In the Presence of Eternity

Why I like Calvin

2006-04-22T15:00:00.000-07:00

I will just let old Jacob Arminius speak for me...

"After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other ... I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read ... For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers -- so much that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all" -Jacobus Arminius

Calvin on Women

2006-04-18T21:13:00.000-07:00

Calvin’s view of theological anthropology concerning women differed from Luther’s in a subtle way. Luther believed that a woman’s subjection was not something that was from the beginning, but was something brought about by the fall. The woman was created to help man rule, but after the fall all she has experienced is domination. As Ruether notes, “ Unlike Luther, who sees the fall as depriving women of a role in the government of public affairs in which she would originally had shared, Calvin attributes women’s exclusion from government to the original divine ordinance in which sovereignty in domestic and state affairs was given exclusively to the male. This same order of creation means that women are not to preach or teach in church.” (Women and Redemption pg. 124)
Calvin does, however, believe that women are equal to men in everyway except in the role of government. So Intellectually, spiritually, morally, etc. women are on the same footing he says concerning man, “Truly there are many things in this corrupted nature which may induce contempt; but if you rightly weigh all circumstances, man is, among other creatures a certain preeminent specimen of Divine wisdom, justice, and goodness, so that he is deservedly called by the ancients "a world in miniature.” (Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis Chapter 1:26) he then says elsewhere when evaluating whether women are also included in the imago dei, “Why, even children know that women are included in the term!” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.13.3. John T. Mcneil ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 479) Thus we see that Calvin in almost every way views men and women on the same level according to the image of God, but the office or duty of government is not something women where created to participate in. (Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis Chapter1:26). Calvin also believed that if women ever ruled a nation it was God’s way of punishing the men for not adequately fulfilling their roles. (Ruether Women and Redemption pg. 125)
Women where also not allowed to speak or teach in church unless there was an emergency(Women and Redemption pg. 125). Calvin rejects Luther’s view the Adam was only first by primogeniture, that is being first born, Calvin declared that women where created equal but secondarily in authority from the beginning. This excludes women from church office, as Calvin says, “He Paul assigned two reasons why women should be subject to men: because not only did God enact this law, but he also inflicted it as a punishment on the woman.” (Calvin quoted in Women and Redemption/Ruether pg. 124-125)
Of course one cannot exclude from this discussion Calvin’s belief in determinism. For Calvin a persons freedom only depended if the person did what they wanted to do, it is not necessary for that person to be able to do other wise, only that the person wants to do an action or has the desire to do an action. Before the fall women’s hearts would have been turned toward God, but now they are only worried about usurping the power of the husband. On the opposite end of the spectrum, in paradise, Adam would have loved his wife and exercised his authority with Grace, but now this no longer happens because men are driven by a desire to abuse their authority. Calvin believed that men and women’s problem stemmed from their mutual rebellion against God, both Adam and Eve where responsible for the same sin, disobedience. This sin is what has caused the lack of functioning in marriage.
For Calvin it can be seen that women have rules that have been laid down by God from the beginning. Ruether notes three statuses of women in Calvin’s theology, “ 1) an inner quality of soul as image of God; 2) an external subjugation in matters of government, both of being established in God’s original order of creation; and 3) a worsening of women’s subjugation into servitude in the Fall in which women are forced to accede to submission that would originally have been voluntary.” Contrary to what many Feminist writers have written neither Calvin, nor Luther would have seen abuse by men or women to be a good thing. They saw it stemming from the universal curse of sin that was brought on by human disobedience, but it was not something that God would allow to go on forever, but would remedy in his own time.

Luther and Women

2006-04-18T20:25:00.000-07:00

Luther lit the match that started the fire that became the reformation. He held straight- forward positions on most doctrines. Searching through his various theological writings and sermons can discover his position towards women.
Christian theology breaks down its worldview into different doctrines, and the one of the most crucial is theological anthropology. Theological anthropology is the study of man and his relation to God and to his fellow men, and women.
When considering the human condition and all of its good and evil, Luther and Calvin drew off of the doctrine of Original sin and developed it to encompass a doctrine that the later Synod of Dort would call Total Depravity. These two doctrines not only answered the most important question of mankind’s position before God, but also the very essence of what it is to be human. Encompassed in this also the questions concerning the differences between men and women were answered.
Luther based his thoughts concerning women and men on the idea of the imago dei, which is found in Genesis 3, which was developed by later thinkers and expanded upon. Essential to the imago dei is the belief that man is created in the image of God, meaning that man was given certain faculties such that in a limited way he reflects God’s attributes. This for the reformers was foundational, and unless critics are willing to deal with this part of the Reformers thought then any critique of their supposed sexism fails. Luther believed that Adam, the head of fallen humanity, was along with his wife perfect in their original creation. In this state of bliss man and woman would have known God intimately, there would have been no malice human beings, and the intellect would not have been fallen. The fall or original disobedience of Adam and Eve ruined God’s good creation. (Pg. 117 Women and Redemption)
Luther sees a difference of role in men and women, but the image of God is the same. He says, “ …for the woman appears to be somewhat
When Adam an Eve fell God instituted specific punishments that would fit their crime adequately. Before the fall Adam and Eve would have shared the God given dominion in perfect harmony and love that had been bestowed upon them, but instead they chose to disobey God and with that comes punishment As Rosemary Radford Ruether says, “In the fallen world into which Adam and Eve were expelled, they and the whole creation have lost their former perfection. Every power given by God is now hideously deformed. Adam is punished by hard labor in a thorny earth, while Eve experiences great suffering in what was her primary expression of blessing childbearing. She now falls under the domination of her husband… even in paradise, the punishment of domination means that what was formerly an acceptable companionship of greater and lesser now becomes a burdensome servitude.” (Rutheford pg. 119) Whether or not Rutheford’s interpretation of Luther as believing that Eve was ontologically inferior is correct, it is still true that companionship was denigrated into domination.
Luther considered the domination of men over women was Eve’s punishment because of the fall. Luther says that “The rule remains with the husband, and the wife is compelled to obey him by God’s command. He rules the home, and the state, wages war, defends his possession, tills the soil, and plants. The wife, on the other hand, is like a nail driven into the wall, she sits at home…” (Luther quoted in Women and Redemption pg. 120). It also follows from this and other passages that Luther believes that men are to rule in the church also. Women are not to speak, and to remain quiet in church gatherings. (Women and Redemption pg. 121)
Luther has much to say in the household, and this is where one may assume is teachings had impact for the good. Luther in his writings on marriage and the household is rather candid in his declaration that the authority of the husband is not to be abused, but also that the place of the woman is in the home. Luther, believing that believers are new creations, thought that Christian men should treat their wives differently than the pagan. He also believes that marriage had one purpose before the fall, but two after. Before the fall marriage was for companionship, but afterwards it is for companionship, and to restrain the lustfulness of the human heart. (LW 632-633) An articulated view of marriage can be seen in much of Luther’s writings when He says, “Therefore a married man should have regard for such a sacrament, honor it as sacred, and behave properly in marital obligations, so that those things which originate in the lust of the flesh do not occur as they do in the world of brute beasts.” (Pg. 633 Luther’s Works) He also says, “man should realize that by giving himself to his wife completely, and her to him that the man is not to “make a filthy sow’s sty of one’s marriage.”
Luther believed that a woman had a proper function in life where she would work best, and that place was in the home, he says, “What was said about the estate of marriage, however, should also be applied to widows and unmarried women, for they also belong to the domestic sphere.” (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper LW pg. 55)
Luther’s views maybe summarized as men rule the world outside the home, as well as inside, but the woman was to raise the child, and support the husband or be his helper. This state of affairs was not what the world was supposed to be but through the fall the woman lost her right to rule with the husband, and now is punished by being in subjection to her husband. Luther also was against any abuse of the man’s power he often quotes Paul’s language in Ephesians that men should not be harsh with their wives. Modern readers may find Luther sexist or chauvinistic, but it must be kept in mind that Luther is as much a part of his time period as we are, and this must be said for the next theologian that is to be examined, John Calvin.

Isaiah 45:7 not a good text to use, in order to prove God as the author of evil.

2006-04-02T12:54:00.000-07:00

This passage is often used as a proof text to prove that God causes evil. I know the Calvinist answer will be that God never causes evil, he just ordains all things. If you want to be logically inconsistent that is your decision, but this passage does not teach "strong determinism" here is why,

"I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity (shalom) and create disaster (ra);
I, the Lord, do all these things."

The context of this passage is God illustrating how He has raised up Cyrus to do his bidding. Of course this is seen as in an international political light, which shows that God is the one true and living God of all the earth.
If we pay attention to the parallelism in this passage, and the language we will see why God makes this statement against the nations. The forming of light, and creating darkness in the first line, corresponds to the Shalom and Ra reference in the next sentence. Shalom is taken as peace or prosperity not "goodness" in some metaphysical sense, I would argue that Ra must linguistically be the opposite of Shalom, so it would be better to translate it disaster or calamity. Of course this is not a random or arbitrary action by God, but a punishment on the nations in particular Babylon via Cyrus.
Of course we know that Peace, or prosperity may not always be a good thing, especially when a nation is wicked. Therefore it is not an airtight case on the part of the Calvinist to take this passage to mean evil in a general all incompassing sense.
This text should be used only to argue that in certain circumstances God uses his power to create calamity for the purposes of punishing disobedient persons, or nations as this passage in its wider context will show.
I think that the confusion is that when biblical students see the word "ra" they automatically think of moral or ontological evil, instead of realizing that there maybe a rather wide range of meanings in context. We should remember, as Wittingstein argued, that words only get meaning from wider contexts.

