Oh boy, Whenever I write on this topic I get 'fan' mail. One major problem is that not all Calvinist go this far, but to be blunt if T,U and L are true then I is inevitable. You can dance around it but in the end God's grace is irresistible if election is unconditional. If God has elected you to salvation you are forced to accept his grace.
The doctrine of irresistible grace states basically this: that once God has decided to give his grace to you (See unconditional election) you cannot resist it and you will become saved. Like it or not.
Between this and P -- Perseverance Of The Saints (which I will deal with next week) you get the basis for Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). But more on that next week.
My largest problem with this is the image it creates of God that is highly unbiblical.
1) God only presents his grace to the elect. I find a universality in the Scripture of who gets loved by God -- Everyone. If every person is loved by God then why would he only make grace irresistible to those who he has made elect.
2) Faith coming exclusively from God. God only gives faith that saves to those he chooses. The fact remains that when our faith is talked about, it is always given the possessive to us. The Bible never describes faith as God's through us, but ours -- 'your faith' is always the idea. "Your faith has made you whole." etc., etc.
3) Throughout the Old Testament God's people are repeatedly described by God as being rebellious, but what difference would it make if God's grace is irresistible? None. Here we have God going on and on through the prophets calling his people back to him if such a call was irresistible in the first place. God does not work this way in the whole counsel of God.
To further my point, I would like to use an analogy that is common is Scripture. Marriage. The image of marriage is often used of God and his people. Now if this doctrine is true this is how covenant works with God. God proposes the covenant of marriage to you. You not only must say yes but you cannot help but say yes. You have been drugged by god so that you cannot help but say yes. Once you have said yes, God forces himself upon you in relationship and intimacy with him. This would be like me proposing marriage to my wife and then telling her she cannot help but say yes. In fact I am going to answer for her and say yes by taking over her mind and will to make her. Once we are married, I take her home with me and she must do what ever I will. She cannot refuse me for I keep her drugged so she never can resist anything I want to do. There is no love here in such a relationship -- constant spiritual rape is more like it.
Paula and others pay attention here.
I think salvation works more on the line of what engagement and marriage is supposed to be like: When I asked my wife to marry me I waited for her response. I CHOSE Her but she had to say 'yes'. Her saying 'yes' is nothing she did to earn my love, it is simply an acceptance of my offer and gift. Once yes was said did that mean my wife suddenly lost her will and she had nothing to say about how she and i walked in relationship? I think not. Such covenant relationships require give and take on both sides. If she goes out and fools around and no longer want to be married to me -- divorce takes place the covenant is broken.
In the same way God chose me and offered me his salvation but I still had to say yes. To say yes I must believe in Christ's resurrection and confess His Lordship over my life. (Romans 10:9-10) Was I doing 'a work' by doing this? No, all I did was accept an offered gift. Once done, I have said yes, but that does not mean the covenant does not have to be maintained. If I ever stop believing in the resurrection of Christ or, by my life, no longer confess the Lordship of Christ -- the covenant is broken. Conditions exist in this covenant and they are to be maintained or the covenant is gone. Read Deuteronomy for an example of this idea between God and his people.
Next: P - Perseverance of the Saint or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 1 -- Eden Again
I know everyone has been waiting with baited breath what I am going to do now. Well, OK that is a little fantasy of mine that I have thousands of lurkers reading everything I write with breathless anticipation. Right.
This is a spin off from my last series and in it I am going to engage the first issue I presented -- public nudity. Only, I want to get a clear Biblical definition of nakedness and what it means to be naked and see if it lines up with the modern church's concept of the subject.
The first place nakedness occurs in the Bible is in Genesis chapter 2 and 3. The whole creation of man and fall story has as one of the central issues -- the nakedness of mankind. Although, I doubt most people look at it as a central issue but let's see -- it is the issue that their eyes were opened to see that they were naked that the knowledge of sin is known. Hmmmm.
Before the Fall
Verse 25 of chapter two is telling: "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Given the time we also need to remember that when God is done creating he calls all things 'very good' and this includes the fact that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed about it. Let's review: Good equals naked and unashamed.
The Fall's Affect on Nakedness
The Fall's immediate affect to both Adam and Eve is that they become aware of their nakedness. Sin equals awareness of nakedness. The result is an attempt to hide their nakedness. The thing is that they are not trying to conceal their nakedness from each other. Sorry Adam and Eve are husband and wife and once you have seen it all with each other there is no shame. Trust me on this I have no problem changing my clothes in front of my wife. Their issue is being naked before GOD. Sin has made them aware of this.
This story also illustrates another thing about nakedness -- where they considered themselves naked. They make aprons for themselves. Loins area. I want to note at this point that Eve does not also fashioned a bra or corset. In deference to all the movies I doubt she bothered to cover her breasts at all -- even with her hair.
It also makes me wonder something else -- was the nakedness about their bodies or their spirits? This passage does not answer it other than to say they were afraid of God when he arrived, but it might be a question to consider as we travel through this series.
There are some consequences for the Fall
1. Separated relationship with God for Mankind
2. Separated relationship between man and woman
3. Beginning of loss of relationship with creation
4. Hard work for men
5. Increased pain in childbirth for women
6. Loss of the tree of life and Eden
7. SHAME in Being Naked
8. Having to wear clothes -- see I have told people that the fashion industry is of the devil and I now have proof. ;-)
I highlight the last two because many people see the wearing of clothes as a good thing and the shame associated with it as natural to man. In deference to such people I see them as results of sin and the fall of mankind just as much as the others. Bad -- Sin equals shame and clothes.
Now the argument raised by Biblically knowledgeable nudists and topfree advocates is, that if sin is the cause of shame concerning nakedness, why do conservative Christians consider it a sin to return to this state of naked and unashamed when it was declared good by God. Do we not tell people after they are saved that they can have victory over sin and that God begins to cleanse us from sin including the results of it. One of the results of sin is shame involving nakedness and clothes. If a person is saved, do we not say that God can removed the shame of their sin?
I hate to say it but this is a good argument. Robert Heinlein, author of many classic science fiction stories, basically argued this way. The argument being that if we Christians were really trying to bring people back into right relationship with God and bring the world back to paradise we Christians should join him in being a nudist. We would try to help people overcome the stigma of nakedness and take off our clothes.
Good equals naked and unashamed.
Bad equals ashamed of nakedness and clothes.
Advocates of nudity point this out.
See the Problem.
This story in Genesis only really points out the beginnings of the problem it does not say how mankind dealt with it. More on that later.
