Conference yukon::christian_v7

    I read the article featured in .0 with fascination.  I was waiting for
    the author to say something about what we ought to do with pain. 
    Surely he wasn't suggesting that we seek pain to get pleasure.  Surely
    he wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't seek remedies for the illnesses
    that plague humanity.
    
    I found it extremely interesting the contrast of the U.S. disease
    concerns and those in India; behavior-related versus contagious
    and nonbehavior-related.  One would have hoped that once the scourge of
    disease, such as dysentery and the like was eliminated, we would live
    in comfort and pleasure.  
    
    The author adds, "In a village in India, I grew up in stern conditions
    of heat and cold, hunger and good food, birth and death.  Now, living
    in a technologically advanced society, I am tempted to view all
    discomfort as a problem to be solved.  We silence pain when we should
    be straining our ears to hear it; we eat food too fast and too much and
    take a seltzer; we work too long and too hard and take a tranquilizer.
    (The three best-selling drugs in the U.S. are a hypertension drug, a
    medication for ulcers, and a tranquilizer.)  In western countries, and
    astounding proportion of health problems stem from behavior choices
    that show disregard for the body's clear pain signals."
    
    Fascinating text.  But it doesn't answer what to do with those who are
    caught in pain.  The authors mother worked to relieve the pain in
    others and in this _strenuous_ work in India, she gathered much
    happiness and satisfaction.  When the author attempted to persuade her
    to retire at 69, she responded, "Paul, you know these mountains.  If I
    leave, who will help the village people?  Who will treat their wounds
    and pull their teeth and teach them about Jesus?  When someone comes to
    take my place, then and only then will I retire.  In any case, why
    preserve this old body if it is not going to be used where God needs
    me?"
    
    That was the answer for me; at least one answer: "why preserve this old
    body if it is" going to be used for anything but God's purpose?
    
    We view pain two ways:  "yours" and "mine."  Please understand what I
    am about to write.  My pain causes me difficulty in thinking of
    anything but myself.  "Your" pain causes me pity, perhaps. Compassion,
    perhaps.  Maybe indifference.  Maybe self-righteousness.
    
    Jesus did bring relief from suffering.  But you know, Jesus
    suffered immensly.  His disciples were martyred.  So what is the
    overall scheme of things?  My next reply will attempt to address some
    of this.

    I have heard of Christianty described as a crutch for the poor, week,
    and oppressed people.  Part of this description was applied to slavery
    in America.  The promise of a future reward in heaven was the big IOU
    for all the suffering here on earth.
    
    For many of us, had we the choice, we might accept a little pain and a
    little reward, foregoing the jackpot because in the scheme of things it
    seems to imply that the jackpot comes at a dear cost.
    
    Because of the subjectivity of pain, (my pain, your pain), it is not an
    easy thing to see the grand scheme of pain and pleasure.  Is it indeed
    a pair of siamese twins, or are they opposites?
    
    We all know that struggle helps us to grow, to become better persons. 
    We prefer to fly down the expert ski slope to "grow."  This is a
    glorious risk.  Speeding around a race track, or jumping out of an
    airplane.  We prefer not to experience the struggle of sickness,
    hardship, and pain; especially when it happens to us.
    
    Especially poignant is pain that occurs as the result of behavior. We
    find then (too late) that had we known how bad the pain would be, we
    might have avoided the risky behavior.
    
    I agree with the author that, as Americans, we want the pleasure
    without the risk of pain.  I also do not think one is necessarily
    predicated on the other, because I think pleasure can be experienced
    without having previously known pain (either to compare or contrast).
    A hot fudge sundae doesn't have to taste good because something else
    was bad.  It can taste good and give pleasure on its own.  Yet, the
    authors comments on the reasons and nature for pain is good cause for
    consideration.
    
