Theology for Dummies - Christology

Christology is in its simplest form the study of Christ in both his nature and person. "Who was Jesus and what did he do?"

The issues involved in who Christ was and is are extensive. The include his humanity, divinity, relationship to the Father and Holy Spirit, incarnation (God in flesh), etc.

The issues in what he did and its significance are also large: virgin birth, miracles, teachings, his death, burial and resurrection are there and what significance they have. That covers a lot of ground.

The source documents for all this study are the New Testament with reference to the Old Testament. Historical studies come into play as well like "When the Jews heard the tern 'Christ' what did they think?" is a valid question. Needless to say it is very difficult to become and expert in christology.

Of course, throughout history there has been a lot of debate on all these issues over 2000 years and the views on all the above have major variance in opinion. The point is when you hear the term 'christology' you know someone is talking about Jesus, what he did and who he was.

Next: Soteriology

Re-Thinking God: Is God Immanent or Transcendent?

Immanent: Being within the possible limits of possible experience or knowledge.

Transcendent: Being beyond the limits of all possible experience or knowledge.

The reason I am taking these two parts of the nature of God together is it is truly difficult to talk about one without the other. What parts of God's nature are within our experience and knowledge to understand them and which parts are beyond our experience and understanding? What parts of his creation is He close to in nature and what parts does He transcend? The main issue is how much is God close to his creation and what parts of God transcend his creation. We are also in part dealing with what relationship does God have to the world he created.

Going through the Bible, it does not take long to see that God separates himself from his creation. He is not a force of nature like the other gods of mythology. The creation account in Genesis shows God creating and controlling those forces of nature. It also shows that these forces of nature have no personality and are absent of godhood in and of themselves.

The significance of this to modern scholarship is often lost. Modern scholars are always pining on about the similarities between this creation account and the other creation accounts such as the Gilgamesh Epic, but the truth is the differences are both significant and staggering in their implications. You have to either conclude that the creation account in Genesis is revelation or religious genius and cutting against the grain of what was around the Jewish people at the time. God transcends his creation in that he is not his creation but he is immanent with it in that he controls and governs it. He is however not directly connected with a nature force.

Some areas though are subject to debate. Among them and probably the greatest of them is God's relationship to time. Why is this so? Because to say that God transcends time creates some theological and philosophical problems.

On the theology side, the Bible repeatedly show God acting in history. God does things in a certain order and there is significance to that order. If God transcends time, than this acting in time seems irrelevant. But there is relevance to understanding both God in history and doing things in order to understand him as a God of relationship, order and control.

On the philosophical side, the question is one of definition. God is eternal. Does ETERNAL have any meaning, if time has not always existed? No. Further try to define what it means for God to ALWAYS be eternal without using 'time' as a concept. Then the question then becomes what is God relationship to time. Time has always existed because it is wrapped up in the eternity of God. Because God has always been eternal; time has always existed. At least in my view this is the case and that means I do not view God as transcending time but more immanent with it than anyone else.

Why does this matter? The BIG thing is this has incredible implications for the omniscience of God in regards to God's knowledge of the past present and future and how REAL those three things are to God himself. More on that in a later post on God's Omniscience.

In the end, the challenge to re-thinking God is one of engaging each issue to ask the question of: "In what way does God transcend this in what ways is he immanent with it?" The problem is that God in the Bible seems to be more more immanent than people want to make him in theology or doctrine.

Next: God's Omnipotence

Who Defines God?

The major difficulty with humans is that we are so ignorant. When is comes to God doubly so. When we look to know God or understand Him, the fact is that if we are left to our own devices we will, because of ignorance or prejudice, get it wrong. We would define God in terms we would like or understand.

When someone says to me -- "I believe in God but I am not sure of the God of the Bible. I don't like him and he does not fit what I think God is." I understand the dilemma, but I also think they have a major problem -- they fail to see their own ignorance and prejudice.

Let's take an example to illustrate the point. Say I have a friend named Bob, I want to introduce to Larry. Bob asks me what Larry is like. The reality is that Larry is an extrovert and opinionated. I tell Bob this. Bob does not like opinionated, outgoing people so Bob says -- "I don't think so, I bet Larry is a shy, quiet guy." Does Bob's belief change who Larry is?

