lie?

Fundamentalism is not an independent ideology, but rather a disposition concerning the interpretation of principles and rules. The term is often used to label religious people (of any faith) when they pursue a rigid, unqualified, and literal interpretation of their sources of faith. The term is also used to describe the rigid adherence to other dogmas and ideologies.

Put slightly differently: a (faith) principle is, for example, interpreted in isolation and around it rules and formalities develop that themselves become principles, which are pursued literally and carry the risk that the real matter at hand can be neglected. Secondary matters are elevated to primary matters or equated with them. Perspective disappears. Fundamentalism has over the years been a major source of division in communities and churches.

Faith and church are by definition regarded as fundamentalist from some unbelieving circles, based among other things on what they call the believers’ “condemnation of everyone who does not believe as they do.”

Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper by sitting at the table with his disciples in an upper room shortly before his crucifixion and celebrating the Passover. The custom at that time was to break bread at the table and to drink wine in turn from a cup. Jesus referred to the wine as his blood and to the bread as his body and gave the instruction that henceforth wine should be drunk and bread eaten in his remembrance.

The essence of the Lord’s Supper concerns the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine in remembrance of the crucifixion. It is not about the upper room, the table, or the type of vessel in which the bread or wine is placed. Tradition and customs through the centuries, however, gave the place (table) and the manner in which the wine is drunk (from the same cup or from a cup) its own value and made it an essential part of the communion celebration. An approach that for a time caused considerable upheaval in the church.

Another example concerns dress code. The principle of respect and dedication when we gather in the name of the Lord was expanded and specific dress code rules arose. Fifty years ago a jacket and tie were “compulsory” church attire for men. Suits were also worn at church council meetings. Women wore hats, dresses, and stockings to church — trousers were taboo. Children even wore church clothes to the annual catechism picnic. Cultural customs surrounding the concepts of neat and appropriate were thus themselves elevated to principles, even after the cultural customs had changed.

Something to reflect on: Do style and customs then have no value in the church? What is the crux of the matter? Does the shift in emphasis from legalistic rules and customs (Old Testament) to the commandment of love (New Testament) perhaps tell us something in this regard?

---

Lees VerderRead More

Geloof en WetenskapFaith and Science

15. Geloof en Wetenskap

Ongelowiges stel geloof en wetenskap meestal teenoor mekaar, met ander woorde onversoenbaar. In hulle oë gaan geloof oor aannames en mites, terwyl wetenskap oor die logiese bewys van dinge gaan.

Gelowiges ontken glad nie die rol van logika nie. Dit word ook nie onderbeklemtoon nie. Inteendeel, logika is ‘n inherente komponent van ‘n wêreld wat ordelik geskape is. God het die wêreld wetmatig geskape. Dit is onderworpe aan reëls wat in logiese verband met mekaar in die natuur opereer. Die Bybel is baie duidelik daaroor. Die volgorde waarin die wêreld geskape is, maak hierdie wetmatigheid duidelik - Genesis 1.

Die aansprake op die wonderwerke van God word soms gebruik as argument dat die Bybel en geloof teenoor die wetenskap staan. Maar dit is baie ver van die waarheid. Die normale gang van sake is juis dat die wêreld deur die natuurkragte wat God geskep het, onderhou word. God gebruik wonderwerke om in die verloop van sake in te gryp en so sy almag te openbaar. As die werking van natuurwette nie die normale gang van sake bepaal en voorgestel het nie, sou wonderwerke nie kon plaasvind nie. Die vernaamste wonderwerk was die Skepping self waardeur die wêreld en die natuurwette ontstaan het.

Dit is ook moontlik dat bepaalde wonderwerke in die Bybel mettertyd deur die wetenskap verklaar kan word. Toe dit plaasgevind het, sou mense nie so ‘n verklaring verstaan het nie en het dit dus as ‘n wonderwerk ervaar. In so ‘n geval is die natuur juis op daardie stadium deur God ingespan om die mens te laat besef dat Hy in beheer is en die gang van sake bepaal. Hoe hierdie dinge gebeur het, sal ons eers later werklik weet.

Maar dat die wêreld ordelik (wetmatig) geskape is deur ‘n Skepper wat buite die wêreld en die natuurwette staan, is ‘n kernkomponent van die Christelike geloof. Die Skepper is nie self aan die natuurwette onderhewig nie en kan dit verander of ophef, tydelik of permanent.

Ons vind ‘n grondige uiteensetting van die wetmatige funksionering van stof, plant, dier en mens in die Wysbegeerte van die Wetsidee van die Nederlandse Calvinistiese filosoof, Herman Dooyeweerd.