    The facts of the Bible tell us that it will rain on both the just and
    the unjust.  Both types are going to get wet.  For whatever reason, it
    does seem that some people get more rain than others.  And we cry
    "Foul!  It is not fair!"  I think of the rich man and Lazarus the
    beggar.  The rich man in hell pleaded with Abraham, such that if he
    could not be comforted (with the tip of a finger dipped in water
    applied to his tongue) he sought to warn his brothers who were destined
    for the same fate if they did not change.  (Sort of like Marley and
    Scrooge, don't you know?).  Abraham replies almost matter of factly,
    "they have Moses and the prophets... if they do not listen to them,
    they will not believe you if you rose fromthe dead to tell them."
    
    This matter of fact reply speaks to me that life here on earth is at
    best temporal.  And like Paul Brand's mother, what good is being rich
    and comfortable here if there will be no comfort whatsoever.  The
    athiest is correct to be self-indulgent, because if there is no God,
    then all there is in life worth seeking is pleasure.  "Life sucks, then
    you die" is a popular axiom by fatalists.
    
    The just and the unjust will suffer in this world.  Christians have a
    hope in Christ (hope being a certainty of something that will be
    fulfilled, but has yet to be fulfilled).  And the promise of -rest-
    after toiling this earth is one based on the integrity of God by His
    Word.  And if happiness is great drops of rain on bare skin in a dry
    and dusty land, what will it be to have the tears of this world wiped
    away by the King of the Universe?
    
    Mark
    
    
    

    John Smith was visited one day by Jesus.  Jesus told him that he was
    very pleased with His devotion and had the power to enable John to live
    the rest of his life without struggle or suffering, and he offered it
    to John.  But before He would grant this, he wanted to show John the
    end from the beginning for each of his options.  

    So Jesus took John into the future of John who chose no more strife in
    life, to the day John entered heaven. On his way, he saw Mary Jones
    walking the other way, sad, dejected, headed for destruction.  He was
    surprised, for he knew Mary to be a sincere Christian.

    And He also saw old man Perry also heading in the other direction, one
    of the pillars of the church.  "Surely," he thought, "Jim Perry should
    have made it to heaven."

    Then Jesus backed up through time to the day John entered heaven again,
    this time at the point of entering heaven after a life of struggle and
    toil.  Mary Jones ran up to meet him and threw her arms around him.

    "You know, I watched you for many years, and nothing seemed to bother
    you, John Smith.  I was discouraged because my life was full of trouble
    and it wasn't fair that your Christian walk was a bed of roses.  I was
    ready to throw it all away because I thought Christianity made no
    difference at all.  But then someone told me of some of the struggles
    you were going through and I had no idea!  They were far worse than
    some of my petty concerns and yet you were always praising God for the
    wonderful things He was doing for you.  When I found that out, I was
    humbled and repented.  Thanks to your example and faithfulness to God,
    I am here today to tell you."

    Just then old man Perry bounded over.  "John!  John!  I am so glad to
    see you.  Do you know John that I owe you a debt?  Here I was some
    older gentleman in the church, and I should have been farther along in
    my Christian walk than you were, but I wasn't.  The plan fact was that
    I was jealous and bitter about how you seemed to be able to speak from
    experience and got all the attention that I wanted.  Oh it's okay,
    we're in heaven, we can call it what is was: the point is, when I found
    out how you came by those experiences, it tore my heart out.  I watched
    you go through some really trying experiences, John, and you always
    gave God the glory.  It humbled me, and I repented.  Oh, and look over
    there!  Those are some of the people who are here because of my
    witness, and I'm here because you were faithful in both the good times
    and the struggles; but mostly, I needed to see that love you had for
    God especially when the times were tough.  Thanks, John.  Thanks a
    lot!"  And with that he went off to rejoice with some others he'd
    brought in.

    Jesus took John Smith back to the present and offered John the rest of
    his life without pain and struggle.

    How would you answer, especially not having the knowledge of seeing the
    end from the beginning?

    Mark Metcalfe

    A very interesting story, Mark. Brings a couple of points to mind.
    First, is the view of once saved, always saved, is not evident here.
    I am not sure if this is the correct place to discuss that topic. If
    there is a topic for that, please direct me there, that I may begin
    comment, based on what I have learned.
    