When the Foundations are Destroyed What Shall we Do?

2006-03-22T12:54:00.000-08:00

When the Foundations are Destroyed What Shall we Do?

Yesterday Katheryn Ware wrote an article that I think shows the conflict in the world of ideas. The conflict is not just about ethics, but also about the question of the existence of God. From the time of Plato it was believed that “the Good” was the foundation of all ethical principles, that there was some foundation upon which ethics could be founded, even after the enlightenment philosophers like Kant, Bentham, and many others tried to formulate some solid foundation for ethics, even if they did not believe in a theistic God they did believe that there had to be some foundation upon which we could make moral and ethical decision besides personal privy, but this has shown to be a dead end. I believe that Dr. Singer’s ideas will also go to the dust heap of history for the same reason. Dr. Singer is inconsistent in his ethics, on the grounds of a universe without a God, and a world that works on a theory of evolution that is based on Metaphysical Naturalism, framed in Carl Sagan’s oft quoted phrase, “The universe is all there has been, is, or ever will be.”
The Nietzschean critique of ethics shows that with the death of God a foundation for moral thought is groundless and only tools for the weak to reign in the strong. This clearly makes a mockery out of any attempt to create an “atheistic ethic.” Take for example Singer’s belief that we should protect animals from cruelty. I find cruelty to animals to be wrong on my theistic assumptions, but why pray tell; ought I care about manatees in Florida, or endangered lowland gorillas? If Evolutionary Naturalism is true, then I am living according to the principles set down by Natural selection. I am in a battle to survive, by having as many children as I can, and to do that I must eat, and worry about my own survival. Naturalism brings us to a completely egoistic “ethic”, which is just as random as the natural selection that has brought me into existence. For all of the mental gymnastics Dr. Singer tries to pull off he cannot escape the fact that he cannot answer the ought ness or the feeling of duty that we have toward a dying person, or even giving money to the poor. This is the crux of the matter with out a eternal transcendental foundation, or a “thou shall,” for ethical thought we should be consistent and embrace a philosophy of nihilism, and allow people to live as they please, whether that be all out indulgence or a life of self deprecation, because there is truly no “right” or “wrong”, “good” or “evil” because they are only constructs that the weak create so the strong cannot overpower them.
Singer is a weak ivory tower intellectual who wants to save the animals, but kill a mentally handicapped human being. I do not see why, on his philosophical assumptions, we should give a damn about either! I say kill them both if it furthers our ends in life. Of course you could take a pragmatic path that says that you should be ethical, because it is nice to others, and it maintains order in society, but then all you have done is placed ethics in a new God, just like a believer in theism does, which for the true nihilist is really no reason at all. When the universe is reduced down to a hopeless, cold, uncaring, irrational thing, then that is exactly what the inhabitants of it are. So with all do respect to Dr. Singer I do not think he has given me a reason to be horrified at the injustices of men toward animals.
Singer, in his attempt to rise above moral confusion replacing all traditional moral categories with his own is doing nothing other than falling into Nietzsche’s trap. Singer is a weak ivory tower intellectual who is trying to restrain the “Overman” of Nietzsche, which was the one who exerted his power over others, because he could. Nietzsche argued that humans tried to restrain the “Overman” for the sake of other weak human beings, Singer has only replaced weak humans with weak animals, which is just as absurd under the thought categories of atheism and Metaphysical naturalism.

Corporal Punishment and Micah 1

2006-03-03T20:29:00.000-08:00

The Importance of Retributive Justice!
Is Retributive Justice wrong? I would argue that it is not, and would make the point that Genesis clearly allows for the death penalty. The death penalty is based on the bible's teachings on the Sanctitity of human life! One only has to look at the book of Genesis to have this case laid out before them in stark colors. Genesis says:

"From each person I will exact punishment for the life of the individual since the man was his relative.

9:6 “Whoever sheds human blood,

by other humans

must his blood be shed;

for in God’s image

God has made humankind.”

Here in this passage the Noahic Covenant has been established. The point to make here is that the Noahic covenant was never abolished(not really a good word), like the Mosaic law. The sole reason given for the justification to take murder's life is the fact that he/she has shed the innocent blood of a person, that is created in God's image. In other words to kill a human being is to dishonor God's own image, which if anything should be punishable by death it should certainly be an affront to God's own being.

Blake

9:01 PM - add eprops - add comments - email it

micah 1
Thoughts on Micah
My comments are in brackets [].

1 The word of the LORD that came to Micah of Moresheth during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah—the vision he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.
2 Hear, O peoples, all of you,
listen, O earth and all who are in it,
that the Sovereign LORD may witness against you,
the Lord from his holy temple.

[ It is easily noticed that in this passage Micah is using the prophetic Divine Law suit form of speech. Notice here as in the book of Deuternonomy that God calls the people to "hear" and then he calls on the whole earth to listen so that the Lord may bring a witness against this people. If Deuteronomy is read carefully it is in the form of a Suzerean law suit. The biblical form calls upon the earth, the stars, etc. as witnesses if the people fall into apostasy. Essentially, Micah is identifying the community of Israel as covenant breakers.]

Judgment Against Samaria and Jerusalem

3 Look! The LORD is coming from his dwelling place;
he comes down and treads the high places of the earth.
4 The mountains melt beneath him
and the valleys split apart,
like wax before the fire,
like water rushing down a slope.

[The metaphorical language in this passage serves to magnify the Lord's power and glory. As N.T. Wright and many other writers note this language is not meant to be taken in a literal fashion, but it is meant to be taken in a "concrete" fashion. Meaning that it is a symbolic way of describing real events. In this case the events are an invading army coming to punish or "plow" the people of God for their sins.]

5 All this is because of Jacob's transgression,
because of the sins of the house of Israel.
What is Jacob's transgression?
Is it not Samaria?
What is Judah's high place?
Is it not Jerusalem?
[This passage is astonishing in its denunciation upon the Jerusalem cult, and the cult in Samaria. Why is the Lord bringing judgment upon the people? Because of their violation of the covenant. Did not God lay down the blessings and cursings of violating his covenant in the book of Deuteronomy? In the Old Testament the "high places" where were people would go worship pagan fertility gods like Asherah and Baal. What is astonishing is that God says that he will punish Israel for Samaria, which is understandable because Samaria was set up as a opposite place of worship outside of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. But for Micah to call out the Jerusalem establishment, where God was said to dwell in His Temple was about as revolutionary as anything imaginable ot the ancient mind. God calls his own dwelling place, a high place that needs to be broken down. This should make us remember in our own churches, that we can put something else above God, and not even realize it. The Israelites problem was the worship of other gods, but the problem with the modern world is not so much "other gods" in the explicit sesne, but in the more insidius implicit sense. Our idols may take the form of our abstract concepts and philosophies, that we feel so certain about. One thing is certain though a God who is infinite, must be beyond our thought at least to a degree. The moment we think we have him pinned down is the moment we should start rethinking things. ]

6 "Therefore I will make Samaria a heap of rubble,
a place for planting vineyards.
I will pour her stones into the valley
and lay bare her foundations.

7 All her idols will be broken to pieces;
all her temple gifts will be burned with fire;
I will destroy all her images.
Since she gathered her gifts from the wages of prostitutes,
as the wages of prostitutes they will again be used."
[I am not sure if Jerusalem should be implicated in verses 6 and 7 since Jerusalem is not mentioned, only Samaria. Then again maybe Samaria is an archetype for Micah of universal false worship. If this is the case then God is lashing out at both Jerualem and Samaria for it idolotry. The reference to destroying the city and making it a heap of rubble where vineyards grow, is pointing to the fact that when God brings his destruction in history it will be absolutely traumatic, and final. In classic Old and New Testament form, God speaks of himself with jealousy calling Israel a prostitute who has sold her self out to the other nations. How many times in our own lives as the "New Israel" subject to whoring ourselves out to other gods! And the multiple ways in which we can do this is enough to make your head spin. Just think about it we can do this in our relationships, with our church, with famous preachers, with ideas, with work, anything that is conceivable can become an idol that God detests.]

I will finish the rest of chapter 1 when I have time.
Blake

Where is Jesus or a Problem of the Naïve Metaphysics of Wayne Grudem?