---

15. Faith and Science

Unbelievers usually set faith and science against each other, in other words as irreconcilable. In their eyes, faith is about assumptions and myths, while science is about the logical proof of things.

Believers do not at all deny the role of logic. Nor is it underemphasised. On the contrary, logic is an inherent component of a world that was created in an orderly fashion. God created the world with laws. It is subject to rules that operate in logical relation to one another in nature. The Bible is very clear about this. The order in which the world was created makes this lawfulness clear — Genesis 1.

The claims about the miracles of God are sometimes used as an argument that the Bible and faith stand opposed to science. But this is very far from the truth. The normal course of events is precisely that the world is sustained by the natural forces that God created. God uses miracles to intervene in the course of events and so reveal his omnipotence. If the operation of natural laws had not determined and constituted the normal course of events, miracles could not have taken place. The foremost miracle was Creation itself, through which the world and the natural laws came into being.

It is also possible that certain miracles in the Bible can in time be explained by science. When they took place, people would not have understood such an explanation and therefore experienced it as a miracle. In such a case, nature was precisely at that stage employed by God to make humanity realise that He is in control and determines the course of events. How these things happened, we will only truly know later.

But that the world was created in an orderly (lawful) manner by a Creator who stands outside the world and the natural laws is a core component of the Christian faith. The Creator is not himself subject to the natural laws and can change or suspend them, temporarily or permanently.

We find a thorough exposition of the lawful functioning of matter, plant, animal, and human in the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea of the Dutch Calvinist philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd.

---

Lees VerderRead More

Kwessies waarmee die ongelowige wêreld gelowiges voortdurend konfronteerIssues with Which the Unbelieving World Continually Confronts Believers

16. Kwessies waarmee die ongelowige wêreld gelowiges voortdurend konfronteer

Die argumente wat ons die meeste hoor is dat daar geen bewys van die bestaan van ‘n Opperwese is nie, dat die Bybel homself weerspreek, dat geloof ‘n psigologiese verskynsel is, dat ‘n liefdevolle God tog nie al die lyding op aarde sou toelaat en selfs veroorsaak nie, dat gelowiges deur die eeue self baie liefdeloos was - onder andere kolonialiste en Afrikaner-nasionaliste, dat die wonderwerke in die Bybel opgemaakte stories is en dat die wetenskap toenemend alle vrae beantwoord en vraagstukke oplos. Hiervolgens is die sogenaamde psigologiese rol en waarde van ‘n Opperwese besig om te vervaag. En dan natuurlik dat daar geen grond vir die gesag van die Bybel is nie. Ons kyk na ‘n paar hiervan.

Die bestaan van ‘n Opperwese

Die skeptiese aantyging vanuit ongelowige geledere is nie eerstens dat daar nie ‘n Drie-enige God is nie, maar dat daar nie ‘n Skepper is nie. En as daar nie ‘n Skepper was nie, dan verval die gesprek oor Christus en die Heilige Gees outomaties. Die debat gaan dus wesenlik oor ‘n Skepper en die algemene vraag is: “Waar is die bewys?”

Die eerste belangrike punt is dat die nie-bewys van iets nie beteken dat dit nie bestaan nie. Dit beteken net dat daar nie genoeg onafhanklike getuienis beskikbaar is waaruit die bestaan sonder twyfel afgelei kan word. Of anders gestel, as persoon A ‘n anonieme skenking maak, maar daar is nie getuienis om sy identiteit te bewys nie, neem dit nie die feit weg dat persoon A wel die skenker was nie.

Oor die vraag wie, wat in ‘n debat moet bewys, kan mens ook sê dat die persoon wat beweer dat daar nie ‘n Opperwese is nie, ook ‘n bewyslas het. Hy kan sekerlik sê dat hy nie aan God glo nie, maar as hy onomwonde verklaar dat daar nie ‘n God is nie, dan moet hy ook sy eie stelling kan bewys, of erken dat dit ook op aanvaarding of geloof berus.

Die verskil tussen gelowiges en ongelowiges is dat eersgenoemde se stelling dat daar ‘n God is op ‘n kombinasie van (Bybel)kennis en vertroue berus. Hy gee nie voor dat hy ‘n wetenskaplike stelling maak nie. Hy maak ‘n geloofsverklaring (met getuienis wat dit ondersteun).

God openbaar homself in die Bybel en in die natuur. En daar is getuienis vir die bestaan van God in die natuur - let wel, nie eenduidige bewys nie, maar sterk getuienis. Ons kan dit eenvoudig so stel: Waar kom alles vandaan? Hoe het alles begin? Die Heelal (ruimte-tyd en dit daarbinne) het ‘n begin gehad. En iets wat ‘n begin het, moet ‘n oorsaak hê wat buite dit self staan. ‘n Skepper of skeppingsmag kan nie self binne die raamwerk en die wette staan van dit wat hy skep nie. Dink bietjie hieroor na.