Next: Noah: Drunk and Naked
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Book of Revelation -- Part 5 -- The Need of the Seven Churches for This Book
I think most people who have read the book of Revelation are familiar with the seven churches. The question I have is their role in interpretation of the book of Revelation. I think there is a very real possibility that the visions contained in this book are things they understood much better than us. In a very real way, the book of Revelation is a letter to them.
If this is the case than the needs, desires and situations of these seven churches should influence interpretation of the book as a whole after chapter three is over How would they have interpreted it? What significance did it have for them? Modern interpreters often forget who this book is addressed to and the role they could have in interpretation.
Each of the churches has something they need: Whether they are praised or rebuked by Christ; in some cases both, they all had some need that was met by the book in later pages. Jesus isn't just addressing them here and then forgetting them as he starts chapter 4. He is giving them the information and knowledge they need about Him so they can overcome the problems He has pointed out to them.
1. Ephesus has a need to find a way to rediscover their first love, is there something that follows in the book that tells them how to or motivates the to do this?
2. Smyrna needs encouragement in the face of persecution and a lack of resources, does one of the passages do this?
3. Pergamum needs both encouragement to hold fast and motivation to turn from their idolatry in repentance, do the visions that follow help them with both objectives?
4. Thyatira needs to hold fast to what they do well and cast the Jezebel woman from their midst, is there a passage that tells them how or gives them motivation to do so?
5. Sardis needs revival and to take the remnant left and multiply it, is there a way to do this shown in the book of Revelation?
6. Philadelphia needs to hold fast to what they have and go through the door no man can shut, does the book tell them how and encourage them?
7. Laodecia needs to be a church that stops being useless to God because it relies on worldly wealth and knowledge instead of what can be obtained from God, is there motivation and instruction how to do so in the book of Revelation?
The one thing I want to remember as I look at the rest of the book is not to forget who it was written to originally. It may be that all the seven symbolism in the rest of the book directly ties back to the seven churches. I cannot overlook the possibility.
Next: The Throne of God
If this is the case than the needs, desires and situations of these seven churches should influence interpretation of the book as a whole after chapter three is over How would they have interpreted it? What significance did it have for them? Modern interpreters often forget who this book is addressed to and the role they could have in interpretation.
Each of the churches has something they need: Whether they are praised or rebuked by Christ; in some cases both, they all had some need that was met by the book in later pages. Jesus isn't just addressing them here and then forgetting them as he starts chapter 4. He is giving them the information and knowledge they need about Him so they can overcome the problems He has pointed out to them.
1. Ephesus has a need to find a way to rediscover their first love, is there something that follows in the book that tells them how to or motivates the to do this?
2. Smyrna needs encouragement in the face of persecution and a lack of resources, does one of the passages do this?
3. Pergamum needs both encouragement to hold fast and motivation to turn from their idolatry in repentance, do the visions that follow help them with both objectives?
4. Thyatira needs to hold fast to what they do well and cast the Jezebel woman from their midst, is there a passage that tells them how or gives them motivation to do so?
5. Sardis needs revival and to take the remnant left and multiply it, is there a way to do this shown in the book of Revelation?
6. Philadelphia needs to hold fast to what they have and go through the door no man can shut, does the book tell them how and encourage them?
7. Laodecia needs to be a church that stops being useless to God because it relies on worldly wealth and knowledge instead of what can be obtained from God, is there motivation and instruction how to do so in the book of Revelation?
The one thing I want to remember as I look at the rest of the book is not to forget who it was written to originally. It may be that all the seven symbolism in the rest of the book directly ties back to the seven churches. I cannot overlook the possibility.
Next: The Throne of God
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 4 -- L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Can Only Do So Much
Now, in Calvinism, the central core of the system is Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. Once a person accepts these the remaining things of TULIP just follow.
Limited Atonement states that because election is unconditional then Jesus only died for the elect. Some versions state that Jesus' sacrifice only applied to the elect, but either way, atonement is limited to the elect.
I have two objections to this
1) The first is that this is patently Unbiblical -- 1 John 2:2 -- "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." John basically states that Jesus blood and sacrifice is a propitiation for every sin committed; not just but Christians but the whole world. There are other verses like this but only one is necessary.
2) Doesn't this limit the power of Christ's blood? Seems to. It means that Christ's power over sin only extends to those who are the elect. After that Jesus' blood has no power.
Now as I do not accept T or U anyway, it does not follow for me that atonement is limited but applied to anyone who accepts it by faith.
Next: I -- Irresistible Grace or God the Spiritual Rapist
Limited Atonement states that because election is unconditional then Jesus only died for the elect. Some versions state that Jesus' sacrifice only applied to the elect, but either way, atonement is limited to the elect.
I have two objections to this
1) The first is that this is patently Unbiblical -- 1 John 2:2 -- "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." John basically states that Jesus blood and sacrifice is a propitiation for every sin committed; not just but Christians but the whole world. There are other verses like this but only one is necessary.
2) Doesn't this limit the power of Christ's blood? Seems to. It means that Christ's power over sin only extends to those who are the elect. After that Jesus' blood has no power.
Now as I do not accept T or U anyway, it does not follow for me that atonement is limited but applied to anyone who accepts it by faith.
Next: I -- Irresistible Grace or God the Spiritual Rapist
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Sexuality, The Church and America -- Part 7 -- How Should the Church React to All This?
To begin with let us recap the issues I have dealt with in this series:
1. Public Nudity
2. Pornography
3. Homosexual Marriage
4. Friends with Fringe Benefits
5. Polygamy
6. Legalized Prostitution
All of these issues are hot button topics and if you ask your average Christian religious right person about these issues you would get the traditional -- "Well I'm Against Them". This of course causes the left to respond with a loud voice saying -- "Well, how typically knee jerk of you" and "Isn't it just like Christians to try to control peoples' lives and behavior". It wouldn't so bad but many times they are right.
Compounding the problem is the fact that most Christians when dealing with these issues have never really examined them for themselves with Bible in hand. Most of the time it is group psychology thing where because 'the pastor and church say it's wrong, I am going too as well'. Hate to say it but the accusation by the left that Christians do not think through issues but religiously follow traditions is in many cases true. We also have a tendency to be dogmatic about these things even when faced with Biblical evidence that our views might be faulty in some way. We cling to our views and then try to find a new interpretation of the passages in question to keep them. This is BAD! Our response to any issue including the sexual ones of our culture should be based on the following factors:
1. What is the Biblical view of the issue:
2. What are the realities of the issue and how do they differ from the Bible
3. What does the Bible recommend as a course of action in dealing with the issue
In doing so we need to remember that the United States is not Israel of the Old Testament and the notion that somehow our jobs as Christians is to create a holy state here in the west is nonsense. Even if this so, it is obvious to me our tactics are not working because over the last 50 years we have watched the Christians go from being the dominate force in the culture to being a mere subculture. Every time there has been a change in our culture, we have reacted in such a way as to drive people from the pews. Why? Because in almost every case we have looked very religious and very self righteous. This is not going to win friends and influence people.