    Second, the view of the non-believers. How would they view this? There
    is the view of: "Oh my, look at that Christian, he is so blessed, with
    good things. Surely his God is a God of goodness, let us seek his God"
    
    Or: "Oh no, look at that Christian. He has more troubles than I do! I
    would prefer not to know his God, as troubles will be constant, and the
    life I live is not filled with troubles, such as his."
    
    Which view will attract the unbeliever? If they haven't read the Word,
    they don't know of coming judgement. They think after this life, I go
    into the ground, and that is that. Thus the saying "The one who dies
    with the most toys wins." Wins what? A more comfortable casket?
    
    I remember years ago, reading books written by Harold Hill, and Merlin
    Carothers (sp?) in which they had MANY troubles, and praised God
    through them, and He delivered them. It was a contributing factor to my
    11 year backslide, as I said to God: "I wish not to endure those
    sort of things that you may be glorified, in my pain and sufferings."
    
    I know now it is better to endure, and praise, then turn, and face
    embarrasment at the judgement seat. To me, it was a choice of facing
    God, and hearing "Well done", or having Him wipe the tears from my
    eyes, as a result of my embarrasment for all the opportunities to do
    good, and not done, due to being too concerned for my own well being.
    
    Bob

Hi Bob...

�    First, is the view of once saved, always saved, is not evident here.
�    I am not sure if this is the correct place to discuss that topic. If
�    there is a topic for that, please direct me there, that I may begin
�    comment, based on what I have learned.

Seems to be something on that in 373...

�    Which view will attract the unbeliever? If they haven't read the Word,

Every view and picture can be argued 'for' and 'against' with fallen human
logic and reason.  In terms of comparing the wordly benefits achieved, bear 
in mind 
Matthew 6:21 :
	"Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also"
and Matthew 19:24 : 
	"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for 
	 a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"

What it looks like to the unsaved is irrelevant.  It's the state of the 
heart before God which matters.  The heart which is set on God will not let 
worldly wealth stifle it; nor will it be deterred by poverty.  the heart 
which is cold towards God will be affected by either of these extremes. The 
parable of the sower shows some choked out by weeds.

 "Two things I ask of You, O LORD;
    Do not refuse me before I die:
  Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
    give me neither poverty nor riches,
      but give me only my daily bread.
  Otherwise I may have too much and disown You 
      and say "Who is the LORD?"
  Or I may become poor and steal, 
      and so dishonour the name of my God."

						Proverbs 30:7-9

					Andrew

.4  Bob Shallow

Bob, 

  First is that OSAS and predestination are not necessarily synonymous.
If it was, the it should be simply saved and not "once saved."

  Second, assuming that a person can "become" saved but never lose it,
how is it that there is a choice to become saved but no choice thereafter?
These are some of the questions I have, and as Andrew suggested, note
373 is where people are beginning to discuss that there.

  Now to the point of a non-believer seeing a witness.

>    I remember years ago, reading books written by Harold Hill, and Merlin
>    Carothers (sp?) in which they had MANY troubles, and praised God
>    through them, and He delivered them. It was a contributing factor to my
>    11 year backslide, as I said to God: "I wish not to endure those
>    sort of things that you may be glorified, in my pain and sufferings."

  I common misconception is that serving God, or not serving God
exempts anyone from pain and suffering.  "It rains on the just and
the unjust."  It rained on Jesus.

  I'll tell you a secret: *I* do not wish to endure suffering.  I might
even go so far as to say I do not wish to glorify God in that manner.

  But do you see where the focus is?  Serving God is not based on God's
righteousness and mercy of salvation; it is based on my self-interests.

  Many of us can easily see that the "health and wealth" gospel lacks
reality.  Good people I know suffered and died painful deaths.  Yet, 
we have difficulty seeing that the "pain and suffering" gospel is equally
WRONG.  Will you have health and wealth? Maybe.  And in relative terms,
YES, you will.  Will you have pain and suffering?  Maybe? and in relative
terms, YES, you will.