Dit is nie net filosofiese denke wat sê dat die heelal ‘n begin gehad het nie. Die wetenskap vertel ook vir ons vandag dat die wêreld ‘n begin gehad het. ‘n Skeppingsmag buite die wêreld moes daardie begin aan die gang gesit het. Anders kon daar nie ‘n begin gewees het nie. Ja, daar is hipoteses oor opeenvolgende heelalle (bv. deur die fisikus Roger Penrose), maar die meeste fisici, selfs ongelowige fisici, byt (nog) nie daaraan nie.

‘n Ander redenasie ten gunste van intelligente skepping gaan oor kompleksiteit. Hoe meer kompleks ‘n samestelling is, hoe groter is die kans dat dit deur ‘n ingryping van buite (‘n onafhanklike skepper) veroorsaak is.

Michael Behe, professor in biochemie van die Lehigh Universiteit, het na indringende studie van lewensstelsels tot die konklusie gekom dat die samestelling van lewenstelsels (DNA en RNA strukture en liggaamsfunksies) so kompleks en afhanklik van mekaar is dat dit nie afgebreek kan word tot onafhanklike komponente nie. Met ander woorde, dit kon nie natuurlik ontwikkel het tot lewe nie, omdat daar te veel komponente is wat van die ander afhanklik is en nie opsigself tot stand kon kom nie. Lewensvorme moes dus opeens deur ‘n skeppingsproses tot stand gekom het.

‘n Voorbeeld waaroor onsself kan nadink is die sogenaamde natuurlike ontwikkeling van verskillende geslagte (genders). Kan ons ons enigsins indink dat dit die resultaat van spontane natuurlike ontwikkeling is?

Die argument van ongelowiges is dat die wetenskap toenemend aantoon hoe natuurlike ontwikkeling plaasvind, onder andere deur seleksie, mutasie en die oorlewing van die sterkste. En dat dit die finale verklaring bied. Maar soos hierbo aangetoon, is dit ‘n argument sonder bewys en met sy eie doolhowe en beperkings.

Aan die ander kant vind ons ook dat gelowiges wat die Ou Testamentiese beskrywings deurgaans letterlik en in isolasie, eerder as perspektiewelik, interpreteer, hulle ook soms vasloop teen dit wat deur die natuur geopenbaar word.

‘n Ordelike Skepping

Ons het reeds genoem dat die wêreld deur God op ‘n ordelike wyse geskape is. Ruimte, tyd, stof, plant, dier en mens het daardeur tot stand gekom. Die kernboodskap van Genesis 1.

Daar is baie aspekte van die Skepping wat glad nie, of net in ‘n beperkte mate, in die Bybel geopenbaar word. Die grootte, struktuur, samestelling en werking van die Heelal kry baie min aandag en waar dit wel beskryf word, word dit dikwels deur middel van metafore gedoen om dit vir die eerste lesers verstaanbaar te kon maak.

Om die natuur in die Bybel te beskryf in terme van ‘n uitdyende heelal, ‘n aarde wat om die son draai en die son as ‘n baie middelmatige ster wat as deel van ‘n sonnestelsel om die kern van ‘n groter stelsel wentel, asook in terme van mikroskopiese deeltjies en kwantumfisika, sou nie die doel van die Bybelse openbaring gedien het nie.

Die Bybel is nie ‘n wetenskaplike handboek nie. Die tema is Skepping, Sondeval en Verlossing. Nie ‘n uiteensetting van hoe alles geskape is nie. Dit is nie die essensie van die skriftuurlike openbaring nie en sou ook nie vir die lesers in ‘n voorwetenskaplike wêreld sin gemaak het nie.

Dit is verder belangrik om in ag te neem dat die ordelikheid en wetmatigheid van die natuur soos ons dit vandag ken, nie beteken dat ons in ‘n volmaakte natuurlike wêreld lewe nie. Dit is ‘n gebroke wêreld met droogtes, oorstromings, aardbewings, siektes en botsings tussen hemelligame. Dit is nog nie die Nuwe Aarde nie.

Kreasionisme en Ewolusionisme

As ons die rol en interaksie tussen die Skepping en natuurlike ontwikkeling (ewolusie) wil verstaan, moet ons ook onderskei tussen die begrippe Skepping en Kreasionisme, asook Ewolusie en Ewolusionisme.

Ons het reeds oor die Skepping gepraat. Kreasionisme verwys na ‘n fundamentalistiese siening wat die Skepping en ontstaan van alles wat ons vandag ervaar tot letterlik ses dae beperk en geen ruimte vir verdere natuurlike ontwikkeling toelaat nie.