The problem is that this is what people do with God. They read the Bible and don't like that God so they come up with one of their own. For the sake of the unbelievers out there, let me put it this way: If the Bible is a true representation of who God is and what He says He is, then it does not matter two dingos kidneys what you or I believe or think He is. The God of the Bible is the reality and our belief or opinion will not change that. God would be who He is described to be no matter what.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that individual experience with God does not matter much either. People can claim to experience something but be lying; they could genuinely experience God or hear his voice, but interpret it wrongly. Human ignorance an prejudice again.

Ultimately we are left with one inescapable conclusion the only one who could accurately define God - who He is and what He is about - Is God Himself. God must come down and say, "This is who I am and what I want." Without this, no true definition of God would be possible. In addition when God does this, it must be witnessed by many people who all agree that is what God said and did, otherwise it falls back on individual religious experience.

Ultimately this is why the Bible is so hot a subject. It claims to be this record of what God said and expects; as well as, a record of what people did an thought about it. Others claim that this is not true. There are a million plus opinions so take your pick. The point is that the ultimate issue is can believers in the Bible prove that it is an accurate record of what God said and did. If the can, it means this is who God is so deal with it. If they can't then we are left searching for some true record of God or the divine acting or speaking that fits the same criteria.

One thing is for sure, we cannot define God for ourselves. This is what the prophets and philosophers both identified and dismissed as idolatry. We would make Him into our image of what we want Him to be. I am not saying that God may not have similar qualities as our own, but that we are simply not in a position to make the judgment of what those are. God must define Himself or no one.

Science Fiction and Theology - Part 9 - God and Science Fiction

There is always a popular front to any discussion of intellectual battle. In the case of the debate of science verses God, science fiction is that front. In it you will see every type of ethical quandary, every stand against conforming to a certain idea of God, every challenge that technology has given to claims of Scripture. But why does this matter?

It matters because in the end it is the story teller who wins. If a person lectures on the differences between God and science or an ethical dilemma most people will tune him out or fight him, but if someone tells a story and takes those issues and weaves them into that story, they are accepted and thought on with deepness.

Does that mean I would like to see it disappear. No. Some of the greatest mental challenges I have ever read to my faith have appeared in the pages of Science Fiction, and because of them I have had to re-think God and his relationship to the universe. In the end, it is the challenges that make faith stronger, not when it is easy.

The only thing that is really missing is the science fiction writers of faith. Ones that want to demonstrate a wider understanding of God as one who rules not just earth, but the universe and how the universe's possibilities do not in any way disrupt the truth of who He is or what He does. Perhaps that is because, Theists in large part have accepted a certain view of God. In this view there is little room for using one's imagination and combining it with new ideas of God and science. Also many Theists look upon science as the enemy and that leads to a prejudicial treatment of the subject. This means there is only a small pool of people to draw from for the purpose of demonstrating, in story, that faith does not have to be sacrificed in order to be scientifically accurate.

I do not know what the future hold but I do know that right now the people who do not have faith hold and edge, they hold it because they are willing to rethink everything and to question what is commonly held. The Theist then finds himself to afraid or ignorant to act because he is stuck in a single minded theology that cannot see beyond certain borders.

My only appeal is that this changes -- God did not give us reason, imagination and common sense for us to sit them on a shelf and not use them. I think God want to see us use creativity and thought to construct our own view of the possible. If we did maybe more people would realize that there is more out there than we previously thought or imagined and have a new respect for the wonder and creativity of God.

Re-Thinking God: Is God Immutable?

Immutable -- adj. -- not capable of or susceptible to change.

Seems to be straight-forward does it not? Everyone knows God does not change. God never changes in any way. Psalm 55:19 says exactly that, does it not?

Unfortunately, there is also many verses of the Bible itself that indicate some changeableness to God -- God does demonstrate some mutability. Some examples:

1. God's Emotions: In my reading through Scripture, back in my agnostic state of mind, I discovered something very quickly -- The God of the Bible has emotions. Now the implications of this are not apparent at first but they are staggering if we take them seriously. Let's take a typical case where God gets angry. There are many of these so we do not need a specific one. The question comes: what happens when God gets angry at someone? The implication is that he was not angry before but then gets angry. It means God goes from a state of no anger to one of having anger -- a change. Some of the other implications of God's emotions we will see in later posts in this series.

2. God's Relationships: There are several ways to illustrate this a) covenants "If you have faith, I will do this"; b) "If...then..." statements themselves outside of covenants and c) commandments. All of these indicating God establishing boundaries and conditions of relationship with others that require God to be one that both acts and reacts depending on the situation.