When it comes to the Bible on these issues we actually only have clear Bible on 3 and 4 -- Homosexual marriage and Friends with Fringe Benefits. Both are declared as sins by the Bible so it is not difficult to say these are wrong and should be avoided. The others are not so clear.
Nakedness for instance is very difficult to define Biblically and thus affects the issues of Public Nudity and Pornography. Nakedness and modesty are spiritual conditions based on the passages we do find on the subject, not a state of dress or undress. Particularly, when it comes to women going topless the Bible is remarkably silent in equalizing nudity with women's breasts. We are not to look at someone with lust in our hearts and thus commit adultery with them, but where does this lust come from? Nakedness and Pornography? The Bible does not indicate this as the source but our own hearts. If this is the case, then is the battle really with society or with the hearts of men and women including our own? I think it is with human hearts.
Polygamy makes the situation even worse because Biblically we actually have some support for the practice. It becomes difficult to look down our noses when some of the great characters were polygamous.
Legalized prostitution Biblically of course has its problems in that it promotes the two big no-nos for the Christian adultery and fornication. At the same time, how do you get rid of it being that it is so pervasive in every culture? As long as people have lusts in their hearts and want to control their time and place of sin, there will be prostitution. I take an interesting approach to the problem because I do not think outlawing it will stop it or hinder it. The is no surer way to curb a behavior than to legalize it, regulate it and tax it. You could do something similar with pornography.
The action to take on these things I am going to propose is not going to sit well with most Christians but at the same time I think it is Biblical.
1. Where the Bible is silent or supportive -- let it go. I think toplessness for women and polygamy fall in this category. If you are not standing on the Word on these issues where are you standing? These two simply have no way to fight them with Biblical justification it is simple a matter of what is tolerated by the culture.
2. Where the Bible is clearly against a behavior, make sure it is dealt with internally before turning external. The biggest failure of Christianity in America is the fact we are very quick to notice the motes in society's eyes while ignoring planks in our own. The rate of pornography use, infidelity and divorce is just as high in the church as it is outside of it. Who are we to judge others when the problem is in ourselves. The prophet who stands and decries his society and then does the same things himself is a hypocrite.
3. We need to get it into our head that people in the world who are not Christians are going to do what they do - sin. The resulting attitude that we as Christians should have is not to be self righteous about it, but to look at them as Jesus did -- with compassion. See Jesus Luke 7:36-50 in particular when dealing with sins of this nature. So as we turn external it should be with an attitude of 'if not for the grace of God, there go I" not this 'I am better than you because I don't do that" attitude that turns people off.
4. Quit relying on carnal weapons. Christians turn quicker to petitions, picket lines and political action that they do prayer and supplication to God. One of the greatest weapons we have is the gospel itself that changes peoples' hearts. We do not use it nearly as much as the others that are worldly.
5. Act as a citizen when you can but be humble about it. I vote and I am not saying that a Christian should not be active in his or her country but that is not ultimately how you are going to change a society. What you will get is a bunch of people who think their freedoms have been infringed upon again by those nutty Christians. I am not against mobilizing, but go find people that agree and motivate them, don't try to persuade or coerce those that oppose you with self righteous and judgmental tactics.
Over the coming weeks we may dive into some or all of these issues further but this series was to lay it our there to see what we could find initially.
Finis
1. Public Nudity
2. Pornography
3. Homosexual Marriage
4. Friends with Fringe Benefits
5. Polygamy
6. Legalized Prostitution
All of these issues are hot button topics and if you ask your average Christian religious right person about these issues you would get the traditional -- "Well I'm Against Them". This of course causes the left to respond with a loud voice saying -- "Well, how typically knee jerk of you" and "Isn't it just like Christians to try to control peoples' lives and behavior". It wouldn't so bad but many times they are right.
Compounding the problem is the fact that most Christians when dealing with these issues have never really examined them for themselves with Bible in hand. Most of the time it is group psychology thing where because 'the pastor and church say it's wrong, I am going too as well'. Hate to say it but the accusation by the left that Christians do not think through issues but religiously follow traditions is in many cases true. We also have a tendency to be dogmatic about these things even when faced with Biblical evidence that our views might be faulty in some way. We cling to our views and then try to find a new interpretation of the passages in question to keep them. This is BAD! Our response to any issue including the sexual ones of our culture should be based on the following factors:
1. What is the Biblical view of the issue:
2. What are the realities of the issue and how do they differ from the Bible
3. What does the Bible recommend as a course of action in dealing with the issue
In doing so we need to remember that the United States is not Israel of the Old Testament and the notion that somehow our jobs as Christians is to create a holy state here in the west is nonsense. Even if this so, it is obvious to me our tactics are not working because over the last 50 years we have watched the Christians go from being the dominate force in the culture to being a mere subculture. Every time there has been a change in our culture, we have reacted in such a way as to drive people from the pews. Why? Because in almost every case we have looked very religious and very self righteous. This is not going to win friends and influence people.
When it comes to the Bible on these issues we actually only have clear Bible on 3 and 4 -- Homosexual marriage and Friends with Fringe Benefits. Both are declared as sins by the Bible so it is not difficult to say these are wrong and should be avoided. The others are not so clear.
Nakedness for instance is very difficult to define Biblically and thus affects the issues of Public Nudity and Pornography. Nakedness and modesty are spiritual conditions based on the passages we do find on the subject, not a state of dress or undress. Particularly, when it comes to women going topless the Bible is remarkably silent in equalizing nudity with women's breasts. We are not to look at someone with lust in our hearts and thus commit adultery with them, but where does this lust come from? Nakedness and Pornography? The Bible does not indicate this as the source but our own hearts. If this is the case, then is the battle really with society or with the hearts of men and women including our own? I think it is with human hearts.
Polygamy makes the situation even worse because Biblically we actually have some support for the practice. It becomes difficult to look down our noses when some of the great characters were polygamous.
Legalized prostitution Biblically of course has its problems in that it promotes the two big no-nos for the Christian adultery and fornication. At the same time, how do you get rid of it being that it is so pervasive in every culture? As long as people have lusts in their hearts and want to control their time and place of sin, there will be prostitution. I take an interesting approach to the problem because I do not think outlawing it will stop it or hinder it. The is no surer way to curb a behavior than to legalize it, regulate it and tax it. You could do something similar with pornography.
The action to take on these things I am going to propose is not going to sit well with most Christians but at the same time I think it is Biblical.