Ewolusionisme verwys na ‘n spontane proses van ontstaan en ontwikkeling waar alles oor tyd plaasvind en waar daar geen Skepper was nie.

Wat sê ‘n Christengelowige dan van ewolusie? Is dit ‘n onbybelse begrip? Ewolusionisme ontken die bestaan van ‘n Skepper en is per definisie onbybels. Die Bybel praat nie oor ewolusie nie en daar is ook nie ‘n dwingende rede vir die Bybel om daarmee om te gaan nie, net soos wat daar talle ander natuurverskynsels is waarna nie in die Bybel verwys word nie.

‘n Tweede belangrike punt is dat die Bybel nie ons enigste openbaringsbron is nie. Die natuur is self ook ‘n algemene bron van openbaring wat deur sy struktuur en die werking van natuurkragte tot ons spreek. Die natuur en die wetenskap wys vir ons die verskynsel van orde, ontwikkeling, natuurlike seleksie, verbetering en vooruitgang. Maar dit wys ook dat dit nie ‘n eenrigtingverkeer is nie. Daar is ook agteruitgang en uitsterwing.

Die werklike belangrike punt is dat God die wêreld ordelik en dus wetmatig geskape het. Dit laat ruimte vir verdere ontwikkeling in plant, dier en mens. Ruimte vir die ontwikkeling van nuwe spesies waarvan sommige sal floreer en ander weer mettertyd verdwyn. En ons weet ook dat God in die werking van die natuur kan ingryp en dinge in ‘n nuwe rigting kan stuur, via mutasies, natuurrampe, reën, droogte, siekte, gesondheid, nuwe wetenskaplike ontdekkings, of wat ook al.

Die siening dat alles natuurlik en sonder Goddelike beskikking ontwikkel het, is duidelik onbybels. Presies hoe God plant, dier en mens geskape het (in fisiese terme beskryf) is nie deurslaggewend nie. Wat deurslaggewend is, is die ingrypende, onoorbrugbare verskil tussen die mens en die dier. Die mens is geskep met die inherente vermoë om in ‘n bewuste geloofsverhouding met God te lewe, en ook die geloof te kan verwerp. Dit is die kernverskil tussen mens en dier. Die res is graadverskille. Die Bonobo-sjimpansee en die mens se DNA stem byna 99% ooreen. Maar dit maak hierdie sjimpansee nie amper mens nie. Hy is nie “meer mens” as ‘n hond of ‘n kat nie.

Om oor na te dink: Daar is reeds baie ontdekkings gemaak van prehistoriese mense wat selfs as ander spesies geklassifiseer word. Die moderne mens en die Neanderthal-mens het skynbaar gemeng en afstammelinge geproduseer. Wat sê ons hiervan? Wat sê ons van die ontdekking van primitiewe mensvorms wat ‘n gebrekkige taal/kommunikasievermoë gehad het?

Menslike lyding en die liefde van God

Een van die groot wapens in die arsenaal van die ongelowige, meer bepaald diegene wat nie in ‘n liefdevolle God glo nie, is die vraagstuk van menslike lyding. Daar is twee verskynsels daarvan wat bespreking verdien.

Die eerste is hoe ‘n liefdevolle God soveel lyding op aarde kan toelaat, ook onder gelowiges? Verder nog, lyding wat nie net deur ongelowiges veroorsaak word nie, maar ook deur gelowiges.

Die antwoord vind ons primêr in die volgende gedagtes. Ons lewe in ‘n gebroke wêreld veroorsaak deur die Sondeval. Met die Sondeval het God dit duidelik gemaak dat verdriet en lyding die mens se lot sal wees, beginnende by Adam en Eva wat God self geken het. Maar God het ook deur die eeue deurlopend onverdiende genade betoon en die mens kon oorleef. Dit sal so wees tot aan die einde.

As ons logies daarna kyk, dan weet ons dat omdat ons in ‘n gebroke wêreld leef, goed en kwaad aan mekaar betekenis verleen. Ons sal nie weet wat goed beteken as ons nie ook kwaad ken nie. En jy kan nie die begrip kwaad werklik ken as jy dit nie self kan ervaar nie, as dit net met ander gebeur nie. Is die wese van die keuse om goed te doen nie juis daarin geleë dat die persoon die kwaad kon gekies het, maar dit nie gedoen het nie?

