Y Safle

In case you were wondering how the Internet works, US Senator Ted Stevens, representing Alaska and legislating to destroy the Internet experience for Americans, gave us this wonderful definition:

The Internet is not something you just dump something on. It’s not a truck.

It’s a series of tubes.

So now you know.

“Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.”

Joel 2:15,16

Joel calls the people to pray and fast before their God. He has called them to repentance, and now he stresses the urgency of the situation. Everyone is called to this great assembly, even the children and babies, and the point is reinforced when we hear that even bride and groom are called to attend.

This situation was urgent. There could be no tarrying, and no one could be left out. The whole nation was called to an assembly before God. The congregation was called together to become once again a consecrated people before their God.

Now then, surely God calls us to do the same. Surely the onus is upon us to gather together in solemn assembly. Each member of each church must surely assemble together and pray and fast and plead before the Lord that he may heal his land.

God says: “If my people who bear my name [and CHRISTians bear His name] will humble themselves and pray… then I will heal their land.”

O Lord, I pray for my land which suffers under the dual yokes of a dry and dead formalism within its churches and a moral depravity beyond the churches which suffocates the believers and blinds the unbelievers.

The church, it seems, is a dry branch. All the cells that make up the branch are there, but there is no life therein, because the sap has dried up and has not been replenished.

Lord, remake us. Revive us. Send the fountains of living water, the water of your Spirit. Send the water that the branch might once again be green and living.

But why is the water not flowing? Has God withdrawn his Spirit for no reason? Of course not!

If I break a branch from the trunk of a tree then of course it will die. It is not because there is no more water, but because the branch is no longer connected to the source of its supply of water.

“For my people have committed two sins. They have turned away from me, the fountain of living water and they have hewn out cisterns for themselves. Broken cisterns that can hold no water.”

So said God to Jeremiah, and so he says now.

Let us turn back to the fountain of living water. Let us all turn back. Each and every one of us. The time to turn back is now and we all are called to turn to him. Call a solemn assembly. Sanctify the congregation. Declare a fast.

Internet Protocol Version 6 is the imminent next generation Internet Protocol, which amongst other things will replace the four byte IPv4 addressing scheme we use now (numbers like 193.1.2.3) with a 16 byte addressing scheme.

Steve Gibson discussed IPv6 on his Security Now Podcast (number 25), and as I have said elsewhere, made a few errors, but this bit was interesting:

STEVE:  [...]  So we have, you know, 4.3 almost billion IPs currently[in the IPv4 addressing scheme]. Well, 28 bits for addressing, which is what IPv6 gives us, is really out of control.  That’s 3.4 times 10 to the 38th power.  That’s 340 billion billion billion billion IPs.  So…

LEO:  That should be enough, at least until we conquer a few more galaxies, I think.

Okay, lets look at the numbers. With an equitable distribution of IPv4 addresses (and we don’t have an equitable distribution of addresses) we would not have enough addresses for everyone on the planet. As I am not atypical in having a home network of ten or more devices, all needing an IP address, the IPv4 range starts to look very small (especially as nearly half the address range is essentially wasted. Ford motor company have more IP addresses available to them than are available to the whole of China!)

So what does IPv6 give us? Steve Gibson says 28 bit addressing. From 16 bytes? How do we get that? 16 bytes = 128 bits doesn’t it? Where did the other 100 bits go?

Well actually Steve mispoke (or maybe he has been mistranscribed) because the figures he quotes next assume 128 bits of addressing. A 128 bit range allows theoretically for 2.4 x 10³⁸ addresses. Leo says this is enough until we conquer some more galaxies. Actually, this is just enough. Forever!

How do I know? Well the number of stars in the universe is currently estimated to be about 10²². That means that we have, in IPv6, a theoretical 3.8 x 10¹⁶ addresses for every star in the universe. On the very silly assumption of one inhabited planet revolving around every star in the universe, each with a population of the size of Earth, each planet in the universe could have over 6 million IP addresses for every single inhabitant!

It is enough addresses.

But actually, 128 bits are not available for unicast IP addressing in IPv6. When Steve Gibson says that 28 bits or 128 bits is what we have in IPv6, he ignores the structure of the addresses.