1. Where the Bible is silent or supportive -- let it go. I think toplessness for women and polygamy fall in this category. If you are not standing on the Word on these issues where are you standing? These two simply have no way to fight them with Biblical justification it is simple a matter of what is tolerated by the culture.
2. Where the Bible is clearly against a behavior, make sure it is dealt with internally before turning external. The biggest failure of Christianity in America is the fact we are very quick to notice the motes in society's eyes while ignoring planks in our own. The rate of pornography use, infidelity and divorce is just as high in the church as it is outside of it. Who are we to judge others when the problem is in ourselves. The prophet who stands and decries his society and then does the same things himself is a hypocrite.
3. We need to get it into our head that people in the world who are not Christians are going to do what they do - sin. The resulting attitude that we as Christians should have is not to be self righteous about it, but to look at them as Jesus did -- with compassion. See Jesus Luke 7:36-50 in particular when dealing with sins of this nature. So as we turn external it should be with an attitude of 'if not for the grace of God, there go I" not this 'I am better than you because I don't do that" attitude that turns people off.
4. Quit relying on carnal weapons. Christians turn quicker to petitions, picket lines and political action that they do prayer and supplication to God. One of the greatest weapons we have is the gospel itself that changes peoples' hearts. We do not use it nearly as much as the others that are worldly.
5. Act as a citizen when you can but be humble about it. I vote and I am not saying that a Christian should not be active in his or her country but that is not ultimately how you are going to change a society. What you will get is a bunch of people who think their freedoms have been infringed upon again by those nutty Christians. I am not against mobilizing, but go find people that agree and motivate them, don't try to persuade or coerce those that oppose you with self righteous and judgmental tactics.
Over the coming weeks we may dive into some or all of these issues further but this series was to lay it our there to see what we could find initially.
Finis
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Book of Revelation -- Part 4 -- The Powerful Vision of Christ.
Oddly enough I think the vision of Christ that is found in chapter 1 verses 9-20 have interpretive significance but not in the fact they closely resemble the ones in Daniel. To take this book by itself the vision stands as a very interesting revelation of Christ. John is in the Spirit on the Lord's Day and he hears a powerful voice when he turns around he sees Christ:
1. Christ is powerful in word
2. Christ's appearance in radiant, powerful and central.
3. Christ is commanding and sovereign
4. Christ is light with no darkness at all
5. Christ is in the middle of the churches in question
When Jesus speaks of himself he adds:
1. He is the first and the last
2. He is the beginning and the end.
3. He is the living one
4. He was dead
5. He is alive forevermore
6. He holds the keys of hades
What really though should stick in our mind is the fact that Jesus interprets two symbols for us in this vision: the stars are the messengers and the lamp stands are the churches. What I am pointing out to us here is when the book gives us the meaning of a symbol then we do not have to speculate or guess we need to just accept it.
I am usually not given to overly emotional interpretations but this vision of Christ is so powerful I quake in my own boots and I was not there. Throughout the book of Revelation this is ultimately the vision of Christ we get -- the worthy powerful one who bring all things right. Christ who controls eternal life and death. This is the vision we need to keep as we look at all the others. Its power dominates all else. We should quake as we turn the pages that follow.
Next: The Need of the Seven Churches for this Book
1. Christ is powerful in word
2. Christ's appearance in radiant, powerful and central.
3. Christ is commanding and sovereign
4. Christ is light with no darkness at all
5. Christ is in the middle of the churches in question
When Jesus speaks of himself he adds:
1. He is the first and the last
2. He is the beginning and the end.
3. He is the living one
4. He was dead
5. He is alive forevermore
6. He holds the keys of hades
What really though should stick in our mind is the fact that Jesus interprets two symbols for us in this vision: the stars are the messengers and the lamp stands are the churches. What I am pointing out to us here is when the book gives us the meaning of a symbol then we do not have to speculate or guess we need to just accept it.
I am usually not given to overly emotional interpretations but this vision of Christ is so powerful I quake in my own boots and I was not there. Throughout the book of Revelation this is ultimately the vision of Christ we get -- the worthy powerful one who bring all things right. Christ who controls eternal life and death. This is the vision we need to keep as we look at all the others. Its power dominates all else. We should quake as we turn the pages that follow.
Next: The Need of the Seven Churches for this Book
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 3 -- U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil
Unconditional Election in my mind is the most heinous of the Tulips we are tiptoeing through because is creates an interesting an unbiblical view of God. When Wesley talked of it it said that it created a portrait of God that made God the devil. I agree.
The doctrine of unconditional election states that a person is predestined to heaven or hell before they are ever born. In short, God decided who will be with him in heaven or hell before they are even created. In short we have picture of God who is sitting on a throne who is throwing people right and left into heaven or hell before they have done anything. My problems with this are enormous.
1) How is God just if he does this? The defense I have heard is that God's justice is different than ours, but this is not so. God tells us what justice is and then declares himself many times to be its definition that we should follow and that we can know justice by knowing him.
2) Biblically this hard to support as every story that is told about final judgment tells us that people are judged by their actions as well as whether or not they possess faith in Christ. The names being blotted out of the book of life in Revelation is a particularly telling comment, overcoming to the end, and the words in Romans speaking of 'whosoever will' are expressions that cover the Bible with one idea -- there is a choice to be made by us that affects our salvation. it is a relationship entered into by covenant of BOTH parties including us.
The fact is that Calvin was trying to make God super sovereign and in so doing he robbed God of justice. He has turned the loving God into the unmerciful devil.
Some of the fruit I have seen of this doctrine are telling: One man I heard of burned himself to death because he believed that he was predestined to hell and he wanted to shorten the trip. Probably the most heinous thing it does is it justifies an antinomian attitude. Such a doctrine does more to fuel the 'let us sin that grace abound idea than any other. Calvinists I have talked to say this is not the case but ultimately does it matter what you do as a Christian. If you live righteously you go to heaven if your predestined to heaven, but even if you don't you are still predestined to heaven your going even if you sleep around or are a drunkard, etc. People living in sin openly because of a lack of fear of justice of God because you see they are predestined to heaven or Once Saved Always Saved doctrines that come from it abound.
In then end, I am pretty sure this is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches to enter into a walk with through Christ by covenanting with him through his blood. To continue in that walk overcoming sin and situation through the Holy Spirit and to continue to the end. Unconditional election makes salvation a one shot wonder that really ultimately has no bearing in how we live our life.
Next: L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Only Has So Much Power
The doctrine of unconditional election states that a person is predestined to heaven or hell before they are ever born. In short, God decided who will be with him in heaven or hell before they are even created. In short we have picture of God who is sitting on a throne who is throwing people right and left into heaven or hell before they have done anything. My problems with this are enormous.