Dit is natuurlik nie ‘n gemaklike antwoord nie, veral nie as jy self erg beproef word nie. Dink aan iemand wat ‘n kind verloor het, ‘n parapleeg raak, verkrag is of deur ‘n langdurige pynlike lyding gaan sonder enige hoop op beterskap. Ons lewe in ‘n tyd van stryd met ‘n gebroke wêreld en gebroke mense. En ons verstand en begrip is ook nie daarvan kwytgeskeld nie. Die hoop vir die gelowige lê daarin dat God in beheer is en dat ons aan die einde van ons lewe op hierdie wêreld by Hom sal wees.

‘n Verdere gedagte hieroor is dat mense dikwels jare nadat hulle beproef is of hulle lewens baie skeefgeloop het, gesê het dat hulle later tog die waarde van die beproewing besef het en dat hulle eintlik daardeur verryk is. Dit is natuurlik nie ‘n sprokie nie. Soms is die trauma en lyding net te erg om dit as verrykend te kan ervaar. Nee, ons verstaan nie alles nie.

Die tweede voorbeeld van erge wreedheid en lyding het mense deur die eeue al baie besig gehou, naamlik die opdrag van God aan die Israeliete om die Kanaäniete uit te wis - man, vrou, kind en al hulle diere. Hier gaan dit nie net oor ‘n keuse tussen goed en kwaad nie, maar oor ‘n opdrag van God om volke of gemeenskappe geheel en al uit te wis.

Daar was al pogings om dit te verstaan of te verklaar as iets simbolies wat nie werklik presies so gebeur het nie. Maar om dit as ‘n simboliese of metaforiese beskrywing te verklaar, oortuig nie. Dit is nie net enkele stellings wat gemaak word of ‘n enkele insident nie. In Josua en Rigters word die verowering van Kanaän in ‘n uitgebreide historiese styl en konteks beskryf. Ons moet aanvaar dit het gebeur. Dalk nie oral in die detail soos beskryf nie. Ons kan ook aanvaar dat nie elke besondere aspek daarvan beskryf is nie. Daar mag komponente wees wat nie geopenbaar is nie.

Maar wat sê ons daarvan? Die eerste is dat die Kanaäniete deel is van die menslike ras wat verdoeming verdien. Tweedens het hulle God verwerp en vir eeue lank baie onreg gepleeg en gewelddadig gelewe. Vrouens en kinders het by hulle nie dieselfde waarde gehad as vandag nie. Hulle het byvoorbeeld babas lewendig verbrand as offers vir die vuurgod Molek.

In Genesis 15:16 sê God aan Abraham dat die verbondsvolk hulle eers vier geslagte later in Kanaän sal kom vestig want:

“Dan eers sal die ongeregtigheid van die Amoriete sy volle maat bereik het.”

Die Kanaäniete het dus minstens vier geslagte lank tyd gehad om hulle te bekeer.

God se hart is dat alle mense hulle sal bekeer en gered sal word, en nie dat mense gestraf moet word en moet sterf nie. In verse soos Esegiël 33:11 sien ons God se hart:

“Sê vir hulle: So seker as Ek leef, sê die Here my God, Ek wil nie hê die sondaar moet deur sy sonde sterf nie, Ek wil hê hy moet van sy optrede afsien en lewe. Bekeer julle van julle bose optrede! Waarom wil julle sterf, Israel.”

En weereens baie belangrik, ons verstaan net ten dele. Ons ken die wil en plan van God net ten dele. Daar sal altyd aspekte van die lewe wees wat ons nie 100% verstaan nie. As ons elke enkele gebeurtenis kon verklaar, dan was ons gelyk aan God. Dit moet ons ook erken en aanvaar.

---

16. Issues with Which the Unbelieving World Continually Confronts Believers

The arguments we hear most often are that there is no proof of the existence of a Supreme Being, that the Bible contradicts itself, that faith is a psychological phenomenon, that a loving God would surely not allow and even cause all the suffering on earth, that believers themselves have been very unloving through the centuries — including colonialists and Afrikaner nationalists, that the miracles in the Bible are fabricated stories, and that science is increasingly answering all questions and solving all problems. According to this view, the so-called psychological role and value of a Supreme Being is fading. And then of course that there is no basis for the authority of the Bible. We look at a few of these.

The Existence of a Supreme Being

The sceptical charge from unbelieving quarters is not primarily that there is no Triune God, but that there is no Creator. And if there was no Creator, then the conversation about Christ and the Holy Spirit automatically falls away. The debate is therefore essentially about a Creator and the common question is: “Where is the proof?”

The first important point is that the non-proof of something does not mean it does not exist. It only means that there is not enough independent evidence available from which the existence can be deduced beyond doubt. Put differently, if person A makes an anonymous donation, but there is no evidence to prove his identity, this does not take away the fact that person A was indeed the donor.

On the question of who must prove what in a debate, one can also say that the person who claims there is no Supreme Being also bears a burden of proof. He can certainly say that he does not believe in God, but if he declares unequivocally that there is no God, then he must also be able to prove his own claim, or acknowledge that it too rests on acceptance or faith.