2006-02-07T17:46:00.000-08:00

Wayne Grudem, thought of by many as one of the best evangelical theologians, makes the assertion in his Systematic Theology that the ascension means that Jesus is “somewhere” or in a “place.” Grudem then goes on to chastise evangelicals who say that this is simply metaphorical language in speaking about Jesus’ Ascension.
I have multiple problems with Grudem in this case, but I think his biggest problem in this passage is his metaphysic. Grudem wants the reader to believe that God is outside of time, incorporeal, etc. yet he wants this being to be in a “place”. I think Grudem is having trouble with language in this regard. He seems to forget that human language is designed to only deal with sense data, which makes it difficult to define realities outside of our sense experience. A good example of this language problem is when we speak of God “seeing” into the future. If we think about this we know that God does not have eyes to see. This is a metaphorical way of speaking about God. I would submit that what the disciples saw at Jesus Ascension was on a plane that they had to empty out their linguistic cupboard to describe. I think the language of an “upward ascension” is the language of theophony which does indeed represent a real event, but one that does not happen everyday. Grudem is trying to get scripture to explain something in univocal fashion, that probably can only be explained analogically. More on this distinction later.
I think Grudem commits the same fallacy, or error in thinking that Frederick Copleston pointed out in his A History of Philosophy when he was discussing Plato’s theory of the forms and the misguided critique of the “forms” spatial position. He says, “In the case of that which transcends space and time, we cannot even legitimately raise the question, where it is. It is nowhere, as far as local presence is concerned (though it is not nowhere in the sense of being unreal). The separation would thus seem to imply, in the case of the Platonic essence, a reality beyond the subjective reality of the abstract concept- a subsistent reality, but not a local separation. It is, therefore, just as true to say that the essence is immanent, as that it is transcendent: the great point is that it is real and independent of particulars, unchanged and abiding. It is foolish to remark that if the Platonic Essense is real, it must be somewhere. Absolute Being, for instance, does not exist outside us in the sense in which a flower exists outside us—for it might just as well be said to exist inside us, in as much as spatial categories simply do not apply to it. On the other hand, it cannot be said to be inside us in the sense that it is purely subjective, is confined to us, comes into being with us, and perishes through our agency or with us. It is both transcendent and immanent, inaccessible to the senses, apprehensible only by the intellect.”
Did the disciples sense something with their senses? I believe that they did, but I do not think that it implies that Jesus is floating around somewhere in the space-time universe. Grudem did not deal with the nature of the resurrection body, which could very well exist in an incorporeal way (it passes through walls), and be eternal, as well in some sense being physical. Grudem has hit the wall of human language like a Mack truck, and has not realized the multiple problems his position has for his doctrine of God. It is clear from the gospels that the resurrection body was Jesus’ body transformed. What is the extent of this transformation? I do not think we know very well. The only thing we know is that it is eternal and physical in someway. Grudem has made it restrained to our time-space universe, which I think is a mistake.

Dealing with Delay, or An Integral Tension Within Biblical Thought?

2006-02-01T12:29:00.000-08:00

This topic has been one to cause much cognitive disonance within Christian circles, and a deadly threat to the Christian faith. I know from personal experience, after having dealt with this subject for quite sometime. I do not claim that what I am going to say resolves the problem indefinitely, but I think it may make the issue a little bit more clear to believers and unbelievers alike.
When coming to the topic of what New Testament Critics have called the “delay of the Parousia”, it is assumed out of hand that this causes a insurmountable problem for the Christian faith, or worse, totally invalidates it and shows that it is in fact a false worldview. There is no getting around the fact that there is imminence language in the New Testament, as Ben Witherington has shown quite clearly in his book Jesus, Paul, and The End of the World. The problem stated in a very general fashion is: Jesus and the rest of the New Testament characters believed that Christ’s return would happen with in the lifetime of Jesus’ disciples, and when this belief was proven wrong when Christ did not return after the fall of Jerusalem the early Church then reverted to doing theology.
I think that most of the explanations that have arisen to tackle this very thorny problem in believing scholarship has failed. I also believe that this is the most significant objection to the Christian faith, quite possibly rivaling the problem of evil for the truth or falsity of the Christian faith.
In this paper I will attempt to, first show that the traditional approaches to this topic have failed. I will show that first the most recent attempt to answer this problem by scholars like N.T. Wright have failed, because they try and squeeze biblical language to fit a certain mold across the board that I do no think the New Testament, History, nor scholarship will uphold. Second, I will attempt to show that the traditional position of critical scholarship is off target on this topic. I think that they plaster the early Christians with too much naivety. Finally, I will attempt to show that there is something more profound going on in the OT and NT, and even the rabbis when they use the language of imminence for the coming of God. This paper will depend much upon the work of C.E.B Cranfield, Ben Witherington, Albert Schweitzer, Dale C. Allison, and Richard Bauckham and his article “The Delay of the Parousia” in the Tyndale Bulletein. I have never seen his position critiqued other than to say it is just “a way around the problem”. Bauckham in his examination of the Rabbinical literature and select passages from the OT shows that “nearness” was a way of speaking about the coming of YHWH, and it was more for ethical imperative than any form of date setting.
Series I. HIstory of the Problem in New Testament Studies
A. Remairus and Wrede
B. Schweitzer
C. Others?

Series II. An Old Testament Problem?

Series III A Rabbinical Problem?

Series IV. A New Testament Problem?

A) Jesus
B) Paul
C) Peter
D) Jude
E) John (emphasis on Revelation)
F) Conclusion

Series V. The Problem Critically scrutinized. In...
A) Jesus
B) Paul
C) Peter
D) Jude
E) John
F) Conclusion
Series VI. Summary and Conclusions from Study

I am sure this outline will change, this is how I think I will proceed.

Historical Knowledge and Man's Subjectivity

2006-01-28T11:24:00.001-08:00

Why did God decide to reveal himself in history? This is a question that I have been asking over the last few months. There are numerous ways that God could have revealed himself to us: through a subjective experience of the spirit, through propositonal theorems, or he could have even given us an ordained statement of faith. But the reality is that God did not do these things, he gave us a book that is almost completley historical through, and through.
My thoughts on this are as follows, and probably somewhat incoherent, but here goes anyway. I believe that God chose history, because history resonates with each individuals subjectivity, or the part of a man that no one else can know. When we know other people we must work to know their thoughts, feelings, and ideas but as we know ourselves our thoughts, feelings etc. are present to us continously, or they are always before us.
I think that scripture is so powerful because it resontates in the deep structures of our inner lives. When we read the story of David and Bethsheba, we know the feeling because the moment that David is confronted by Nathan we feel that in our own lives, or we have felt it. In that same moment that Nathan tells David, "You're the man!" we are reminded of some sin that we have ignored, and acted like we have not participated in. In this scripture reminds us of our inner anguish, and opens the old wounds of our souls that we choose to ignore. Biblical history is never history for histories sake, but history for man's sake. God uses history, because in every moment of our lives we can experience the whole of history in our subjective lives. What I mean, is that in our subjective lives we are connected with all humans throughout history, because they to have felt the same disappointments, pain, and joys.

Historical Knowledge and Man's Subjectivity

2006-01-28T11:24:00.000-08:00

Being in Love and the Existence of God

2006-01-24T16:36:00.000-08:00

Every so often an uninformed atheist (or someone who claims they are an atheist) will make the argument that they do not believe in God based upon scientific fact. They will say that science cannot prove that there is a God. Our society has made science the one discipline that reigns over all, even though, this is not true it is passed around as common knowledge. There are two things wrong with this sort of argument.
First, science is based upon methodological Naturalism. MN as we will call it, is a tool that we use to examine the natural world. It is based on the assumption that things happen today as they did yesterday, and they day before that. This foundational belief is also called induction. It can be illustrated by an example, suppose you ask the question, as Hume did, "How do we know the sun will rise tommorow?" This seems like common sense, you say, "Of course the sun will rise tommorow!" The problem is though that we cannot be 100% certain that it will rise, it could experience an unknown stage of a stars life where it blows up, or some other strange occurence. The point is that we base our belief that the sun will rise tommorow on the assumption that it happened in the past. Science examines the natural world of rocks, trees, animals, planets, etc. It does not have the ability to rule on things that are outside of the "natural" world. Since God is an incorporeal, or non physical being he cannot be examined by science.
Second, we will use a thought experiment, suppose a scientists wanted to examine love. He takes you and your spouse (or some other person that you love), and hooks you up to a machine to examine your brain and the different brain states that you have when you talk to your spouse. The scientists notices brian waves, and different brain activity, but does he actually see the subjective notion of "Love"? Is love reducible to a certain brain state that you have? We all know that this is counter intuitive. We know that there is a difference between the physical attraction we may feel for a spouse, than the actualy feeling of love. Science cannot examine the essence of that subjective feeling. Does that mean that love does not exist?
Or for another example form the image of a car in your mind. You can see a car in your head, we will say it is a Corvette. The same scientists hooks the machine to your brain, and again notices brain activity, but he cannot see the care that you have imagined and can see in your conciousness. Does that, therefore, mean that there is no car?
To some up Science deals with things that are in the physical world like animals, and trees, but it cannot examine non-physical objects.