1) How is God just if he does this? The defense I have heard is that God's justice is different than ours, but this is not so. God tells us what justice is and then declares himself many times to be its definition that we should follow and that we can know justice by knowing him.
2) Biblically this hard to support as every story that is told about final judgment tells us that people are judged by their actions as well as whether or not they possess faith in Christ. The names being blotted out of the book of life in Revelation is a particularly telling comment, overcoming to the end, and the words in Romans speaking of 'whosoever will' are expressions that cover the Bible with one idea -- there is a choice to be made by us that affects our salvation. it is a relationship entered into by covenant of BOTH parties including us.
The fact is that Calvin was trying to make God super sovereign and in so doing he robbed God of justice. He has turned the loving God into the unmerciful devil.
Some of the fruit I have seen of this doctrine are telling: One man I heard of burned himself to death because he believed that he was predestined to hell and he wanted to shorten the trip. Probably the most heinous thing it does is it justifies an antinomian attitude. Such a doctrine does more to fuel the 'let us sin that grace abound idea than any other. Calvinists I have talked to say this is not the case but ultimately does it matter what you do as a Christian. If you live righteously you go to heaven if your predestined to heaven, but even if you don't you are still predestined to heaven your going even if you sleep around or are a drunkard, etc. People living in sin openly because of a lack of fear of justice of God because you see they are predestined to heaven or Once Saved Always Saved doctrines that come from it abound.
In then end, I am pretty sure this is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches to enter into a walk with through Christ by covenanting with him through his blood. To continue in that walk overcoming sin and situation through the Holy Spirit and to continue to the end. Unconditional election makes salvation a one shot wonder that really ultimately has no bearing in how we live our life.
Next: L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Only Has So Much Power
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Sexuality, The Church and America -- Part 6 -- Legalized Prostitution
This is the last issue, other than the churches response, in this series.
Hookers, street walkers, working girls, soiled doves, doxies, call girls...no matter what you call them you are talking about prostitution. According to the best estimates 1% of women in the United States are prostitutes of some form or another. There is also no real economic class restrictions on women who engage in prostitution. There are a ton of part timers (waitress during the day; prostitute by night), to the down and outers to the expensive high end call girls.
Prostitution in legal in two states with limits.
In Rhode Island a woman can be a prostitute legally. What is illegal in Rhode Island is brothels, pandering (pimping) and street prostitution. In short a woman can prostitute herself for money but has to be an independent free agent and has to work out of her home.
Nevada also allows prostitution but a prostitute must be associated with a legal brothel. Prostitution outside these brothels is illegal. In Nevada there are also sundry laws regarding the fact that those that work in brothels must get regular health examinations among other things.
So what to think as a Christian. Historically this is a debatable point. Augustine said it should be tolerated so that men did not engage in some worse sin like homosexuality. Others have said it should be banned it because of its association with pagan worship.
Biblically, this is hard. Adultery is bad and so is fornication. Established that a Christian should not engage in prostitution or use a prostitute. See my previous posts along with the fact that even Jesus' lineage has two women how were or played the harlot -- Rehab and Tamar but both of them gave it up after they became part of God's chosen people. But what of society's choices in having to enforce these no prostitute laws.
1. The fact is that no prostitution law has stopped prostitution and all fifty states have women who practice it as well as men. Most prostitutes are non violent and the sin they engage in is not one that seems to harm anyone other than the promotion of disease.
2. Law enforcement finds itself using resources arresting women who are legal age for sex and otherwise law abiding. If you were to take those resources and say use them to fight underage prostitution and the sex slave trade would they be better spent? Perhaps it would, as I find those two things to be more ugly than regular plain Jane prostitution.
3. By making it legal you open up an avenue to regulate the practice. This means required health screenings and licenses with taxation for income. Instead of being totally in the dark authorities would have real numbers and situations to deal with instead of estimates. Another thing then is the legal trade would blow the whistle on the illegal stuff to get rid of competition. Then as legal businesses the women fall under the protection of the law and when violence does happen they would be at liberty to report it instead of just living with it for fear of being arrested themselves.
On the moral front I cannot condone the practice, but practically it exists and will not go away. "The world's oldest profession" got that name for a reason. As a Christian can I advocate the above for society. Perhaps. This is one issue where I think states rights should dominate the discussion. If the majority says illegal then it should be illegal but to those that legalize prostitution in some way like Rhode Island or Nevada, I can't really yell as they have made the decisions as a state. Let's the states decide and bring it to a vote of the public would be the best solution.
Next: How Should the Church React to All This?
Hookers, street walkers, working girls, soiled doves, doxies, call girls...no matter what you call them you are talking about prostitution. According to the best estimates 1% of women in the United States are prostitutes of some form or another. There is also no real economic class restrictions on women who engage in prostitution. There are a ton of part timers (waitress during the day; prostitute by night), to the down and outers to the expensive high end call girls.
Prostitution in legal in two states with limits.
In Rhode Island a woman can be a prostitute legally. What is illegal in Rhode Island is brothels, pandering (pimping) and street prostitution. In short a woman can prostitute herself for money but has to be an independent free agent and has to work out of her home.
Nevada also allows prostitution but a prostitute must be associated with a legal brothel. Prostitution outside these brothels is illegal. In Nevada there are also sundry laws regarding the fact that those that work in brothels must get regular health examinations among other things.
So what to think as a Christian. Historically this is a debatable point. Augustine said it should be tolerated so that men did not engage in some worse sin like homosexuality. Others have said it should be banned it because of its association with pagan worship.
Biblically, this is hard. Adultery is bad and so is fornication. Established that a Christian should not engage in prostitution or use a prostitute. See my previous posts along with the fact that even Jesus' lineage has two women how were or played the harlot -- Rehab and Tamar but both of them gave it up after they became part of God's chosen people. But what of society's choices in having to enforce these no prostitute laws.
1. The fact is that no prostitution law has stopped prostitution and all fifty states have women who practice it as well as men. Most prostitutes are non violent and the sin they engage in is not one that seems to harm anyone other than the promotion of disease.
2. Law enforcement finds itself using resources arresting women who are legal age for sex and otherwise law abiding. If you were to take those resources and say use them to fight underage prostitution and the sex slave trade would they be better spent? Perhaps it would, as I find those two things to be more ugly than regular plain Jane prostitution.
3. By making it legal you open up an avenue to regulate the practice. This means required health screenings and licenses with taxation for income. Instead of being totally in the dark authorities would have real numbers and situations to deal with instead of estimates. Another thing then is the legal trade would blow the whistle on the illegal stuff to get rid of competition. Then as legal businesses the women fall under the protection of the law and when violence does happen they would be at liberty to report it instead of just living with it for fear of being arrested themselves.