The difference between believers and unbelievers is that the former’s claim that there is a God rests on a combination of (biblical) knowledge and trust. He does not pretend to make a scientific claim. He makes a declaration of faith (with evidence that supports it).

God reveals himself in the Bible and in nature. And there is evidence for the existence of God in nature — note well, not unambiguous proof, but strong evidence. We can put it simply: Where does everything come from? How did everything begin? The universe (space-time and that which is within it) had a beginning. And something that has a beginning must have a cause that stands outside of itself. A Creator or creative power cannot itself stand within the framework and the laws of that which he creates. Consider this carefully.

It is not only philosophical thinking that says the universe had a beginning. Science also tells us today that the world had a beginning. A creative power outside the world must have set that beginning in motion. Otherwise there could not have been a beginning. Yes, there are hypotheses about successive universes (e.g., by the physicist Roger Penrose), but most physicists, even unbelieving physicists, do not (yet) accept them.

Another argument in favour of intelligent creation concerns complexity. The more complex a composition is, the greater the likelihood that it was caused by an intervention from outside (an independent creator).

Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, concluded after thorough study of living systems that the composition of living systems (DNA and RNA structures and bodily functions) is so complex and interdependent that it cannot be broken down into independent components. In other words, it could not have developed naturally into life, because there are too many components that are dependent on the others and could not have come into being on their own. Life forms must therefore have come into being at once through a creative process.

An example we can reflect on ourselves is the so-called natural development of different sexes. Can we in any way imagine that this is the result of spontaneous natural development?

The argument of unbelievers is that science increasingly shows how natural development takes place, through selection, mutation, and survival of the fittest, among other things. And that this provides the final explanation. But as shown above, this is an argument without proof and with its own dead ends and limitations.

On the other hand, we also find that believers who consistently interpret Old Testament descriptions literally and in isolation, rather than in perspective, also sometimes run into conflict with what is revealed through nature.

An Orderly Creation

We have already mentioned that the world was created by God in an orderly fashion. Space, time, matter, plant, animal, and human came into being through this. The core message of Genesis 1.

There are many aspects of Creation that are not at all, or only to a limited extent, revealed in the Bible. The size, structure, composition, and workings of the universe receive very little attention, and where it is described, it is often done through metaphors to make it comprehensible for the first readers.

To describe nature in the Bible in terms of an expanding universe, an earth that orbits the sun, the sun as a very average star that as part of a solar system orbits the centre of a larger system, as well as in terms of microscopic particles and quantum physics, would not have served the purpose of biblical revelation.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. The theme is Creation, Fall, and Redemption. Not an exposition of how everything was created. This is not the essence of scriptural revelation and would also not have made sense to readers in a pre-scientific world.

It is furthermore important to take into account that the orderliness and lawfulness of nature as we know it today does not mean that we live in a perfect natural world. This is a broken world with droughts, floods, earthquakes, diseases, and collisions between celestial bodies. This is not yet the New Earth.

Creationism and Evolutionism

If we want to understand the role and interaction between Creation and natural development (evolution), we must also distinguish between the concepts of Creation and Creationism, as well as Evolution and Evolutionism.

We have already spoken about Creation. Creationism refers to a fundamentalist view that limits Creation and the origin of everything we experience today to literally six days and allows no room for further natural development.

Evolutionism refers to a spontaneous process of origin and development where everything takes place over time and where there was no Creator.

What then does a Christian believer say about evolution? Is it an unbiblical concept? Evolutionism denies the existence of a Creator and is by definition unbiblical. The Bible does not speak about evolution and there is also no compelling reason for the Bible to deal with it, just as there are numerous other natural phenomena to which the Bible does not refer.

A second important point is that the Bible is not our only source of revelation. Nature itself is also a general source of revelation that speaks to us through its structure and the workings of natural forces. Nature and science show us the phenomena of order, development, natural selection, improvement, and progress. But they also show that it is not a one-way street. There is also decline and extinction.

The truly important point is that God created the world in an orderly and therefore lawful manner. This allows room for further development in plant, animal, and human. Room for the development of new species, some of which will flourish and others will in time disappear. And we also know that God can intervene in the workings of nature and steer things in a new direction — through mutations, natural disasters, rain, drought, disease, health, new scientific discoveries, or whatever else.

The view that everything developed naturally and without divine providence is clearly unbiblical. Exactly how God created plant, animal, and human (described in physical terms) is not decisive. What is decisive is the profound, unbridgeable difference between human and animal. The human being was created with the inherent ability to live in a conscious faith relationship with God, and also to be able to reject that faith. This is the core difference between human and animal. The rest are differences of degree. The bonobo chimpanzee and the human share nearly 99% of their DNA. But this does not make this chimpanzee almost human. It is not “more human” than a dog or a cat.