Blake

Great Post Out of Bevard Childs'and Umberto Cassuto's Commentaries on Exodus

2006-01-24T09:25:00.000-08:00

"The name of God, which like his glory and his face are vehicles of his essential nature, is defined in terms of his compassionate acts of mercy. The circular idem per idem formula of the name--I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious--is closely akin to the name in Exod 3:14--I am who I am--and testifies by its tautology to the freedom of God in making known his self-contained being," B. Childs The Book of Exodus (Westminster Press 1974), 596

"The proclamation will not be just generally speaking before you but literally so; it will announce the name of the Lord [YHWH] and the significance implicit therein, to wit, the attributes to which it alludes--'and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and show compassion to whim I will show compassion'--the meaning being; but the exercise of these qualities depends entirely on My will; you may know that I am compassionate and gracious, and that I love to go beyond the strict letter of the law, but the decision to act according to these virtues is at all times in My discretion, and it is impossible for you to know when, or if, I shall act thus. If I were constantly to let the quality of mercy prevail over that of justice, and were to forgive every sinner, I should not be a righteous judge, and every man would permit himself all kinds of wickedness in the assurance that he would be forgiven. I shall be gracious and compassionate if it pleases Me, when it pleases Me, and for the reasons that please Me," U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Magnes Press 1997), 436).

Quote to Meditate On

2006-01-23T16:49:00.000-08:00

"Each one of us has some kind of vocation. We are all called by God to share in His life and in His Kingdom. Each one of us is called to a special place in the Kingdom. If we find that place we will be happy. If we do not find it, we can never be completely happy. For each one of us, there is only one thing necessary: to fulfill our own destiny, according to God's will, to be what God wants us to be."
- Thomas Merton, No Man is an Island

Incomparable Christ Book Review

2006-01-20T22:39:00.000-08:00

Stott, John R. The Incomparable Christ. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2001.264pp. $14.00
John Stott was educated at Trinity College Cambridge, where he received a first class degree in French and Theology. He has been awarded a Lambeth DD, and has honorary doctorates from British, Canadian and American colleges. He has been Rector of All Souls Church Langham Place since 1975. Billy Graham and other church leaders have called Stott the most influential Evangelical. The book was originally four lectures that Stott delivered to the London Lectures Committee in A.D. 2000.
Stott states that the purpose of the book is to ask four basic questions and give them answers. How does the New Testament bear witness to Jesus? How has the church portrayed Jesus Christ down through the centuries? What should Jesus Christ mean to us today? Stott breaks the book up into four parts in order to answer these questions. Part one looks at the gospels, Paul’s letters, and the General Epistles in order to get a picture of the “original Jesus.” Part two looks at how the church, both, faithfully and unfaithfully has portrayed Jesus down through the centuries. Part three examines how Christ has challenged the church. Part four answers the question of what Jesus means to us today by expositing the book of Revelation, which reveals the eternal Jesus to us. As Stott says, “Jesus Christ is not only historical but eternal and therefore also our contemporary.” By placing the history of Jesus with the people of God between parts one and four he makes a frame around the church’s imperfect history, the New Testament being the border around the Church’s imperfections. This brings into relief the flaws of the church when compared with the Jesus of the New Testament.
In the Introduction Stott briefly examines the history of the Quest for the Historical Jesus, and then looks at the methods of form and redaction criticism. Stott believes, rightly so, that these methods are helpful for helping us get at the portrait the New Testament is painting. Stott confronts the American organization known as the Jesus Seminar, and its subjective method of determining what Jesus actually said.
In Part one Stott starts with the gospels and later the Pauline Corpus. Stott examines the four gospel’s theological teachings about Jesus. In Matthew Jesus is portrayed as the fulfillment of Scripture, in Mark Jesus is portrayed as the suffering servant, in Luke Jesus is portrayed as the Savior of the world, in John Jesus is the Word made flesh. Stott gives a helpful summary of the portrait the evangelists paint, “I find it helpful to detect in the four Evangelists four dimensions of the saving purpose of God: its length, depth, breadth and height. After examining the Pauline and general epistles Stott comes the conclusion that there is a unity that transcends the divers portrait of Jesus that arises out of the New Testament.
In the Second Section of the book Stott looks at how the Church has portrayed Jesus historically. Stott notes that, “many times the church has imprisoned Jesus in its own prejudices and traditions”.
In the third section Christ’s influence on the church is examined. Stott asks the question what difference has it made to the world that Jesus lived? He answers this question by examining different individuals in history who have been influenced by one stage of Christ’s life and spurred them to action.
The fourth and final section of the book is the Eternal Jesus. Stott examines the book of Revelation and looks at how Christ is our contemporary today. Stott ends the section by saying, “…the eternal Christ who never changes but who challenges us to follow him today. We have seen now supervising his churches on earth, now sharing God’s throne in heaven, now controlling the course of history, now calling the world to repentance, now riding on a white horse to judgment, and now promising to come soon and marry his bride.” In all of these ways Christ challenges us and is our contemporary, and no one could have said it better than John Stott.
Stott’s Anglican perspective and his extensive mission work helped Stott focus on other parts of the church. Stott does not just focus upon the European church heroes, but also the Latin Church and Japanese church.
When dealing with the gospels Stott brings up the Jesus Seminar’s criticisms of orthodox Christianity’s picture of Jesus, but then he only says that there methods are to subjective (20). If Stott was not going to deal with their arguments, then he should not have mentioned them. The Seminar’s work should not be shrugged off so lightly, because they say many things that the church must answer. While in agreement with Stott’s assessment, he should have given reasons for his accusation that their scholarship was subjective. Undefended assertions get shot down by evangelicals all of the time, I do not see why evangelicals need to take a strategy out of the Seminar’s play book by not backing assertions up with reasons.
Stott’s survey of the church’s portrayal of Jesus is a decent cross section of major players in church history. Stott dealt deficiently with his examination of the enlightenment there are much more prestigious scholars to be critiqued than Renan and Jefferson. Also, Stott never critiques the work of Albert Schweitzer or Rudolph Bultmann these two men have had a much bigger impact on societies views on Jesus than Renan or Jefferson.
Stott’s exposition of Revelation is superb until he deals with the question of eternal punishment that is bound to come up in any discussion of Revelation, but where Stott brings it up it seems to be out of no where. There was no reason on page 219 to mention the debate on eternal punishment. His only support for his position comes when he says that the book of Revelation is metaphorical, but Stott seems to empty the point of the metaphor by saying hell is simply annhihilation, because how can you be punished when you no longer exist? The Metaphor seems to lose meaning if there is not some eternal conscious state of torment. A Metaphor by nature is an analogy, x is like y in some since and that is why the metaphor helps us to understand difficult subjects. Stott seems to lose view of this.
The book was very helpful in its theological examination of the New Testament. Stott utilizes redaction criticism well, by finding the main theological themes of the separate gospels, and then expounding upon them. It is good to see an evangelical take the gospels at face value and not concern himself with harmonization. It is best if we allow the tensions to remain in the gospels and let them tell their stories on their own, Stott does a very good job of this. The examination of the New Testament epistles is refreshing also. Stott not only gives exposition about the main themes of the Pauline letters, but also gives the reader a helpful chart that can be utilized.
Stott holds to an amillennial interpretation of Revelation, and he helpfully notes why the binding of Satan and the millennial reign of Christ must be the church age because of how the whole book recapitulates its images. Stott also helpfully deals with the language of imminence that occurs throughout the book of Revelation. Stott makes the good point that while the language of “soon” may not be chronologically exact it is theologically appropriate.
Stott’s careful examination of the New Testament documents along with his analysis of how the church has portrayed Jesus and how Jesus has challenged the church are most helpful in interpreting scripture. Looking at Christ form this angle should help the reader see where maybe we do not believe in the original Jesus, but in a Jesus of our own fancy. This book has helped this reviewer become solidified in the eschatological position known as amillienialism. The arguments for recapitulation in the book of Revelation were helpful in this regard. Stott’s exposition of Revelation will also help the pastor with sermon preparation because his comments are so clear. The strengths of Stott’s work, thankfully, far out way his theological flaw of annihilationism. This book should be on every Christian’s book shelf because of its examination of the New Testament, and its compilation of heroes of the faith. Stott has done a great service to the church by putting these lectures into book form. Hopefully this book will be used for years to come in Seminaries, and Bible colleges.

Just finished "The Trial of God"

2006-01-19T20:58:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading the play "The Trial of God" by Elie Wiesel. The play is set during the pogroms in the 17th century against the Jews. The characters are mulifaceted and interesting. There is the Innkeeper (Berish), Maria his servant, three rabbis: Mendel, Yankel, Avramel. Added to these characters are the cowardly, and immoral priest, and Sam the stranger of the play. Maria tells of how bad the pogram was when she tells the story of what happened to Hannah, Berish's daughter, who was to be married, but the pogrom mobs came and killed her husband, and they assaulted Hannah for hours while they made her father watch, Maria says,

"He twisted, and twisted; he looked and looked, and I shouted, and yelled, and the beasts sneered, and little Hanna was covered with blood. Did she know who assaulted her first? And how many followed? It lasted an hour or two, and more, it lasted a hole lifetime, and they left."