On the moral front I cannot condone the practice, but practically it exists and will not go away. "The world's oldest profession" got that name for a reason. As a Christian can I advocate the above for society. Perhaps. This is one issue where I think states rights should dominate the discussion. If the majority says illegal then it should be illegal but to those that legalize prostitution in some way like Rhode Island or Nevada, I can't really yell as they have made the decisions as a state. Let's the states decide and bring it to a vote of the public would be the best solution.
Next: How Should the Church React to All This?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 2 -- T -- Total Depravity and Other Myths
I remember when I told a friend that I did not believe in total depravity and that I felt the doctrine was unbiblical. His response was pretty typical -- 'Ed I know you and your past -- you were totally depraved'. Here is the thing, do we base our beliefs about God and man on our experiences as human beings or on the teachings found in Scriptures? The Scriptures I would hope. Then why is it then that the chief defense for this doctrine I hear is based on human experience? Odd.
OK, a little lesson in logic before we begin. Universals of either type are very difficult to prove. When you say 'All preachers are mortal' or 'No preachers are mortal' there is a universality to both. The first is positive; the second is negative. Of the two, the negative is the the most easiest to disprove. In ALL statements you may have to search a while. But all you would have to do in the case above is find one immortal preacher and the case is closed. In NO statements all you have to do is find is one example of an exception and the case is closed. One mortal preacher and the game is over. That is why a statement such as -- there is no God is difficult to both prove and maintain. All the theist has to do is prove is one proof for God's existence and the argument fails and to prove it, the atheist has to pretty much say he is looked in every corner of any place that exists to show God does not exist.
Total Depravity states: There is NO action by man that is not marked by sin. This is actually the weakest type of argument to make. All you have to do is show a single example of an action taken by a man that is declared to be righteous by God and the argument is gone.
First thing --define sin. Total Depravity proponents define sin as 'missing the mark' using etymology to get the definition. The problem is that the Bible itself gives definitions of sin and they never use -- 'missing the mark.' If sin is anything that is not flawlessly perfect then total depravity is true, maybe. The problem is that using etymology -- looking up the original meaning of a word -- is not helpful. What matters is what the word means when the author penned it. In all case of the writers of Scripture from Moses to John the Apostle the definition is pretty much the same: Sin is a violation or disobedience to the commands of God. With Biblical definition in hand, lets look to see if in the Bible (best source) or in life (support source) where people might not be in violation of the commands of God and thus not be totally depraved.
1) People in the Bible declared righteous by God. There are many of these but the most notable example is Job to make my point. "Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God." Boy, either definition you use, total depravity takes a nasty knock. "Through all this Job did not miss the mark or blame God" or 'Through all this Job did not violate a command of God ...". The point is this, once you have the Scriptures saying there was no sin to a person's actions, the doctrine that nothing we do is not touched by sin becomes difficult to maintain. There are many more of these if you read Scripture. Try Luke 1:5-6: 'In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
2) In life, do you really want to God through every action a person could possible take and then say what is sinful about it. A person jumps in a lake and saves a person from drowning -- where is the sin? All I have to do is show one action taken by anyone that does not violate a command of God or actually upholds a command and BANG -- no total depravity.
This is not to say that I do not believe all people are sinners. "All have sinned" is a Biblical statement. The only thing required to make this true however is that each person sin once. It is a Universal Positive Statement logically. Once a person has violated the law of God even a single time they qualify and need a Savior. Total Depravity not required.
Nor will I say that I do not believe that people become depraved -- Romans 1 declares and shows a decent into depravity. The one thing though I can say is that how does one descend to a lower point of depravity as Romans 1 indicates if you are already at the bottom as Total Depravity indicates? Strange, huh? My point is we start as sinners and then as we continue to sin we become depraved.
For me, the more I thought about it, the doctrine of total depravity is overly simplistic in describing the condition of mankind in relationship to God. It also is extremely negative in its assessment of the human condition; where I don't think even God has such a view of man or he would have destroyed us in the flood and been done with it. I just find it Scripturally and intellectually unsatisfying. It is not the worst letter in TULIP but in the end I find it wanting and I reject it.
Next: U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil.
OK, a little lesson in logic before we begin. Universals of either type are very difficult to prove. When you say 'All preachers are mortal' or 'No preachers are mortal' there is a universality to both. The first is positive; the second is negative. Of the two, the negative is the the most easiest to disprove. In ALL statements you may have to search a while. But all you would have to do in the case above is find one immortal preacher and the case is closed. In NO statements all you have to do is find is one example of an exception and the case is closed. One mortal preacher and the game is over. That is why a statement such as -- there is no God is difficult to both prove and maintain. All the theist has to do is prove is one proof for God's existence and the argument fails and to prove it, the atheist has to pretty much say he is looked in every corner of any place that exists to show God does not exist.
Total Depravity states: There is NO action by man that is not marked by sin. This is actually the weakest type of argument to make. All you have to do is show a single example of an action taken by a man that is declared to be righteous by God and the argument is gone.
First thing --define sin. Total Depravity proponents define sin as 'missing the mark' using etymology to get the definition. The problem is that the Bible itself gives definitions of sin and they never use -- 'missing the mark.' If sin is anything that is not flawlessly perfect then total depravity is true, maybe. The problem is that using etymology -- looking up the original meaning of a word -- is not helpful. What matters is what the word means when the author penned it. In all case of the writers of Scripture from Moses to John the Apostle the definition is pretty much the same: Sin is a violation or disobedience to the commands of God. With Biblical definition in hand, lets look to see if in the Bible (best source) or in life (support source) where people might not be in violation of the commands of God and thus not be totally depraved.
1) People in the Bible declared righteous by God. There are many of these but the most notable example is Job to make my point. "Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God." Boy, either definition you use, total depravity takes a nasty knock. "Through all this Job did not miss the mark or blame God" or 'Through all this Job did not violate a command of God ...". The point is this, once you have the Scriptures saying there was no sin to a person's actions, the doctrine that nothing we do is not touched by sin becomes difficult to maintain. There are many more of these if you read Scripture. Try Luke 1:5-6: 'In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
2) In life, do you really want to God through every action a person could possible take and then say what is sinful about it. A person jumps in a lake and saves a person from drowning -- where is the sin? All I have to do is show one action taken by anyone that does not violate a command of God or actually upholds a command and BANG -- no total depravity.
This is not to say that I do not believe all people are sinners. "All have sinned" is a Biblical statement. The only thing required to make this true however is that each person sin once. It is a Universal Positive Statement logically. Once a person has violated the law of God even a single time they qualify and need a Savior. Total Depravity not required.