64 bits of every IPv6 address are reserved for the host id on a network, and the remainder are split up into different classes. The important class for IPv6 addressing as we commonly understand IP addressing are the aggregatable global unicast addresses, which have a total of 61 bits available for addressing, but these bits are split into smaller blocks, as shown

These allow aggregation of the addresses for routing purposes by various authorities. There is a top level aggregation (TLA), next level (NLA) which might be an ISP and site level aggregation (SLA) which could be a company or university or somesuch.

That company can then set up multiple site networks from its 16 bit allocation. Each one of these networks can have 2⁶⁴ nodes which is nearly 2 x 10⁹ on any single network.

Now assuming we could network together our nodes at a minumum distance of 1 metre apart, we could build a single network end to end, all the way from Aberystwyth (where I am writing this) to the M25.

No, not the M25 London orbital car park. The M25 star cluster in the constellation of Sagittarius, some 2000 light years away.

This would give us an end to end round trip time on the network of 4000 years (plus a few milliseconds processing latency), which is not terribly fast. Indeed we might wonder whether it would be better to have a smaller network using the IP over Avian Carriers protocol (RFC 1149 and RFC 2549)instead!

This post is quoted from a section of the Martyn Lloyd-Jones book “Prove All Things”. It relates to the teaching of the secret rapture which I have mentioned in a previous post or two.

“There has been a teaching which has gained great popularity in evangelical circles, concerning what is known as ‘the secret rapture of the saints’. It teaches that the Lord at his second coming will appear only to his saints, and that they will be raptured into the heavens secretly with nobody seeing it, nobody knowing anything at all about it; all they will know is that suddenly the saints will have gone.

“I wonder whether you know the history and the story of that teaching? The people who hold it seem to assume that this has always been the teaching of the church, that it is true biblical teaching, but do you know its history? The answer is that this teaching was first put forward in 1830. It had never been heard before.

“How then did it start? The answer is most interesting; again we must bring in the name of Edward Irving. In about 1830 the people who had become known as the Plymouth Brethren, including such names as J.N.Darby, B.W. Newton and S.P.Tregelles, and others of the early first leaders of the Brethren movement, began to gather together with Edward Irving and some of his followers to hold what they called Prophetic Conferences. They became interested in the whole doctrine of the Lord’s second coming, and they said, ‘This has been neglected and we must look into it and we must examine it.’

“So they held conferences at a place called Powerscourt. And it was in connection with those conferences that this whole idea of the secret rapture of the saints came in. We have the authority of S.P. Tregelles, a great and famous biblical scholar, who tells us how it happened in a book he wrote called ‘The Hope of Christ’s Second Coming.’ In it he says, ‘I am not aware that there was any definite teaching that there should be a secret rapture of the Church at a secret Coming until this was given forth as an ‘utterance’ [notice his inverted commas] in Mr Irving’s church from what was then received as being the voice of the Spirit. But whether anyone ever asserted such a thing or not it was from that supposed revelation that the modern doctrine and the modernphraseology respecting it arose.’ Tregelles attended these conferences, so he speaks with authority.

“In Edward Irvings church they claimed that the gifts of the spirit had all been restored, prophetic utterances among them, and it was through one of these supposed utterances of the Spirit that this idea of the secret rapture of the saints came in. So this was something that they claimed the Spirit had given as a direct revelation, and they acceptied it. What is amazing is that a man like J.N.Darby accepted it, but he did, and he continued to teach it, and it has been taught commonly ever since then. … (Incidentally, J.N.Darby very soon saw the dangerous tendencies in Edward Irving and entirely broke with him, but he continued to accept the secret rapture solely as the result of what claimed to be prophetic utterance.)”

It is almost a part of evangelical orthodoxy these days that a “gospel message” will be followed by an invitation for people to stand up and come forward if they would like to respond to that message. This orthodoxy was introduced by Finney, who had ideas on mechanising (my word, not his) revivals. Finney thought that if we did everything to meet the conditions for revival, then revival would indeed follow.

This was not evangelical orthodoxy. From the puritans through to the great awakening, the view was that revival was a sovereign act of God. The role of preaching was to challenge and inform the mind. The role of the Holy Spirit was to convict and cause someone to yield to Christ.

Charles Spurgeon was asked why he did not use altar calls at the end of his meetings. They told him: “Mr Spurgeon, you must strike whilst the iron is hot”. Spurgeon replied: “If God heats the iron, then it will stay hot.”