3. God Changes His Mind: I have written on this at length in many of my Open Theism blogs and simply put God changes his intended actions and does something else other than what He originally intended. It does not just happen once but at least five times. Jeremiah chimes in on this as well in Jeremiah 26:13 indicating a promise that if people would repent then God would change his mind. Action: People repent. Reaction: God changes his mind.

All of this, plus other things opened up the possibility in my mind that there may be certain things about God that do indeed change and because of verses like Psalm 55:19 (which is talking about God's justice and holiness) certain things that do not change. After I was done, I drew the conclusion that God's core character (love, holiness, justice,etc.) do not change but God in His experiences does indeed change both reacting and acting in the context of relationship with other free beings.

What this means is that God can be approached and appealed to and if a person approaches God with a genuine heart, God will react and change the situation and his emotions will change toward that person or group of people accordingly.

Is God immutable? No - He is capable of change and indeed He is susceptible to it. He has the power to both act and react. What does not change about Him is His character as He reacts and acts to what people do. As we look at some of the other attributes of God in this series, we will see how this plays out in how we have to re-think God.

Next: God's Imminence and Transcendence

Re-Thinking God: Introduction

"Re-Thinking God" - I use this term a lot and I also talk extensively about finding the God of the Bible not the one that is commonly taught. Part of this comes from the simply fact that I had to discard the faith I once had in favor of something else otherwise; quite frankly, I was going to become an agnostic.

The dirty little secret is that most of our views of God have very little to do with taking the Bible at face value for what it says and more to do with a Western Philosophical view of God based on the Greek philosophers and (no surprise) what WE WANT God to be.

The problem is when you start to take what the Bible says for face value and compare it to what is traditionally taught by this Western theological- philosophy, you have contradictions and problems that abound from logical and common sense understandings. In some cases, the logic simply does not work at all.

In 2007, I ran head-long into this because of a personal crisis. The year before, I had resigned my second church and after fighting hard to keep my kids in that town till semester break, we eventually had to retreat back to my hometown. In March of 2007, I got a job at the same place I had left in 2000 to take my first church. After seven years I basically was right back where I started from, in far more debt, had lost a house and quite frankly I was angry at God. OK -- I was pissed off at God. So much so I had decided to quit everything - ministry, family, marriage - and start over. I was of the opinion, that quite frankly I had just wasted a lot of time and energy serving a God that was false. In the end, I decided I would give God one more try but I was going to be hard on Him. I decided to read the whole Bible in chronological order and search to see if there was anything that would change my mind and I was determined not to change it. I had some issues with God I wanted to see if 'His Word' would resolve them:

1. If it is so awesome to serve God, why do good people with perfectly good faith get screwed.
2. Does God in anyway change as revelation unfolds -- does he become different or do things differently as time goes by.
3. What does the God of the Bible say about himself compared to what I commonly understand.
4. I was also really wrestling with the Problem of Evil and wanted some answers.
5. I was also looking for anything that would allow me to keep my faith.

At this moment I had became an agnostic and was asking the simply question -- why should I believe in Christianity anymore? Unlike some, I kept this a secret, because I have seen how understanding Christians are when they have a fellow brother or sister have a crisis of faith. Kept going to church, kept singing songs and kept being respectable simply so no one would fire bullets.

In the end, I pretty much changed everything I believe about God. My views on his nature, attributes, character and will. They had all completely changed in many respects.

This series is about how I 're-thunk God' by simply taking His Word at face value. I want to contrast what is traditionally taught about God and the Bible. In short, I want to tell you what most people believe and then show how it is contradicted by the Bible when it comes to God. Topic Covered will include:
1. Gods Nature: Immutability, Imminence and Transcendence
2. God's Attributes: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence
3. God's Character: Loving, Holiness and Justice
4. How God's Will Relates to Man.
5. Does God Always Get What He Wants?

It should at least be a fun ride if nothing else.

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 2 - God Goes to War

Numbers 31 is a troubling Scripture from the standpoint of modern westerners. It is not just the fact that God orders a war but genocide.

The chapter is basically about Israel's war with the Midianites in which God orders that Israel to utterly destroy the Midianites. To leave no male alive and to only spare women that were virgins so that they could become wives to the Israelites. For all practical purposes this would mean the end of the Midianites forever as the virgin girls would be suddenly Israelite the moment they had sex with and Israelite male.