The play is based off of an event in the life of Wiesel himself. Wiesel was in the holocaust as a young child, and one night he witnessed three rabbis put God on Trial for the deahs of the many Jews where slaughtered.
The three rabbis have come the the town a year after the pogrom in Shamgorod, during purim to perform for the festival of masks. All the Jewish families where slaughtered in the town, the only two jews left where Berish and his daughter Hannah. Most of the play is concerned with the Rabbis, and Berish setting up a mock trial of God. They have all of the positions they need, except one, that of the defendant of God. At the last moment when the reader is lead to believe that the characters are going to have to end the idea, Sam steps forward, the mysterious man that no one knows, but everyone believes that they have seen somehwhere. Maria knows him because he seduced her one night, and then left. The reader is lead to think that the Jews believe that Sam is a holy man, but the reader know better, because Sam does a very heinous thing, which was the rape (?) of Maria. At the end of the play as they are finishing the trial, the priest comes in and warns them that the mob is outside and hungry for blood. At this point the Rabbis plea for Sam, who had talked them out of fleeing, to protect them because he was a "holy man". When they realize that they have nowhere to go, Yankel and Avramel announce that they want to put on their Purim masks. When Sam does the mask is a mask of Satan, and then the candles go out. The whole thing turned out to be a trick by Satan himself.

Berish is beside himself with anger toward God, because of what happened to his daughter. The argument implied through out the book is that of Hume, "If God is unable to end evil then he is not omnipotent, if he can stop evil and chooses not to then he is evil." Wiesel uses a literary art form not theological treatise because literature makes us feel injustice in our gut, and forces us to consider the problem of evil not as an abstract concept, but as a concrete reality that we as human beings, and those of us who are Christians must face in everyday life. I am not going to "answer" Wiesel's objection to God, but leave that for the reader to ponder.

Blake

Answering Pat's Big Question

2006-01-19T18:41:00.000-08:00

On a recent episode of The O’Reilly Factor Pat Buchanan brought up an interesting question, “Is the left winning the culture war?” Buchanan answered this question in the affirmative.
Buchanan is essentially right in what he affirms, but the most interesting portion of the segment dealt with the moral and ethical questions that concern the cultural divide. Buchanan, in the midst of his explanation of why Western society has fallen to its knees, could not give a reason why morality has fallen apart. The aim of this article is to answer Mr. Buchanan’s question.
The break down in morals and ethics, not only in America, but also in all of western society can be traced back to the destruction of two out of three fundamental foundations upon which this society stands. David F. Wells singles out these three foundations: tradition, authority, and power. Tradition is defined as, “the process whereby one generation passes on its wisdom, lore, and values. Authority on the other hand, in this context, should be defined as philosophical or theological authority, and power is simply the power to enforce the two former foundations. These foundations have been attacked in two crucial areas of people’s lives, the church and the family.
The origins of the destruction for the church took place with the rise of the Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe; this period subjected all things, even God, to the sovereign throne of human reason. Before this period the western world had a moral compass, which was found in the nature of an unchanging God, who was the standard of goodness and order in the universe He created. This God had revealed himself in Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures, and for seventeen hundred years no one could raise a good objection. The Enlightenment proceeded to question the validity of Christian theism, which is the belief in a personal God who has revealed himself to mankind. Instead of the God of Christian theology they had a replacement, the god of enlightenment deism. Deism sees god as a watch maker who winds up the world and then lets it run on its own, not intervening in this world, or even caring. Of course after a while the logical outworking of this would be to do away with the idea of God all together, thus atheism was the logical conclusion. With God disposed of the next thing to be attacked was the bible, since the God of the scriptures no longer was thought to be a viable option among the intellectuals, who had a very big influence on eighteenth century society. These ideas would slowly creep into the “popular culture” and the churches. (Ever wonder where we get the phrase, “the man up stairs?”). The church had lost much of its credibility by the middle of the nineteenth century, and the authority and traditions of the church, including its moral teachings, had come under sustained assault. The scriptures came under heightened scrutiny and many churchmen found it difficult to believe in the traditions. As far as the church was concerned tradition and authority had taken very large blows. The next tradition and authority to break down was the family, and the movement known, as modernism would undermine it more so than the Enlightenment undermined the Church.
With the revolt against the all sovereign God of Christian theology in our rear view mirror we can now move on to the rise of modernization in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and its affects on the family. Modernization is the process that requires a society to be organized around cities for manufacturing and commerce. Cities cause a unique problem of diversity, the more peoples that you have leads to the conflict of convictions. In order to coexist with different people the deeply held beliefs that where once public in the small towns, such as religion or morals, must know be privatized for the sake of peace. When this happens it causes a split mind, the man in the office is totally different from the man that he is at home. This causes religious beliefs to become irrelevant to every day life, because to work off religious principles may cause someone to be offended, because of their different religious truth claims that they hold. This diverse climate, combined with the Enlightenment intellectual ideas about God, created a cultural acid that ate through the fabric of a society that was once dominated by committed families. In this system the people develop two sets of morals, what their “public life” requires and what their “private life” requires. This is why politicians can say they are personally against abortion, but will vote to uphold it.
New inventions such as the TV and radio started to take time away from the family. The parents used to instill into their children moral values and wisdom for everyday life, but when TV and radio arrived the parent’s role was significantly reduced and TV became the main medium for distilling values into young people. This break down in the family was only added to with the easy access to pornography that the TV and the computer, because it was made more accessible. This development has had done untold damage to families, and our ideas of who men and women are as human beings. Like the church’s battled with the enlightenment, this led to the undermining of the family tradition and authority structures.
The Enlightenment siege caused people to doubt religious authority, and add to the mix the modern way of life, where a person can have their “private religious sphere” of life and their “public sphere” of life, due to pressure not to offend anyone, and a slow working poison had been injected into western society. The answer to Buchanan’s question lies in the fact that God and religion no longer play a role in the every day lives of even many average churchgoers, not to mention unbelievers, because not only has the person in the pew been infected with the modern illness, but so has the pastor, whose preaching no longer involves much talk about sin, but instead how to make more money, or feel good about oneself. Gone are the days when the preacher was a respected, intelligent member of the community.
We now live in a world that is experiencing the consequences of its ideas. The rate of divorce in our country is horrible, with about half of marriages ending in divorce, and the structure of the nuclear family, that the early Americans relied on to pass down their virtues to their children, has all but disintegrated in our generation, the obliteration of tradition and authority, in society and the home, has all but been completed. The reason our society cannot decide whether abortion, gay marriage, assisted suicide, or stem cell research is morally deficient, is because we have abandoned the idea of a God who is a moral lawgiver, with no absolutes people run blind. Instead we have unknowingly opted for the god of the enlightenment, who really does not care, and leaves it up to man to dictate mankind’s destiny. Modern man finds himself facing a cold uncaring universe where “might makes right”, because he has rejected the ancient wisdom of men like Saint Augustine who said to God, “ Our hearts are restless, until they find rest in you.” The only way out of the moral problems is to return to the theistic basis of our heritage. If we do not the third foundation of western civilization will stand, and without a moral conscience power breeds dictatorships.

My thoughts on the Minnesota Public Radio Board Concerning the Failing Influence of Christianity in America

2006-01-18T18:10:00.000-08:00

I agree in a sense that the state is responsible for down turn in religous knowledge, but that is to narrow of an argument. i think that something like 96% of americans believe in God, but what has changed is the highly philosophically cogent views of God that where present in early america. Early America had ministers like Johnathan Edwards, and John and Charles Wesely who where not intellectual slouches. Now days the church produces Benny Hinn, Rod Parsely, and other notorius TV evangelist. Gone are the days when the church encouraged parents to train up their children in the ways of Scripture, today Christianity has reduced itself to a cultural shell of what is worst about America.

It does not take much historical genius to see that it is American democracy plus the growing seeds of the Sacred/Secular distinction erected by enlightenment philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, Francis Bacon and others that pushed religion to the private sphere, and then science took over the public sphere, which progressively pushed religion into a subjective Schleirmacherisque position. Christianity has been in a fight intellectually ever since to regain some sense of respectability, and defend its claims to objective truth.

Johnathan Edwards was the last monumental Christian thinker, up until the likes of Nicholas Wolsterstorff, and Alvin Plantinga and many others started to make theistic arguments in the Analytical philosophical discipline. Which has lead to some cultural grumblings of a more intellectually disciplined Christianity, as the growth at Christian private schools I think aptly shows, schools like Notre Dame, Baylor, Wheaton College, Calvin College, are growing at rates of 60% over the last ten years.

Will this turn around in the academy, and culture last? I do not think so. I think that the enlightenment ideaology will win out, and Christianity will lose its influence in the west, and as has been the case through out history, it will spread to other parts of the world, namely, Africa and China where the church is growing at an exponential rate ("Next Christendom" is a great book along with the last chapter of Alister Mcgrath's book "The Twilight of Atheism" though the rest of the book leaves some

2006-01-13T19:02:00.001-08:00

Little more on Mark, and some personal issues. In Reverse Order

2006-01-13T19:02:00.000-08:00

I normally do not do this, the whole on line journal crap, but tonight I will make an exception since I am in Hendrsonville NC sitting at a Days Inn, and bored out of mind. Added to that is the fact that Amy is in Ecuador, and I cannot talk to her like normal, and it makes for a pretty boring night. Like I said I am bored, so I am going to talk about the infamous Messianic secret in the Gospel of Mark, and where the book was written etc.