But even though this may be a modern Finneyist accretion to our church practice, is there not some benefit in inviting people to yield to Christ? Can people not be saved in such circumstances? R T Kendall came to the view that they could, so he wrote “Stand up and be Counted”. It is a good book, and makes a case for a low key invitation at the end of a meeting.

I don’t have a problem with R T Kendall’s thesis, as long as we recognise the dangers. It has been my experience that people who responded in meetings where emotional calls to the front were made, quickly fell away again when the emotion faded away.

But we can recognise that the Holy Spirit may be convicting people in a meeting, and if we let them leave a service without exploring issues further, we are not helping them answer the question that they may have: what must I do to be saved?

I think, therefore, that it is not wrong to say that people who want to discuss further or pray with someone can meet in a vestry or some other private space.

I don’t think we should ask people to march up to the front and pray a sinners prayer whilst gentle music is played to encourage them. That is substituting emotion for the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

I have often been told by Pentecostals: “I believe that it is absolutely necessary for all to speak in tongues to God”. That is an exact quote from one such person.

My response is to ask: “Did Paul say that everyone must, as a part of the normal Christian experience, speak in tongues?”

Why is it necessary that I speak in tongues? Won’t prayer and praise to God do just the same, and yet with the engagement of my mind?

If it is necessary that we all speak in tongues, how did John Wesley survive as a preacher without doing so? How did George Whitefield so faithfully serve his God? How could Jonathan Edwards deliver his great sermon: “Sinners in the hands of an Angry God”, without speaking in tongues?

In fact, if tongues are “necessary” for all Christians, then how is it that there are so few “tongues-speakers” of stature in the Christian church?

There are of course notable exceptions: Stephen Jefferies for instance, who (according to D. Martyn Lloyd Jones) did more to spread the gospel in the 1930s then any other man in the church of that day. We might also look at Paul Y Cho, or David Wilkerson.

When one takes a balanced look at church history I think it is evident that tongues speaking neither adds to, nor detracts from the life and work of the saints. It is no more necessary then the ability to sing well, but both tongues and singing voices are gifts of God, and both are edifying and intensely spiritual experiences.

If God gives one the ability to speak in toungues, who am I to say that the experience is wrong, but who is he to say the experience is necessary?

I noticed in my logs a search from somebody wanting information on whether Paul wrote 1 Timothy and the pastoral epistles. I offer this article in answer to that question:

Many people have argued that the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles is highly questionable, but I would argue that the case against Pauline authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus is far from proven.

The principle objections to the Pauline authorship are:

1. Dating of the epistles

2. Stylistic problems both in grammar and word usage

I know there are other minor issues, but these are perhaps the strongest arguments put forward by critics of Pauline authorship, but the arguments are not as strong as they look.

The dating problem is better understood in the context of Paul being imprisoned in Rome, released to continue his journies before returning to Rome once more where he was imprisoned and executed. In other words, the book of Acts does not describe all of
Paul’s ministry, and after the first imprisonment there is further ministry that goes unrecorded. This also helps satisfy the tradition that Paul may have travelled as far as Spain on his missionary journies. We thus can suppose that Paul died a little later than some have supposed, giving time for the writing of the pastoral epistles. Fuller discussion of this scenario can be found in J N D Kelly’s commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (A & C Black).

Certainly the pastoral epistles seem to have been written from prison. Now we know that Paul made use of a scribe (technically called an amanuensis) when writing his letters (possibly because his writing was less compact than that of the scribes, thus wasting precious paper).

Now a modern view of a scribe would understand that this was a form of dictation, where words are copied down verbatim by the scribe, but this was probably not the case in New Testament times. It is likely that the writer of the letter (Paul) would dictate his letter and the scribe would write it from memory later, returning to the writer to check its accuracy. More
focused memories (not corrupted by modern easy-view entertainment) would make this quite feasible.

Now as Paul was in prison the scribe is even more likely to have worked in this way, visiting Paul and then going away to write the pastoral epistles that Paul wrote. He probably was using a different scribe from that employed in his earlier letters (particularly if that scribe was in fact Timothy), so the stylistic differences and different vocabulary can be understood to be based on the fact that the scribe did not write Paul’s words verbatim, but rather wrote the letters from memory.

The epistles are still clearly Pauline (in the same sense any of the letters are) but the scribes own vocabulary and style is seen in the letters also.

Now it seems to me that, whilst this point of view is not proven, there is no good reason based on style, dating nor any other factor to rule out the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epsitles. It is up to the doubters to disprove his authorship, and thus far there is no compelling reason to believe that authorship disproven.