Something to reflect on: Many discoveries have already been made of prehistoric humans who are even classified as different species. Modern humans and Neanderthals apparently intermixed and produced descendants. What do we say about this? What do we say about the discovery of primitive human forms that had a limited language/communication ability?

Human Suffering and the Love of God

One of the great weapons in the arsenal of the unbeliever, more particularly those who do not believe in a loving God, is the question of human suffering. There are two aspects of this that deserve discussion.

The first is how a loving God can allow so much suffering on earth, also among believers? Furthermore, suffering that is not only caused by unbelievers, but also by believers.

The answer is found primarily in the following thoughts. We live in a broken world caused by the Fall. With the Fall, God made it clear that sorrow and suffering would be humanity’s lot, beginning with Adam and Eve who had known God personally. But God also continually showed undeserved grace through the centuries and humanity could survive. This will be so until the end.

If we look at it logically, we know that because we live in a broken world, good and evil give meaning to each other. We would not know what good means if we did not also know evil. And you cannot truly know the concept of evil if you cannot experience it yourself, if it only happens to others. Is not the essence of the choice to do good precisely that the person could have chosen evil, but did not?

This is of course not a comfortable answer, especially not if you yourself are severely tested. Think of someone who has lost a child, becomes a paraplegic, has been raped, or goes through prolonged painful suffering without any hope of recovery. We live in a time of struggle with a broken world and broken people. And our understanding and comprehension are not exempted from this either. The hope for the believer lies in the fact that God is in control and that at the end of our life in this world we will be with Him.

A further thought on this is that people often, years after they were tested or their lives went badly wrong, have said that they later came to realise the value of the trial and that they were actually enriched by it. This is of course not a fairy tale. Sometimes the trauma and suffering are simply too severe to experience as enriching. No, we do not understand everything.

The second example of severe cruelty and suffering has occupied people through the centuries, namely God’s command to the Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites — man, woman, child, and all their animals. Here it is not just about a choice between good and evil, but about a command from God to completely wipe out peoples or communities.

There have been attempts to understand or explain this as something symbolic that did not actually happen exactly as described. But to explain it as a symbolic or metaphorical description is not convincing. It is not just a few statements being made or a single incident. In Joshua and Judges, the conquest of Canaan is described in an extended historical style and context. We must accept that it happened. Perhaps not everywhere in the detail as described. We can also accept that not every particular aspect of it was described. There may be components that were not revealed.

But what do we say about it? The first thing is that the Canaanites are part of the human race that deserves condemnation. Secondly, they had rejected God and for centuries committed much injustice and lived violently. Women and children did not hold the same value among them as today. They burned babies alive as offerings to the fire god Molech, for example.

In Genesis 15:16, God says to Abraham that the covenant people would only come to settle in Canaan four generations later because:

“For the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

The Canaanites therefore had at least four generations to repent.

God’s heart is that all people would repent and be saved, and not that people must be punished and must die. In verses such as Ezekiel 33:11 we see God’s heart:

“Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’”

And once again, very importantly, we only understand in part. We know the will and plan of God only in part. There will always be aspects of life that we do not understand 100%. If we could explain every single event, then we would be equal to God. This too we must acknowledge and accept.

---

Lees VerderRead More

Die Eindtyd en die Wederkoms van ChristusThe End Times and the Second Coming of Christ

17. Die Eindtyd en die Wederkoms van Christus

Voorspellings oor die eindtyd, die tyd net voor die wederkoms van Jesus, is ‘n gewilde tema van mense wat hulleself as profete voordoen en ook van sekere sektariese genootskappe. ‘n Mens hoor minder daaroor in die konvensionele kerke.

Die valse profete wat voortdurend die tekens van die eindtyd propageer, doen dit of omdat hulle hulleself op ‘n onskriftuurlike dwaalweg bevind of om hulle eie belange te bevorder. Dit kan ‘n finansiële belang wees of die bou van ‘n selfbeeld. Die deurmekaar wêreld wat ons tans ervaar en die groeiende sekularisme voed hierdie tipe profesieë.

Laat ons in die proses nooit vergeet nie dat die wêreld in die afgelope 2000 jaar al baie erger tye deurgemaak het as wat tans die geval is.

Ons weet nie wanneer dit sal gebeur nie. Dit kan binnekort gebeur, of oor ‘n honderd jaar, of oor ‘n duisend jaar. Mattheus 24:36 sê baie duidelik:

“Tog ken niemand die presiese datum en tyd wanneer hierdie dinge sal gebeur nie – ook nie die engele of selfs die Seun nie. Dit weet net die Vader.”