  THESE THINGS ARE INDEPENDANT OF SERVING GOD. (No matter which "side" you 
choose, you will have conflict, and troubles.)  However, the reaction to
these things is DEPENDANT on serving God.  Those who serve God WILL react
differently to pain and suffering which tends to glorify God.  Does it
hurt any less?  I don't think so.

  The point of the story was not seeing another suffer, but the reaction
to suffering.  In fact, if you reread the story, the two people who 
testified of his faithfulness didn't realize (at first) that John Smith 
was suffering; they thought he had it easy, and it wasn't fair. (self focus.)  

  "It's just not fair!" How often have we heard that?  How often have we 
said that?

  Noone wants to be a Job.  Correction: no one wants to go what Job went 
through.  We don't mind the part where God brags about Job!  But the fact
remains that this world will beset us with ups and downs and the downs
stink.  How we react to them matters because three worlds are watching
on.

Mark

re .5
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with your reply, except for:

>>What it looks like to the unsaved is irrelevant.

We are called to be witnesses. That is for the unsaved. The saved don't need 
witnesses, as they have the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them into all truth.
True, the Holy Spirit also convicts the unsaved, to lead them to repentance, 
but it seems "We are a peculiar people, a chosen generation", is not for only
our benefit, but for the unbelieving to see us, either in riches, or in lack
of riches. The bottom line is for them to see the faith in God having results.

Whether in troubles, or in prosperity, they (the unsaved) need to see:

Romans 8:38

For I am persuaded that neither life, nor death, nor angels, nor principalities,
nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor
any other creation, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is
in Christ Jesus our Lord.

For when they see this, they shall come-a-runnin.

Gee, this could turn into a poor/prosperity note, or is it already? 8^)

re .6
Hi Mike!

I think once OSAS/predestination are synonymous. Once saved however, the person
can choose not to grow, to remain a "carnal Christian", as I did for years.

I serve God because I wish to be obedient, in opposition to my old nature, which
loved to be disobedient. But it learned it is better to die to self, and to
allow the new life (resurrection power of Christ, aka the Holy Spirit) to
live through me.

God causes/allows things in our (and I say the word our out of habit, 
for we are His, bought with a great price) lives to shape/form us into the 
image of His dear son. We can choose to be thankful for all things, or to not
be thankful. Which will God be most pleased with? And only faith pleases
God. So, if we believe that all things work together for good, for those who 
love God, and are the called according to his purpose, then either the good,
the bad and the ugly of it all will be used of God to shape us.
It is the obedience even unto death, that brings the life of Jesus in us, 
which shines infinitely brighter than I ever could, or would have, on my own.

In His love,

Bob

Hi Bob,

I meant that the idea that one view or another would bring more 
glory to God could seem 'right' or 'wrong' to the unbeliever, would be 
irrelevant.

It's not our reason that determines it, but our behaviour in the
circumstances, which should always glorify God. 

I was looking at the difference between our reason, and God's established 
fact, rather than between 'where we stand', and 'how we react'.

In fact, allowing for my syntax, we're saying the same thing here... ;-)

Re the Job situation, Mark, I believe that there is a place to reach which
has a preciousness; where one seems to have lost 'all' of the world, which
leaves one outwardly deprived of all, but enabling one to be *that* close 
to the LORD, and intensely aware that He, and He alone is real...  Coming
back to 'the world', and its benefits is as much a shock as a relief... 
Just something I've picked up from the experiences of persecuted
Christians.... [Not there myself] 

								Andrew

.7 Bob

>I think once OSAS/predestination are synonymous. Once saved however, the person
>can choose not to grow, to remain a "carnal Christian", as I did for years.

Matthew 21:28  But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to
the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
 29  He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
 30  And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said,
I go, sir: and went not.
 31  Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The
first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and
the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

The key here is obedience.  I've heard the "but they were *sons*" 
argument, here and especially in the 'prodigal' story.  But what good
is a "dead" son?  Or a disobedient son?  See what the OT has to say about
disobedient sons.  It's not about entering into one's father's reward.