The gospel of Mark most likely was written by John Mark who is mentioned in the Pauline letters. If we believe the ancient Church Father Paipas he was a disciple of Peter. Peter probably formed his stories as Chreiae as I mentioned in the previous post. What Mark did was to organize the matieral not in a chronological fashion, but thematically to make a theological point answering the question: Who is Jesus? The audience that he was writing to was probably in Rome, because of various latinisms like having to explain that the greek word for pratorium meant praetorium (witherington). Witherington places the gospel between 66-70 overlapping the time of the Jewish War and the reign of Nero. This was a highly turbulent time, and is probably why Mark takes on an apocolyptic style. I am being very brief here, because I am going to write a full paper at some point, but I am just give people some info on the book, who may be interested.

The Messianic secret motif in the gospel, where Jesus tells people to tell no one who he is has often times been taken to prove the point that Jesus' ministry was never actually messianic, but that the gospel writer smoothed over this problem, because he believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Since Mark believed Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to cover over the problem of a non messianic Jesus, so he did so by saying that Jesus never let the people who knew his identity who he was. Besides the fact that it is a priori unlikely that Mark would remain a believer if he knew that Jesus was really not the Christ, there is a better explanation for the "Messianic Secret."

In Jesus' time Judea was a boiling cauldron of controversy with people claiming to be the Messiah just about everyday. The popular idea of a Davidic Messiah was diverse in the time of Jesus, but there was a very strong stream that claimed that the Messiah would come and kill the pagans, and lead the Jews out of exile from the yoke of Pagan bondage. Jesus stepped into this world, but he had a different idea of what a Messiah was. Jesus was an original thinker when it came to the Jewish Messiah. Jesus combined the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament found in Isaiah and Psalms, and combined it with the vision of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, and Daniel 7. Jesus' was the King who was to suffer for the plight of his people, and lead those who would listen in a new way of being Israel. This was a religous belief, but in Palestine of Jesus' day it was a political position also. This is why Jesus told his disciples, and other people who knew who he was not to tell anyone, because if you walked around Palestine claiming you where the Jewish King (or Messiah) the Jews would think you where a military leader there to kick the pagans out of Jerusalem, or the Romans would catch wind of your claim and come and stamp out your movement. Jesus was secretive about his vocation, or kingship because it was a powder keg issue, and he did not want to over throw the Romans, but gather Israel around the true God.

If you are interested read Daniel 7 and Mark 13, and then see what you can put together concerning the person of Christ. Well that is all for this evening, I have to get up and drive 600miles.

Mark and Rhetoric

2006-01-11T21:43:00.000-08:00

As I was reading the Introduction by Witherington to his commentary on Mark he noted an very interesting point about a Greek and Roman rhetorical form of writing known as the chreiae. The chreiae where short stories strung together, the interesting thing about these short stories is that they where always shortened forms of memoirs or “recollections.” Witherington says,

“Aphotinius the Sophists reminds his listeners that a chreiae is a concise statement of apomnemoneumata, which may be translated memoirs, recollections or memoranda.”

Witherington goes on to quote R.O.P Taylor,

“Chreiae where not merely a literary form, but essentially a historical statement- So and so who was a known historical figure, actually said or did this… Actual fact was demanded. If then the Gospels had not some gurantee of this kind, if they could not be shown to be ascertained history, they would have failed in their appeal.”

In other words historical statements about a historical person, added to this fact is the reality that bios where always about real historical persons and what they said. This is significant in the debate about the Historical Jesus because the very form of the gospel of Mark makes it a posteriori likely that Jesus is represented in the gospels historically, not to mention the fact that the Jesus of the gospels fits into first century Judaism like a glove.

Blake

Gospel of Mark study

2006-01-11T15:59:00.000-08:00

Over the next year, or so, i will post some thoughts, and the thoughts of Ben Witherington on the Gospel of Mark on my blog. I hope this will be a good excercise for me in knowing scripture and helpful to others. The first thing I will post is about the Genre of Mark. No one frames is better than Witherington so we will start here, and I will post more on Mark's Genre later.

Ben Witherington defines genre as,
“ a literary kind or type. It refers to a sort of compact between an author and his reader whereby the author, using various literary signals, will indicate to the reader what sort of document is being read and how it should be used. The genre signals in the text provide the reader with a guide to the interpretation of the text. To make a genre mistake is to make a category mistake, which skews the reading of the document.”

In Christ,
Blake

Books I have read

2005-12-27T19:42:00.000-08:00

Cross section of books that I have read http://www.librarything.com/catalog.php

2005-12-13T15:23:00.000-08:00

Sermon I preached a while back on Colossians:

Introduction

Reading of God’s word Colossians 1:15-20/ Prayer.
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
19For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Is there a part of the Christian life that requires us to think deeply about our faith? I imagine that some of you today would say, “Of course not! Tell me how the bible relates to my own life! I do not want to know about all of that abstract stuff that does not make sense to me.”
This position really doesn’t make any good non- sense, as a friend of mine likes to say, as a story of one of the greatest theologians to ever live, shows very well. The world-renowned theologian Karl Barth was at a major American Seminary, and one of the students in class asked Barth, “What is the most difficult thing you have learned about the Christian faith.” Barth paused for a second, and then looked up and said, “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.” The point is that even the things that we take for granted as simple, can be extremely deep and beautiful to think about. The Christian message is extremely simple, but at the same time very complex. It is this tension that makes the faith easy enough for a child and very complex for an adult.
I hope as we dig in to this beautiful passage of scripture that you will go with me on a journey, into the very person of God as He has revealed himself in Holy Scripture. I also pray that you will come to find that there is not correct living with out correct belief.

Background
Paul in this letter to the Colossians was writing a letter to a church in a small town in the Lycus River Valley, which is in modern day turkey. As with many other towns in this time Colossae would have had many religions to choose from, and mix together. Most of Paul’s converts like many of us came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ later in life. There was also a group of false teachers in Asia Minor at the time. Paul is essentially fighting a battle against these false teachers, who do not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and who are trying to convert the Pagan converts in the church into form Judaism. These false teachers where challenging the supremacy of Jesus Christ and also the fact that he was God, so Paul felt the need to respond, and his letter to the Christians at Colossae is the response.