Jesus maak dit in Mattheus 24 duidelik dat daar valse profete sal kom wat die mense sal mislei oor die eindtyd. Hy noem rampe soos aardbewings, hongersnode en oorloë wat egter nog nie die einde is nie. Hy noem dit “geboortepyne” (vers 8), die begin van die nuwe tyd.

Die Christen se antwoord op valse profesieë moet wees om te fokus op dit wat Jesus in Mattheus 24 as die kritiese aspek voorhou, naamlik volharding in die geloof te midde van ‘n mensdom wat toenemend sy rug daarop draai.

Ons kan nie uit dit wat ons in die wêreld sien gebeur aflei dat die wederkoms met ons is nie. Mattheus 24:27 sê:

“Die koms van die Seun van die mens sal wees soos ‘n weerligstraal wat in die ooste uitslaan en die hele lug ruim tot in die weste verlig.”

En vers 42:

“Bly dus waaksaam omdat julle nie weet watter dag julle Here kom nie.”

Ons moet daarna uitsien en altyd voorbereid wees. Net soos wat ek voorbereid moet wees dat die einde van my eie lewe enige tyd kan aanbreek en dat dit net so lotsbepalend vir my is as die wederkoms van die Seun van God.

---

17. The End Times and the Second Coming of Christ

Predictions about the end times, the period just before the return of Jesus, are a popular theme among people who present themselves as prophets and also among certain sectarian groups. One hears less about it in the mainstream churches.

The false prophets who continually propagate the signs of the end times do so either because they find themselves on an unscriptural path of error or to advance their own interests. This may be a financial interest or the building of a self-image. The chaotic world we currently experience and the growing secularism feed these types of prophecies.

Let us never forget in the process that the world has gone through far worse times in the past 2,000 years than is currently the case.

We do not know when it will happen. It could happen soon, or in a hundred years, or in a thousand years. Matthew 24:36 says very clearly:

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 24 that false prophets will come who will deceive people about the end times. He mentions disasters such as earthquakes, famines, and wars that are nevertheless not yet the end. He calls these “birth pains” (verse 8), the beginning of the new age.

The Christian’s response to false prophecies must be to focus on what Jesus presents in Matthew 24 as the critical aspect, namely perseverance in the faith amid a humanity that increasingly turns its back on it.

We cannot deduce from what we see happening in the world that the second coming is upon us. Matthew 24:27 says:

“For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

And verse 42:

“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.”

We must look forward to it and always be prepared. Just as I must be prepared that the end of my own life could come at any time and that it is just as destiny-determining for me as the second coming of the Son of God.

---

Lees VerderRead More

Ten SlotteIn Conclusion

Ten Slotte

• Die Drie-enige God is in beheer van die wêreld
• Die mens het gesondig en verdien die ewige verdoemenis
• Die liefdevolle en genadige God het ons gered
• Ons moet dit glo, God voortdurend loof en dank en liefde aan ons medemens betoon
• Ons lewe in ‘n gebroke en sondige wêreld wat ons net ten dele verstaan, maar met die vaste vertroue dat God ons in sy hand hou
• Wanneer die tyd wat God beskik aanbreek, leef ons by Hom op ‘n Nuwe Aarde in Ewige Saligheid

Lees die Bybel elke dag, met groot aandag en beleef jou verhouding met God aktief.

Gaan lees ook verder - insiggewend en verrykend:

• Timothy Keller
  • Walking with God through pain and suffering
  • The Reason for God
• Norman Geisler & Frank Turek
  • I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist
• C.S. Lewis
  • Mere Christianity
• Ratiochristi.co.za en Antwoord.org - webblaaie wat die Christelike geloof verdedig.

Samesteller: Douw Krüger - douwk1@gmail.com

In Conclusion

• The Triune God is in control of the world
• Humanity has sinned and deserves eternal condemnation
• The loving and gracious God has saved us
• We must believe this, continually praise and thank God, and show love to our fellow human beings
• We live in a broken and sinful world that we only partially understand, but with the firm trust that God holds us in his hand
• When the time that God ordains arrives, we will live with Him on a New Earth in Eternal Bliss

Read the Bible every day, with great attention, and experience your relationship with God actively.

Further reading — insightful and enriching:

• Timothy Keller
  • Walking with God through pain and suffering
  • The Reason for God
• Norman Geisler & Frank Turek
  • I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist
• C.S. Lewis
  • Mere Christianity
• Ratiochristi.co.za and Antwoord.org — websites that defend the Christian faith.

Compiler: Douw Kruger - douwk1@gmail.com

Lees VerderRead More