Editor’s Note: The AMI QT devotionals for today are provided by Pastor Ryun Chang (Ph.D.) who is the AMI Teaching Pastor. He and Insil have been married for 28+ years and they have three children: Christy (teacher), Joshua (grad student) and Justin (college freshman). They live in Philadelphia.
Devotional Thoughts for Today
Acts 2:22-3 (NASB)
[Apostle Peter’s sermon] Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with]miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
Which animal you see in the picture depends on where your focus is: a gaze to the left will show a duck, to the right, a rabbit; but as whole, this image contains both a duck and a rabbit. I first saw this image in a book extolling postmodernism that, to ensure that Eurocentric thoughts no longer dominate the rest, has relativized all truth claims. This is why religious pluralism— belief that all religions lead to the same God—emerges as a child of postmodernism.
So, should we eschew seeing our reality, including the Bible, in terms of either/or? Again, it depends. Some matters are quite clear as to which position the Bible advocates. For instance, it doesn’t say “God exists” and “God doesn’t exist” at the same time. Whereas the writer of Hebrews says, “He exists” (11:6), the psalmist calls those who say, “There is no God,” a “fool” (Ps. 14:1). God’s existence, then, is a matter of either/or.
Now, in church history, one of the fiercest theological battles has been fought between the Calvinists and the Arminians. Regarding God’s election (that God predestines some to be saved), whereas the Calvinists posit that its basis is His deliberative plan (Eph. 1:11) that has nothing to do men’s merit, the Arminians say that the basis is God’s foreknowledge (1 Pet. 1:2). That is, God, “having foreseen men’s potential faith” chose “those who would turn to Him when they heard the gospel” (Hammond). But they do agree on one thing: this is a matter of either/or, and that both positions cannot be right at the same time. But Peter’s sermon suggests otherwise. Talking about those who played a critical part in crucifying Jesus, he says that it was done based on God’s “predetermined plan” as well as His “foreknowledge” of men’s future action.
Folks, accept that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility is always a matter of both/and—not either/or. God, having long worked out His plan, has revealed His general will to us in the Scripture; therefore, it is our responsibility to know it and then obey. So today, instead of torturing yourself to make sense of this theological mystery with some logic, read the Scripture and pray to discern what God is saying to you. Then just do it.
Prayer
Dear Lord, I magnify Your majestic Name. I worship You with all my heart and mind. Thanks for Your magnificent Word. Forgive me for having such a cavalier attitude and the arrogance with which I handle Your Word. May the Spirit continue to illuminate its deep truths throughout 2016. May I obey it. Amen.
Bible Reading for Today: Genesis 23
![]()
Lunch Break Study
Read John 16:33b: “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace.”
Matt. 19:34: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
Matt. 23:23: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.”
Question to Consider
- What apparent problem emerges as a result of reading John 16:33 and Matt. 19:34?
- What logic is found underneath what Jesus tells the Pharisees in Matt. 23:23?
- So, should we choose between John 16:33 and Matt. 19:34? If not, then how can we reconcile these apparently contradicting verse?
Notes
- The apparent problem is contradiction: Jesus seems to be talking from both sides of the mouth. He says He came to give peace, and then He says its exact opposite—not peace but a sword.
- The logic found in Matt. 23:23 is both/and. Jesus tells the Pharisees to practice justice, mercy and faithfulness, something they had neglected for a long time. But they shouldn’t stop tithing, which they had been doing. (Practice this and not neglect that, not practice this or not neglect that.)
- We should accept the propositions of both John 16:33 and Matt. 19:34. As for reconciling this, Jesus’ death on the cross to pay for the penalty of our sins, broke the barrier standing between God and men. So, “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). As for the sword, this happens when “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 5:6). This also occurs when our desire to obey God conflicts with the will of our loved ones (Mk. 3:33-4).