I. Christ’s Supremacy over Creation V.15-17
In the preceding verses of chapter one Paul has just finished telling the Colossians how pleased he is with their progress in the Gospel, or the Christian life. Now Paul turns to give praise and glory to the one who God had used to rescue the Colossians out of what Paul calls the Dominion of Darkness, in verse 13.
In v.15 Paul says that Christ is the “image of the invisible God” this does not mean that Paul only thought of Christ as a cheap copy of the father, but a perfect manifestation of God. This is what the Greek word “eikon” means by the use of this word, Paul is stressing that Jesus is the perfect manifestation of God. To see what God is like, we must look at Jesus (cf. John 14:7-10; 1:14-18; 12:45; Heb. 1:3). Jesus was not a creature, but God himself. This does not mean that God the Father and God the Son are the same persons, but that they are one God. The One True and Living God of Christian faith is distinguished from all other religions by this very fact, He is a Trinity, that he exists eternally as three persons, but is still one God. This is the significance of what Paul is saying in the first half of Colossians 1:15. In the second half of v.15 Paul then turns to the fact that Christ is the first born over all creation, what this means is not that Christ was created, but that he is of first rank above all things. This means that there is nothing that we should give more value to than the eternal Son of God, because if He is the creator then he gets all of the glory and honor.
This belief that Christ is to have the glory, or the supremacy in His creation is reinforced by the fact that v.16 proclaims that Christ is the Creator of all things. Paul plays off three pairs of words to emphasize this fact. First, Christ created the heavens and the earth. Second, Christ created all things, visible and invisible. Third, Christ has created all authorities and powers both human and spiritual. In a few short words Paul would say, “Christ is Lord over all!” Paul finishes v. 16 with the phrase; “all things have been created through Him and for Him.” Do not pass over this passage without realizing its implications. All powers and authorities; the entire creation; everything you touch, taste, see, smell, feel they all where created for Christ’s Glory. In v. 17 Paul states what the implications of Christ being the creator means is that Jesus is eternal, and that God the Father holds the universe together through Christ. Paul is countering the belief that there are other powers in this world that could challenge God’s power. Paul says this is absolutely wrong, because Christ is the Creator, and by Him everything that exists has its existence because Christ created them and sustains them. Many people will ask who created God? The answer of scripture is absolutely no one. Our Holy God has always been here and will always be here, He is eternal.
By now I am sure I have put you to sleep, or you are asking, “Blake, so what? What can this possibly have to do with my everyday practical life?” I respond by pointing out four applications from the above previous observations.
1. First, this teaching can affect where you will spend eternity, and I do not think that you can get much more practical than that. If you do not believe me look up 1 John 2:22 “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.” There are many groups today in our very own small towns of Lanesville, and Corydon who deny the Son and the Father. Some are known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others are known as Mormons. They both have one thing in common with all other false religions; they have a defective view of whom Jesus Christ is and what He came to do.
2. The second application is that Christ is Lord now! In v.16 we come back to the point that Christ is the eternal Son of God who is ruling over all powers and authorities in this world, and they are in fact created for His glory. This is the essence of the strength that believers in other countries find when they are persecuted for their faith. To narrow it down as an application for our church in America, this verse may bring you comfort to know that behind the course of world events, God is orchestrating all things for His own glory. There is not one reason for the Christian to panic when things like 9/11 happen! Why? Because Christ is sitting at the Father’s right hand and is ruling the world even though the world that is still in its rebellion is ignoring the fact that He will return in judgment. So, we must remember that Christ is Lord now! This is the significance of the imagery of Christ now sitting at the right hand of the father; this is biblical kingship language.
3. Third, if the world and all that is in it is created for the Glory of Christ as Paul says, this should affect the very way that we live our lives. We live in the King’s world, and as His subjects we are to give Him all of the glory. (“All things have been created through Him and for Him.) This means, that you, your life, your family, and everything that is yours is just on lone in order give Christ the Glory and honor, therefore our resources, all of our resources, should be ready and at the disposal of the God who allowed you to have them.
II. Christ’s Supremacy in the Church
In verses 17-18 we see that Paul switches subjects from the Creation to the Church. Why does Paul do this? Paul does this because he is depicting the church as the beginning of God’s new creation, we are moving from creation to new creation. Just as Christ is the firstborn or is of first rank in his creation (see v. 15), so too, he is the first in the Church (see v. 18). The two ideas that run through the background of this teaching about the old and the new creation are story of man’s rebellion against God, in Eden, that plunged the creation into darkness and decay, and the idea that runs throughout the New Testament known as the “already” and “not yet”. A good example of this “already and not yet” is our salvation, we are already saved, but we will be saved when Christ returns. Or to take an example from recent history; we all know that D-day was the day that Allied troops landed on the beaches of Normandy and the tide of WWII was changed, but VE Day or victory day did not come until 11 months later. It is as if Christ’s death and resurrection where D-Day and the turning point of History, but we wait for the day that he returns to make all things new, or VE Day. Paul is saying that God is already recreating our world, and when he returns it will be fully changed, and he will wipe away all the tears from our eyes. That is why Christ has risen, because the resurrection is a sign of the New Creation, and the body of believers that he has established is another sign of this new creation! The implications of this New Testament teaching are staggering!
1. First, The supremacy of Christ should change the way we see ourselves. What if we as a Church started to see our church, not as a gathering of people, but as a beginning of something much bigger than ourselves? What if we saw ourselves as God’s New Creation calling a dead and dying world to salvation? What if we saw ourselves as agents of God’s New Creation bringing hope to a world with out hope, feeding the homeless, loving the unlovable, being Christ to the world? The Christian life is so much more than your personal relationship with Jesus. There is more to the Christian life than prayer, bible study, and church. There is discipleship that may cost us our lives. If the church is being this new creation then it will do so, by discipleship, keeping one another accountable, dealing with sin, confessing to one another, and praying with one another. I will tell you right now if there is anyone in this room right now who has difficulties with pornography, alcoholism, lying, cheating or some other sin there is absolutely no chance for you if you do not repent of your sin, and find a group of fellow believers whom you trust that can help you through this bondage, trust me I know first hand. There is not freedom from sin with out the help of the church. Paul assures us in v. 13 that we have freedom from our biggest struggles only in Christ because Christ has rescued us. We are no longer who we where before Salvation, but we are part of God’s new community, and we have the ability to change.
2. Second, the Church with Christ as its head must follow its Lord no matter what the cost, and it must share the gospel with humility. What if we realize that being a Christian is more than getting a fuzzy feeling on Sunday morning because of good music, and realize that God is calling us to live a life of obedience to him right this moment? If we would only see ourselves as the New Community of God to the world, the New Israel if you will, that is called to be a “city set on a hill”, then and only then will the church do what it was intended to do. As a city set on a hill I do not mean one in which, we look down on an unbelieving world, and go hide in our Christian ghettos. What Jesus means by “a city set on a hill” is a group of believers who are willing to love and show love to the prostitute, the alcoholic, the girl who had an abortion, or whatever sin you think is the worst. We are to avoid doing these evil deeds, but the only thing we have to tell an unbelieving world is that they need Christ, we do not need to point the finger and tell people how bad they are unless we are willing to present the full Gospel to them. The Gospel is not a stick we get to brandish over the heads of unbelievers, but the very power of God for salvation.
3. Third, since the church has been risen with Christ, the members should put away all the wickedness of their former lives that they lived before Christ. Paul says in Colossians 3:1-3 “Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking, the things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Before we where believers we where dead in our sins on our way to hell, but when God reached down and graciously gave us the ability to believe in His Son we where changed. This has serious implications for our Christian walk, because if we are united with Christ in His church, then we should constantly be fighting our sin, and if we are not fighting sin, then that may tell us something about ourselves. A Christian life is a changed life, not just coming to church on Sundays. The Christian life is supposed to affect every part of our lives.
III. Christ Supremacy in the incarnation and redemption v.19-20 “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”
As vs. 16 gave the explains the appropriateness of what was said about Christ in verse 15, so verse 19 explains the appropriateness of Christ being the preeminent one in verse 18. The reason why Christ is first in the Church is because he has secured our redemption by being the very presence of God on earth. Jesus in His earthly life was both fully God and fully man. This is a divine mystery that no one can, or ever will be able to solve, but this mystery is what saves us, because we as sinful people have sinned against and infinite Holy God, and one transgression against a Holy God is a debt that cannot be paid back by anything that we can do so in our dark state we needed a rescue. So God in order to glorify Himself, by showing us his love, sent His son who was both fully God and fully man to suffer under the perfect wrath of God so that we may have life with Him. Not only have we marred the lives that God has given us, but we have also affected the world around us, that is why Paul can say in this passage that Christ is reconciling all things by the blood of His Cross. Maybe the most vivid illustration of the love God in a the Bible is the story of the Prodigal Son, I would encourage you to read the story this evening before you go to bed. I am going to read the story of the Prodigal to you now [Luke 15;11-32], because I do not think that reconcillation will need any explanation once we read this story. The story of the prodigal is a story of God’s love for his sinful and rebellious people.
How can we possibly apply this to our lives? First, we give Christ all of the glory in our salvation, because there is nothing we can do to save ourselves. Before we are saved we are rightly under God’s just wrath, but when the spirit comes up on us, and moves our hearts to realize that we are sinners in need of Christ it is totally an act of God. Even after we have been saved and we have been in the church for many years we will continue to struggle with sin. The moment that you say you have no sin you need to examine your life, because 1 John says that, “the man who says he has not sin deceives himself, and the truth is not in him.” The Christian life is a continual turning from sin, and sadly the church has failed miserably in helping men and women deal with their deepest darkest sins. Our natural reaction is to hide our sins from others, so that we look as if we are not sinners, but the truth is that though, saved, we are still in a fallen world with fallen desires. This should make us fall in humble adoration of our gracious God who continually empowers us, and forgives us when we stumble. Second, there is no room as a Christian to think that there is some corner of our lives that does not belong to God. Paul is clear that all things where created, held together, and reconciled through Christ. There is not one place of our lives that we should keep from our infinitely Holy God.
I would like everyone to close your eyes, and keep them closed. Maybe you have come here this morning, and you have felt God’s spirit move in your heart as you have heard the message of Colossians. Maybe you are a new face in this church, or maybe you have been in church your whole life, and are just now realizing that you need Christ to change you. If you feel the spirit calling you to Christ, then right where you are raise your hand so that I can pray for you. I am not going to ask anyone to come forward this morning, if you have a decision to make come to Pete or I after service so that we can pray with you, and help you make the next step in the walk of Christian discipleship.