Rats, I've turned this discussion on suffering into OSAS again.  Sorry.

>I serve God because I wish to be obedient,

That's good, Bob.  I believe that covenants between God and us are agreements.
I choose obedience, too.  However, let me suggest that dying to self
encompasses a whole lot more than blind obedience as some onloookers might
be tempted to think; that we are puppets.  Our choice to be yielded and
submissive to God is very important and is a paradox by which the 
sovereign will God gave us is surrendered to God's desires and will.

Mark

.8 Andrew

>Re the Job situation, Mark, I believe that there is a place to reach which
>has a preciousness; where one seems to have lost 'all' of the world, which
>leaves one outwardly deprived of all, but enabling one to be *that* close 
>to the LORD, and intensely aware that He, and He alone is real...  Coming
>back to 'the world', and its benefits is as much a shock as a relief... 
>Just something I've picked up from the experiences of persecuted
>Christians.... [Not there myself] 

I like the spiritual application: that when one realizes that he really has
nothing of his own except himself, everything else takes on new meaning,
including where God fits.

There is some debate whether Job is a picture or a retelling of an actual
event, but the message is the same.  

Mark

    Hi Mark,
    
    Good example, but...
    
    31  Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto
    him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the 
    publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
    
    Matthew 19:30 But many that are first shall be the last; and the last
    shall be first.
    
    Matthew 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last, for many
    are called, but few chosen 
    
    So, in what I am receiving as interpretation is the last people you
    would expect to see there (the publicans and harlots) would be there
    before the son who didn't obey, but (key point) he got there. They only
    got there before him.
    
    Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first
    old. Now that which decayeth, and groweth old is ready to vanish away.
    
    The OT is the OT. The NT is the NT. (Old covenant, New covenant)I think 
    God got a better grasp on why humans acted like they did in days of old, 
    after He became Jesus, and had the "first hand" experience.
    
    In yielding to God, it took Him many years to bring me to the place of
    total, unconditional surrender. And He took me at my word. He owns me
    lock, stock, and barrell. I gave up all my rights, and all my will.
    Why, oh why I didn't do it sooner, (other than being blinded by a lying
    looser) I may not find out on this side of life.
    
    Bob

    !So, in what I am receiving as interpretation is the last people you
    !would expect to see there (the publicans and harlots) would be there
    !before the son who didn't obey, but (key point) he got there. They only
    !got there before him.
    
    I think you're making a sweeping presumption.  Take the first
    commandment: does God mean that you can have other gods just as long as
    they are not "before" Him?  I don't think so.  The son that did not
    obey, as well as the prodigal son was "dead" (separated) to the father.
    Harlots into the kingdom ahead of the pharisees might be akin to Jesus 
    saying that "you'll get in when hell freezes over" though I doubt Jesus 
    would put it as crudely.  The key point is NOT that both sons make it
    to heaven, because this is not clear by the text and is only supposed 
    by a bias.  The key point is that the obedient son did the will of the
    father, even though before he refused.  Obedience is all we have.
    
   ! The OT is the OT. The NT is the NT. (Old covenant, New covenant)I think 
   ! God got a better grasp on why humans acted like they did in days of old, 
   ! after He became Jesus, and had the "first hand" experience.
    
    I disagree strongly, here.  (1) The new covenant does not render the
    old covenant useless; it fulfills the intent of the old covenant.
    (2) God is perfect and not into revisions.  God did NOT need to become
    man so that He could understand us.  This is against omniscience and 
    the Creator knows His creation.  Consider instead that God became man
    so that WE could KNOW that He understood us.  You may think it is a
    subtle difference but I assure you it is an important, even big one.
    
    !In yielding to God, it took Him many years to bring me to the place of
    !total, unconditional surrender. And He took me at my word. He owns me
    !lock, stock, and barrell. I gave up all my rights, and all my will.
    !Why, oh why I didn't do it sooner, (other than being blinded by a lying
    !looser) I may not find out on this side of life.
    