![]()
Evening Reflection
How was your day? The “both/and” paradigm is also very useful in reconciling relationship conflicts. When we just interpret the conflict according “my” perspective, it actually gets worse. Think of a relationship problem that you are experiencing presently. Meditate on 1 John 1:8 (“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”) and ask the Lord to empower you to see the other person’s side as well. Then, reconcile with that person by making that call or writing to him/her.
When my kids were little, I would remind them how it was going to ruin their vision whenever they would read in a moving vehicle. It worked for awhile—until my oldest son showed me a research that disapproved it. Similarly, some things told from the pulpit may just be urban theological legends. Before proceeding, remember this: in order for the teachings in Acts to be deemed as valid for today, they need to be confirmed by the Epistles that delineate doctrines and practices normative for the church.
The word “formalism” conjures up images of liturgical church (e.g., Lutheran, Episcopalian); but it can also be found in emotion-filled Pentecostal churches. Once, as my wife and I were returning home from a Charismatic meeting where I spoke, she told me that someone had asked her whether she was a Christian. During the prayer time when everyone prayed out really loud, the sight of my wife praying quietly was a dead giveaway to this person that she wasn’t saved: that’s formalism, which is a strict adherence to some behavior arbitrarily selected as most pleasing to God and then judging those who fall short.
Editor’s Note: The AMI QT devotionals for January 23-4 are provided by Christine Li. Christine graduated from University of Pennsylvania and currently lives and works in New York City. She attends Remnant Church in Manhattan.
I am sure all of us have been delivered from trouble unexpectedly before. Maybe you forget your calculator for an exam but someone shows up with an extra one. Or maybe you are running late to the train station and a friend happens to drive by and gets you there speedily. Just as glad as you are that someone saved, it’s likely that the other person is even happier to have been in the right place at the right time.
Editor’s Note: The AMI QT devotionals for January 23-4 are provided by Christine Li. Christine graduated from University of Pennsylvania and currently lives and works in New York City. She attends Remnant Church in Manhattan.
During summer vacations, my gang of cousins and I would compete in earning money. We received pennies from our aunts for different chores— folding laundry, sweeping the floors, etc. When any one of us thought he or she had collected a sufficient amount, we would announce that we could treat the entire family to a pizza feast. One of my aunts would then take that cousin to the store: the cousin would pay with that hard-earned money, and our aunt would ‘fill in a little bit’ on the spot.
Whenever the late evangelist Chun Suk Lee, a physically imposing man, spoke, people listened; I certainly did in 1982 when he said to me, “God gave you the gift of language.” I had no clue as to what he meant.
I wonder how Jerry Rankin, then-President of the International Mission Board, felt as the vote was being counted. In 2005, the board members of this Southern Baptist Convention organization voted on whether to accept anyone who speaks in tongues as its missionary candidates. The board overwhelmingly decided against it. Rankin, who had been speaking in tongues for 30 years, couldn’t have felt too comfortable.
Surely, no likes to wait in line—especially for a long time. However, if we want something bad enough, we’re willing to put up with a sleepless night, shiver in the cold, and wait in order to get that thing—in my case (1980), it was to purchase a ticket to the Bruce Springsteen concert. But it was pure elation once I had the ticket in my pocket, even though it cost me a night’s sleep.
What’s harder than replacing Tom Brady as the quarterback for New England Patriots? Try replacing the father of a teenager girl. That’s the predicament an old friend faced when he married a woman with a daughter in the middle school. Unfortunately, to the daughter he was never more than an unworthy replacement—it didn’t end well.
Ironically, the Civil Rights Movement, led by Baptist minister Martin Luther King, wasn’t the most popular movement then, even among African-Americans. That honor was shared by the militant Black Panther Party that launched violence against the white power structure, and the Nation of Islam that aimed, not for racial desegregation, but a complete separation from whites. Its leader Malcolm X even called King a “‘chump’ and other civil rights leaders ‘stooges’ of the white establishment.’”