Nor will I say that I do not believe that people become depraved -- Romans 1 declares and shows a decent into depravity. The one thing though I can say is that how does one descend to a lower point of depravity as Romans 1 indicates if you are already at the bottom as Total Depravity indicates? Strange, huh? My point is we start as sinners and then as we continue to sin we become depraved.
For me, the more I thought about it, the doctrine of total depravity is overly simplistic in describing the condition of mankind in relationship to God. It also is extremely negative in its assessment of the human condition; where I don't think even God has such a view of man or he would have destroyed us in the flood and been done with it. I just find it Scripturally and intellectually unsatisfying. It is not the worst letter in TULIP but in the end I find it wanting and I reject it.
Next: U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 5 -- Polygamy
There is one supreme difficulty in saying polygamy is not Biblical -- so many heroes of the faith were in polygamist relationships: Abraham, Jacob, Caleb, David, Solomon, for the guys along with many others. Sarah, Leah, Hannah, Abigail for the girls along with others. Fact is multiple wives with one guy is quite common in the Old Testament.
The New Testament is completely silent other than the mention by Paul that church officers should be the husband of one wife. The fact is in the ideal of the New Testament both in the teaching of Christ and Paul is one man and one woman for life. However, polygamy is never condemned in either Testament.
The best we can say is that the Bible does not promote or condemn polygamy but holds up monogamy as the ideal standard. Nothing is said about one woman with multiple guys but then again it does not appear at all in Scripture -- prohibition by silence? The issue back then is parentage and when a woman has a child there is no doubt who the mother is but the father can only be verified by the husband being the only guy to 'know' his wife.
Bible aside, are there any good reasons for polygamy, Let's list the pros and cons.
Pro: Defence Against Infertility: in fact this seems to be one of the reasons it was allowed in the society of Abraham and Sarah because in the case of infertility the man had a second option to produce and heir. Today we have a lot of science to do this kind of thing be even that does not always work. If there is the option to do like Sarah did, would some couples take it today? They might because not everyone is comfort able with the unknown donor or adoption.
Con: Spousal Rivalry: Not every biblical account has this but many do: Sarah/Hagar, Leah/Rachel, Hannah/Peninnah are but three notable examples. There are some cases however of of seemingly peaceful polygamy, even in the present day. Can happen but also could be absent.
Pro: Women taken care of in Later Life: Much as I hate to say it this one isn't mine, but a woman I talked to, who was elderly, once told me that she would not mind having to share a husband because having a man around part of the time was better than having no man at all and the loneliness that goes with it. Given that women outlive men this is what happens most of the time. She cited being taken care of and occasional companionship as reasons.
Con: Woman Used As Property: In many places around the world this is the case with polygamy, it is basically another asset to the men to have multiple wives but none of them are loved just used. Would that be the case in freely entered into polygamy? Well, doesn't abuse exist in monogamy too. Either way this does not help and maybe having more than one wife would soften some men. Also with more than one woman, abuse might not go unreported as much. The truth is that even though abuse is often expected both toward women and and children in polygamist relationships, it is actually rarer than in monogamous ones.
Pro: Another Option Instead of Being an Unwed Mother: The standard sad story is boy meets girl, girl and boy have sex, girl gets pregnant, boy feels trapped, boy takes off leaving girl alone. Polygamy might eliminate the 'boy feels trapped' part and thus the girl left alone. Biblically, the guy is obligated to marry the girl and provide for her and her children, also however, if he works hard and can afford it he could take another wife later. Double motivation? As a Variant to this -- Polygamy as an option to divorce.
Con: Complicated Family History: "Yeah this is my oldest son by my third wife" comes to mind. One thing though is that the kids would have two parents in stead of one but the legalities of this are going to get complicated.
Pro: Shared Motherly Resources: This is another one from a woman. Wouldn't it be nice to take turns watching the children and taking care of them. One breastfeeding mother said it would also be nice to have more than her small breasts to feed her child. One wife acting as wet nurse so to speak. Additionally, in our career minded world -- one woman works and the other does child care. Or you could alternate working and child care with three jobs. The possibilities get long as long as you have a group of wives who work together well.
Con: Not the Ideal: Polygamy is not ideal Biblically. In the end it becomes a state where the love Christ has for a church (which is supposed to be reflected in marriage) really does not exist.
In America this notion of polygamy is gaining popularity and a lot of the reasons I gave above are from a simple 'legalized polygamy" search. Lots of hits, so if you are look for more pros and cons just do that search yourself.
Can I make a call about it as a theologian. The Christian should aim at faithful monogamy as the ideal, but a can see no way to preach or teach against polygamy. To each their own, but the most practical thing I can say is -- Can You Really Handle Two or More Women? No Thanks.
Next: Legalized Prostitution (yeah, I thought of another one)
The New Testament is completely silent other than the mention by Paul that church officers should be the husband of one wife. The fact is in the ideal of the New Testament both in the teaching of Christ and Paul is one man and one woman for life. However, polygamy is never condemned in either Testament.
The best we can say is that the Bible does not promote or condemn polygamy but holds up monogamy as the ideal standard. Nothing is said about one woman with multiple guys but then again it does not appear at all in Scripture -- prohibition by silence? The issue back then is parentage and when a woman has a child there is no doubt who the mother is but the father can only be verified by the husband being the only guy to 'know' his wife.
Bible aside, are there any good reasons for polygamy, Let's list the pros and cons.
Pro: Defence Against Infertility: in fact this seems to be one of the reasons it was allowed in the society of Abraham and Sarah because in the case of infertility the man had a second option to produce and heir. Today we have a lot of science to do this kind of thing be even that does not always work. If there is the option to do like Sarah did, would some couples take it today? They might because not everyone is comfort able with the unknown donor or adoption.
Con: Spousal Rivalry: Not every biblical account has this but many do: Sarah/Hagar, Leah/Rachel, Hannah/Peninnah are but three notable examples. There are some cases however of of seemingly peaceful polygamy, even in the present day. Can happen but also could be absent.
Pro: Women taken care of in Later Life: Much as I hate to say it this one isn't mine, but a woman I talked to, who was elderly, once told me that she would not mind having to share a husband because having a man around part of the time was better than having no man at all and the loneliness that goes with it. Given that women outlive men this is what happens most of the time. She cited being taken care of and occasional companionship as reasons.
Con: Woman Used As Property: In many places around the world this is the case with polygamy, it is basically another asset to the men to have multiple wives but none of them are loved just used. Would that be the case in freely entered into polygamy? Well, doesn't abuse exist in monogamy too. Either way this does not help and maybe having more than one wife would soften some men. Also with more than one woman, abuse might not go unreported as much. The truth is that even though abuse is often expected both toward women and and children in polygamist relationships, it is actually rarer than in monogamous ones.