“And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God…”

“Who knows if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?”

Joel 2:13,14

I recently heard of a group that was teaching that God’s blessing upon the western nations in revival was imminent. The teaching is not new, I have heard similar “prophecies” many times over years.

I certainly hope and pray that these words are true, and that God will pour forth his blessing upon his weak and feeble church, for she so desperately needs to know the Spirit of God once again in Pentecostal power. However, there is a condition which has not yet been fulfilled, and that is the condition of repentance.

“Rend your heart…for who knows if God will return…and leave a blessing behind him.”

The teaching is there, in black and white – if God’s church is barren and empty (and it is), and it needs to see his blessing (which it does), then we must rend our hearts. We must turn to God and repent and then maybe he will move amongst us.

Of course, I cannot promise God will do that. Anyone who says that revival comes when man has met all the conditions is in error. If we had to meet all of God’s conditions upon us we would never see revival, just as we would never be saved if we had to meet God’s Holy standard of perfection in our lives.

However, the one condition of repentance is essential. Let us repent and turn to the Lord our maker. Let us throw ourselves at his feet and cry out to him for his mercy, and then maybe he will return to his people.

Let us also learn once again the meaning of the old phrase “to plead the promises”. We do not name a promise and then claim it, but we acknowledge the sovereignty of our God, and we humbly come before him and plead that he might see fit to pour out a blessing upon us.

Our Lord is gracious, abounding in steadfast love and great mercy. Let us humbly come and confess our sins before Almighty God.

I commented on MinTheGap’s blog yesterday in answer to the question of why did Paul say “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than any of you [Corinthians]“?

I repeat some of the answer here, but it leads to some questions in our own Church life unrelated to the gifts issue that we could perhaps explore.

I think Paul believed that tongues were a language of prayer, and that he who speaks in a tongue speaks only to God (prayer through the agency of the Holy Spirit). This is why he tells the Corinthians that prayer in tongues must be interpreted, so that others may say the amen and agree with that prayer. This is why he speaks of praying with his spirit and also praying with his mind.

If we accept this point, then Paul is actually saying “I thank God that I pray more than you do”!

But why would he say something like that?

It is clear that the Corinthian error was pride and arrogance. They were “puffed up”. They broke into parties, some following Paul, some following Apollos and others saying (perhaps), “we are above all this. We just follow Christ”. This pride led to dissension and disunity, and to puffed up boastful people doing unchristian things (be it approval of immorality, or shouting away in unknown tongues in a church service so that no one could understand what was going on, and probably could not hear – as they seemed to be doing so all at once).

It is hard to imagine the disorder of the Corinthian church service, without having been there – but Paul felt the need to reign in this excess. He has had a report of what is going on, and he writes to the Corinthians. When he comes to this excess he writes (literally):

“Now concerning spirituals, I would not have you ignorant…”

I think Paul is saying “now concerning those of you who think yourself so spiritual, as you shout out in tongues in the Church service in your pride”. He goes on to speak of the gifts of the Spirit, but it is a valid interpretation to say that this is what Paul was saying in 1 Cor 12:1 (the NIV footnotes it for instance).

So Paul seems to be saying that you proud tongues prayers are disrupting the Church service, as you show off your spiritual gifts – but I thank God that I pray in tongues more than any of you. Paul is saying that they are not as spiritual as they think, and that boasting before men is disorderly, disruptive and not glorifying to God.

I trust that the Corinthians heard Paul’s message. Pride in our outward worship is still the very same error. When we sing loudly, pray long, dance or engage in any other demonstrable worship in our Church life, why do we do it? Are we as exuberant and devoted in our private moments? Do we dare pray for a full ten minutes in public, if we would not spend an hour in prayer beforehand?

How much of our church worship (with or without demonstrations of tongues and such like) is done for our own edification, rather than the glory of God? How much “spiritual experience” is nothing more than feeding our own pride and need for significance?

Why do so many people think that the loud churches are the spiritual ones?

I have written enough on this site that people should be able to judge where I am coming from. But I would like to make the site more visible, and encourage more cross links into it.

If you have a blog covering some of the same issues – even if you do not agree with me on these issues, then post a comment to say that you will link to me, and I will look at your blog and add you to my blogroll (my links have a comment, so I’ll say if I strongly disagree with you on everything, but I will still add the link).

Thanks.