Review of Colson's "Being the Body"

2005-12-06T09:01:00.000-08:00

Colson, Charles and Ellen Vaughn. Being the Body: A New call for the Churches to be Light in the Darkness. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2003. 491 pp. $16.99.
Chuck Colson is well known for his involvement in the Nixon administration, and the controversy that surrounds it. He became a Christian while in prison. When he got out he started a ministry called Prison Fellowship Ministries, and he also has his own radio program, “Break Point,” which airs daily. He founded the Wilberforce forum, which is designed to equip Christians with a Christian worldview. He is the author of over twenty books, many of which deal with the relation of Christianity to culture.
Ellen Vaughn is a fiction author, and co-author with Colson on many books. She is former vice president of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
The authors’ purpose in writing this book was to” … look at the church, as it is commonly perceived, from outside and inside. We’ll address the biblical definition of the church and its characteristics, both the universal and the local confessing congregation.”
In Part one of the book the authors’ answer the question: What is the Church? In Part 2 the relationship of the church to the unbelieving world. Part three explains Church’s praxis, or way of being in the world. How should the church serve the culture that surrounds it?
In Part one the authors describe what a biblical view of the church is. The church is criticized for its modern individualism in America, along with its sensate consumerist culture, the lack of a sense of community, the lack of a belief in truth, the profaning of the sacraments, and the lack of the preaching of the word. The authors correct this view by emphasizing the importance of reverence toward a Holy God, the need for unity among orthodox believers, rediscovering the power of the sacraments, the biblical exposition of God’s word, and the Church as a community that holds its members accountable to be Christ’s followers in a rebellious world.
In Part two the authors turn to the topic of what the church militant looks like, when it is mobilized in a biblical fashion. Colson and Vaughn paint a picture of the church that is the guardian of truth and meaning in an intellectual and popular culture that has rejected these two foundations of society. The authors stress the point, that it is the church’s duty to uphold this truth courageously, and bring it to bear on every aspect of the individual believer’s life. The motivation for this should be a holy fear of the one true and living God. The authors are adamant about these points because if the church does not recognize its responsibility, to bring the truth to the world, then it runs the risk of not answering the ultimate questions that a truth starved society is needing answers. If the church does not meet this challenge, then it will become irrelevant
Part three gives in depths look at how the Church should train Christians to live out their Christian lives. The authors put a major emphasis on Christian discipleship, meaning the intellectual, moral, and spiritual training the church needs, to wage its warfare on the world. The Church must do this by teaching its members the deep truths about the faith, and how our faith, corresponds, and works out in reality. The training should go down the bedrock of the lives of the members of the church, from the financial to how the family is organized. The authors also have hard words for the leaders of the church, calling out what the authors call, the pedestal complex. The pedestal complex is seen to be a poison in the church, because it makes the pastor out to be a celebrity instead of the preacher of God’s word. Not only this but the pastor also loses accountability when he is put on a pedestal. A correction to this problem is the model of Jesus’ servant leadership, which the authors go to some good length in explaining. Furthermore, the church must be in the world by taking the gospel to the world. This must be done in a well thought out contextualized fashion. The authors determine that when the church adopts its mission, then and only then, will the church be salt and light to a world that finds itself in a pool of increasing confusion.
Throughout the book in order to illustrate their point, the authors employ the use of true stories of Christians who embody what the Church is supposed to be. This is helpful because it gives the reader something concrete to see instead of speaking in the abstract.
The authors both state that their background is from within the Reformed tradition. Colson a Reformed Baptist, and Vaughn a member of the Presbyterian Church of America. The authors try to put forward a vision of church unity based on the Nicene tradition, which all orthodox traditions can agree on. The position of Colson and Vaughn is at variance with much of reformed tradition that typically sees the Catholic Church, at best as a false church with some believers, and at worst, as a totally apostate church. Colson and Vaughn are influenced by a philosophy of the Church that believes, that there are true, and false believers in all denominations (13). This “open” perspective makes this book valuable to all denominations, because it calls the church universal to stand united against the coming tide of unbelieving secularism. In short, it is time for Protestants to stop making 16th century disputes as the main problems in the world today. There is now a new enemy at our gates, secularism.
The authors also masterfully weave in chapters of stories of inspiration and hope in between their more didactic chapters. These chapters seem to expand on, and make the points they are trying to make more life like. A good example of this is chapter 23-24. The authors set up a didactic/story-telling dialectic. Chapter twenty-three concerns the humility of Christ, and how believers should have the same mind set as their lord. Then in the next chapter they tell the story of Father Maximilian Kobe who gave his life for a man, at Auschwitz that the did not even know. The story reinforces the teachings so strongly that it drives the point home. This is done throughout the book.
When the authors turn to the matters of church culture and its corruptions they offer some penetrating analysis. On pages eighteen through twenty-five they show how the church has become individual and consumer oriented. They note how this consumer impulse in American society corrupts the members and the theology of the church. By putting the focus on the self and feel good culture, the church, instead of teaching the doctrines of man’s sinfulness, and need for God, the church tries to please the consumer. The church has even gone so far as to use marketing techniques to draw people into the church. On pages 44-45 the authors helpfully distinguish between the church particular and the church universal. The church particular is the divided up universal body, with its varying differences and denominations, but the church is still unified on the main points of faith.
Colson and Vaughn, helpfully, in chapter fifteen explain and critique the different world-views are destroying the church and western society. They confront the emptiness of the modern world and the emptiness of these philosophies by showing the inherent flaws in each (177-196).
It is also refreshing in chapter twenty that Colson restates the reformed view of everyday life. He adequately grasps the fact that the Christian life transforms everything we do, into and act of worship to God. This chapter is a great corrective for the practical atheism that so often has seeped into our churches.
The third section of the book lays out a great plan for Christian discipleship. Foundational, to this section is as the authors say, “What we do, therefore, flows from who we are.” This is foundational to understanding Christian discipleship (311). So often in the Church we have forgot to disciple people after conversion. We must tell new believers to believe in Christ is synonymous with following him, because if we believe in someone we will follow them. One thing that Colson and Vaughn do not realize is that the statement, “Being precedes doing (359) (essence before existence)” is in direct contradiction to the modern existentialist teaching that “existence precedes essence.” The should have realized this, because it would have been very helpful to flesh it out a little bit more with in the context of contemporary society.
This book is the second book on the church that this reviewer has read in the last two months. The other book was Mere Discipleship, which was from an Anabaptist perspective on cultural engagement. There where many correspondences between the two books and their ideas concerning the church and discipleship. Both books call Christians to be more radical disciples calling a broken and lost world back to its creator. The one thing that Mere Discipleship was stronger in than Being the Body is the eschatological view of the Christian community. While Colson does note this teaching, it is not nearly a big enough topic in the book.
This book is a breath of fresh air in the Christian community for two reasons. First, it challenges the reformed community that is still in many ways stuck in the sixteenth century disputes of the reformers. Colson and Vaughn challenge these Christians to realize that there is now a much bigger enemy at the door than the Catholic Church, because Protestants and Catholics are trying to reconcile differences. Secularism is now the single most dangerous ideology to Protestant and Catholic traditions, and it is about time that Protestants and Catholics recognize this. Second, it challenges the “limp wristed” ecumenism of the mainline Protestant denominations that want to simply act like there are no differences what so ever between denominations. Colson and Vaughn call these groups back to theological purity (261-289).
It would have been helpful if the authors would have gave a chapter devoted to the Emergent Church movement, since it has been the topic of discussion for quite some time. The critiques of post modernity in section two of the book would have been very helpful when examining the works of Brian Mclaren, and other emergent writers.
Everything the authors include in this book is right on target. Their critiques of the church need to be heard, and their suggestions on discipleship need to be implemented into our churches.
This book was a very enjoyable and edifying read. The stories are gripping and the didactic chapters are intellectually stimulating, they are written from a solid orthodox position, which will be good for people in the church who are not as well read in theology. This book will be good for anyone in the church who wants to further his or her understanding of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.
More specifically this book is extremely valuable to any student of theology who is looking to take a leadership position within the church. The book gives good guidelines for how churches should disciple new believers, and how the church must regain its collectivist roots by combating western individualism. The book is not afraid to step on toes, but this is exactly what a church that has grown complacent needs.

The Problems with Boyce College

2005-12-05T08:19:00.000-08:00

Boyce College is a small bible college in the midwest that I have recently stopped attending. This is an open letter of sorts to Jimmy Scroggins and everyone else at Southern Seminary who have allowed the academic standards to plummet over the last few years. I see four major problems that need to be fixed at the school or it will remain an obscure insititution: 1) Students are not introduced to liberal theology in the biblical studies program, because of a fear they may lost their faith, we are told that they are wrong, but we never read Wellhausen, Bultmann, Kaseman or any other writer. 2) Philosophy classes are a joke, we read no original sources and any decent discussions are not carried on when they arise. 3) Lack of examination of differing view points within Christianity. We are never taught about Roman Catholocism, Eastern Orthodoxy etc. we are simply told that they are wrong, because the Baptists have the faith once and for all handed down to the saints. 4) The Academic climate is stifling, with no freedom of descent on theological issues. No one can openly ask questions in a comfortable context, and if the student has an opinion that is at variance with the professor on things like Predestination, Eschatology, or nature of scripture it is not welcomed. A good example is the dismantling of the Berea Forum after Hal Ostrander left. Notice we no longer have debates like the Eschatology debate. What if we wanted to have a debate from some liberal thinker with an Evangelical? For instance if we had a debate between a John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright. Or even better what if we had an open forum with the Presbyterian Seminary right next door? I doubt this would happen since the Seminary is afraid to even touch views that may be somewhat contrary to what we confess. I am confessional in my theology but it is no excuse for lack of learning, or a lack of engagement with those around us. I hope that Southern becomes more conversant with the outside world, and that Boyce would stop placating to the Youth Majors and recovers its sense of Academic respectability. I am done with the school personally, but for those who continue to enroll I hope that the school will start to care about the mind a little bit more than it has recently, and maybe even care for your spiritual well being.

In Christ,
Blake