Pro: Another Option Instead of Being an Unwed Mother: The standard sad story is boy meets girl, girl and boy have sex, girl gets pregnant, boy feels trapped, boy takes off leaving girl alone. Polygamy might eliminate the 'boy feels trapped' part and thus the girl left alone. Biblically, the guy is obligated to marry the girl and provide for her and her children, also however, if he works hard and can afford it he could take another wife later. Double motivation? As a Variant to this -- Polygamy as an option to divorce.
Con: Complicated Family History: "Yeah this is my oldest son by my third wife" comes to mind. One thing though is that the kids would have two parents in stead of one but the legalities of this are going to get complicated.
Pro: Shared Motherly Resources: This is another one from a woman. Wouldn't it be nice to take turns watching the children and taking care of them. One breastfeeding mother said it would also be nice to have more than her small breasts to feed her child. One wife acting as wet nurse so to speak. Additionally, in our career minded world -- one woman works and the other does child care. Or you could alternate working and child care with three jobs. The possibilities get long as long as you have a group of wives who work together well.
Con: Not the Ideal: Polygamy is not ideal Biblically. In the end it becomes a state where the love Christ has for a church (which is supposed to be reflected in marriage) really does not exist.
In America this notion of polygamy is gaining popularity and a lot of the reasons I gave above are from a simple 'legalized polygamy" search. Lots of hits, so if you are look for more pros and cons just do that search yourself.
Can I make a call about it as a theologian. The Christian should aim at faithful monogamy as the ideal, but a can see no way to preach or teach against polygamy. To each their own, but the most practical thing I can say is -- Can You Really Handle Two or More Women? No Thanks.
Next: Legalized Prostitution (yeah, I thought of another one)
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Book of Revelation -- Part 3 -- The Seven Churches -- Key to Interpretation?
In know most people who have studied the book of Revelation usually consider the seven churches as significant, but I have never heard them referred to s the key to understanding the book by anyone. Usually that distinction belongs to the book of Daniel. But I wonder how much we consider the fact that the Book of Revelation was addressed to them and its significance. In Verse 1:4 and chapters two and three as well as the symbolism found in John's vision of Christ the seven is always in reference to the seven churches of Asia. This is how the book starts, as a message from Christs own lips to them, the primary recipients of this letter.
There are many theories:
1. Each church represents a different age of the church before the end: 1) It was certainly was never looked at like this when the letter was first penned. 2) the fact is the order of the churches follows geography from the cost to the interior. 3) Why is it that those who support this theory always think we are in the Laodecea period. No one theorizes that we have time yet and may be in the Philadelphia period. Odd. 4) The text does not say this 5) I am really getting sick of Western time lines always being superimposed on the Bible, as an open theist I don't believe that God is mapping the future in a timeline with Revelation it may be something else altogether --- REJECTED.
2. The churches are not important to understanding the prophecies of the book, once the future stuff is started in chapter four they have no bearing. 1) Why them then why not just address the book to the church in general. 2) Seems odd to just mention them and then forget they are the ones who originally had to understand the book and it is specifically addressed to them -- REJECTED.
3. Other theories include a mix of the above but no one asks the question's about the seven churches from this light -- what did they understand the book of Revelation to be?
My theory is that if can try to piece together what these churches would have understood we would have more proper understanding of Revelation. The problem is some of these churches we have information on and others we do not. There are seven keys here that may unlock the book if only we had more information.
One thing is for sure, that one key aspect in Biblical interpretation is to ask how the original hearers would have understood it but modern interpreters seem to forget this principle them the moment they get to chapter 4 verse 1. I think this may be a terrible mistake and who these people where and what they understood needs to be considered at every turn to get a proper interpretation.
Next: The Powerful Vision of Christ
There are many theories:
1. Each church represents a different age of the church before the end: 1) It was certainly was never looked at like this when the letter was first penned. 2) the fact is the order of the churches follows geography from the cost to the interior. 3) Why is it that those who support this theory always think we are in the Laodecea period. No one theorizes that we have time yet and may be in the Philadelphia period. Odd. 4) The text does not say this 5) I am really getting sick of Western time lines always being superimposed on the Bible, as an open theist I don't believe that God is mapping the future in a timeline with Revelation it may be something else altogether --- REJECTED.
2. The churches are not important to understanding the prophecies of the book, once the future stuff is started in chapter four they have no bearing. 1) Why them then why not just address the book to the church in general. 2) Seems odd to just mention them and then forget they are the ones who originally had to understand the book and it is specifically addressed to them -- REJECTED.
3. Other theories include a mix of the above but no one asks the question's about the seven churches from this light -- what did they understand the book of Revelation to be?
My theory is that if can try to piece together what these churches would have understood we would have more proper understanding of Revelation. The problem is some of these churches we have information on and others we do not. There are seven keys here that may unlock the book if only we had more information.
One thing is for sure, that one key aspect in Biblical interpretation is to ask how the original hearers would have understood it but modern interpreters seem to forget this principle them the moment they get to chapter 4 verse 1. I think this may be a terrible mistake and who these people where and what they understood needs to be considered at every turn to get a proper interpretation.
Next: The Powerful Vision of Christ
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 1 -- The Calvinistic Manifesto
My thought for Tuesdays is to discuss theology in some way. To start off with I decided that I would tackle something that is by now for me an old struggle. I spent many years and a lot of forum time debating Calvinists in my early days on the Internet. In the end I rejected the whole bundle of tulips and left it as a failed system. Failed because it has no Biblical support; it stands as a system and a system alone. It is a manifesto of sorts and a system to hang Scripture on but sometimes the Scriptures just don't stay hung and then there are some parts of the Bible you just can't stick of TULIP at all -- they contradict it.
T -- Total Depravity
U -- Unconditional Election
L -- Limited Atonement
I -- Irresistible Grace
P -- Perseverance of the Saints
It is a really easy way to remember the five points of Calvinist thought. I will go through each on in this series, lay it out for you and then debunk it. I have never had much uses for theological systems -- what do you do if they break down or are shown to be Biblically in error? I have even less use for this one and over the next month and a half I will tell you why.
Next: T -- Total Depravity and Other Myths.
T -- Total Depravity
U -- Unconditional Election
L -- Limited Atonement
I -- Irresistible Grace
P -- Perseverance of the Saints
It is a really easy way to remember the five points of Calvinist thought. I will go through each on in this series, lay it out for you and then debunk it. I have never had much uses for theological systems -- what do you do if they break down or are shown to be Biblically in error? I have even less use for this one and over the next month and a half I will tell you why.
Next: T -- Total Depravity and Other Myths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)