    I am glad you did, Bob.  I see a covential relationship between God and
    you in these words - a partnership where both parties used their free
    will to choose each other.
    
    Mark
    

    Thanks Mark,
    
    I'm glad I did too. It's a forever learning experience, and I shall
    prayerfully consider your words. I fully admit, I know little, and
    sometimes question what I do know, except for the fact that I know He
    who knows all.
    
    Love ya Brother!
    
    Bob

Hi Mark,

If I may, the definitive word used is before. The greek word is proago, meaning:

Go before, bring forth, went before.

1) to lead forward, lead forth
 1a) one from a place in which has laid hidden from view, as from a prison
 1b) in a forensic sence, to bring one forth to trial
2) to go before
 2a) preceding, prior in time, previous
 2b) to proceed, go before
  2b1) in a bad sense, to go further than is right or proper.

Forgive me for not stating by reasons for believing what I do about the 
omnicience (Having total knowledge, knowing all @The Concise American Heritage
Dictionary)of God. I am not taking away from this, I am adding to it. In the
book of Hebrews 5:8-9, it is stated: 

Though he was a son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered;
and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all that
obey him. (yes, I know, conditional salvation. Have you understanding on the 
"triune" salvation? 1 Thessalonians 5:23 Perhaps in another note? 8^)

For some time now this verse has boggled my mind, wondering how God can "learn"
anything. The best example I can think of is this.

When I was a child, I was told that the stove was hot, and not to touch it. So
I had knowledge, but lacked the experience, or the feeling. So, I touched it,
and gained knowledge to a deeper extent. Even though God knew what the human 
body consisted of, he had never had the first hand experience of "feeling" 
what it was like. For me, in my finite mind, to think God isn't capable of 
learning something, would be so very boring. And, were created in his image, 
so...

From a book I'm reading, on a discussion of humans vs animals, one states: 
humans are the only creatures that have the ability to learn, When a lark 
sings it's first song, it is already perfect. When the spider weaves it's web 
for the first time, it will never do any better. When a bee makes it's tasty 
honey, it will never improve the process. (paraphrased to avoid copywrite
issues) I'm NOT trying to humanize God. He already did that in the person of 
Jesus (Yeshua, Joshua) Christ (The anointed one). We have the God given ablility
to improve, and with Gods help, we will improve.

Now, the OT/NT statement, with more from Hebrews;

7:22-25

By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truely were 
many priests, because they were not allowed to continue by reason of death. But
this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood, or which
passeth not from one to another. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the 
uttermost that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession
for them.

This I take, means; Jesus is the first person who wrote his "last will and
testament, then died, then rose again to see that it is followed out fully.

Hebrews 8:7-13

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place be sought
for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and 
with the house of Judah. Not according to the covenant that I made with their 
fathers, in the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of
Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith
the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their minds, and write
them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a
people. And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his
brother, saying, know the Lord, for all shall know me, from the least to the
greatest. And I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and
their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant he
hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and groweth old is ready to 
vanish away.

In the fact that Jesus came not to destroy the law, or the prophets, he came to
fulfil them, (Matthew 5:17-48) I think he showed us we were unable to meet the
requirements of the OT/old covenant, and were all therefore doomed. Only in
having faith in the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross:

Galations 2:20, I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but
Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the 
faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I thank you for making me "study to show thyself approved of God", as I think 
I'm learning more by the minute! If you think these issues to be incorrect, 
please advise, and please give the verses in which you believe such by.

In his Love, by his grace

Bob

Regarding God learning...

Although I'm not ready to declare an understanding of Hebrews 5:8 ("learning"),
I can concede that there is a number greater than infinity, which is
infinity plus one.

In that line of thought, I do understand that I do not understand infinity
because it is beyond my comprehensive reach, therefore I am also without
the capacity to see how adding one to infinity changes infinity.

Good digging, Bob.  Hebrews 11:6 says God is a rewarder of those who
*diligently* seek Him.

Mark