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
Friday, September 18, 2009
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)