I really have no problem with God going to war. In the Law there are laws about murder, but there are also laws about how to divide the spoil after a battle. The context for killing, and the Hebrew word for 'to kill' are different. One is premeditated crime of an individual; the other the act of the state in its own interests. If God therefore wants to act as king of His country (A state of affairs that would last until the monarchy of Saul) and wage war on his enemies, He has just as much right to do so as any other king.

Genocide is a different story. To wipe out an entire people group is a harsh action. The question is it justified? One could argue that God is in a better position to judge these things or has a different standard for himself involving justice. Perhaps the first is true about God being in a better position to judge these things, but God is said to be just and the definitions of justice simply don't change just because one entity has more power that others. Justice is justice.

No the real question is genocide sometimes justified? What we are asking here is can a group of people get so corrupt and so vile that they whole lot of them deserve death. Looking at this time period for not just the Midianites but all of Canaan the answer might be 'yes'. Worship of the gods of the time period involved some pretty disgusting rites:

1. Ritual drunken orgies are the norm with temple prostitution as the chief means of support for the temples. Incest was a common accepted practice in religious rites. That's dads with daughters; sons with mothers; brothers with sisters, etc.

2. Human sacrifice in particular the burning to death of a man's firstborn son. Not a quick burning either, but the child was basically placed in a hole in a bronze idol that was then heated from the inside slowly cooking the child to death while drums beat so the child's cries could not be heard.

The whole area is wracked with wars and disputes which were filled with brutality and rape. Slavery was common and while the Law of Moses allows for a kind of indentured servitude, it was not the brutal, for life, under the lash that the people of this time in Canaan practiced.

It wouldn't have been so bad but the local politics, culture and religion supported these activities and promoted them.

There is also the practical advantages of genocide to consider in this case:

1. The fact that Canaanite worship survived became an absolute plague to the Israelites that got them into trouble with God on a regular basis.

2. The fact is the surviving Canaanites and the the Israelites would battle for centuries in which more people would die, more women would be raped and more misery and suffering would be dealt out over the long term than if the Canaanites had simply been destroyed. In short, kill a few now over a short time inflicting short term misery or kill a a whole bunch more over a longer period of time causing continued, long term misery.

3. Had all of Israel's enemies been destroyed, the odds for a lasting peace in the region would have been far higher.

God would be in a better more knowledgeable position to judge these things and see the bigger picture and the lasting impact. Even so, this is troubling to my humanity because to fulfill this you would see soldiers breaking into homes and they find a woman nursing her baby boy, then by the order of God, they would have to spear them both. But in truth as a king going to war in this region, He would have been no different than many others, only in this case the objective is to ultimately crush evil in an area of the world.

Perhaps we should consider that, we may not like the means but had the full will of God been carried out, evil in Canaan would have been destroyed. It is just perhaps we simply do not like the means with which God had chosen to do this act. But then again He is God, it seems in the authority structure that he would have the right to choose any means He wants.

I will be honest, this one still keeps me up at times because God here seems unfair. Why give the Israelites the power and the right to wipe out a sinful race when they at times were just as vile. In truth, there are a lot of races could be condemned to death but are not. So why at this time and in this way? In this case, we may simply have to exercise faith in the justice and goodness of God.

Next: Herod's Slaughter of Infants?
Previous: Marriage and Rape 

Is There Absolute Proof That God Exists?

Now before I begin I want to let people understand something about faith. Everybody regardless of belief system (including atheism and agnosticism which I will get to in a minute) has a measure of faith to it. Faith being trust and belief in something that goes beyond their senses and into the realm of pure belief. I believe, though others may be free to argue, that everyone has beliefs that are basic and essential to them to function beyond their basic five senses:
1. We all believe in the existence of person hood in others. That the people in our lives are people like ourselves.
2. We all could not function without memory beliefs. When I get out of work I get in my car and head home even though the existence of my home is not evident to my five senses.
3. People believe in love -- hold it, measure it, describe it visually, can you hear it, taste it. Hmmm. Seems love and other stuff like it are basic beliefs that are not really evident to the five senses.

Now -- atheists have this same problem though they deny it. They believe in a Big Bang -- they have never witnessed it. They believe in evolution -- ditto. Then they laugh at me for believing in a God, I can't see -- irony. There is an arrogance of mind to atheists who look in the face of their colossal ignorance of mankind about the universe and its nature and say they understand exactly how things were and are and will be. The statement --"There is no God" is ultimately just as big a statement of faith as "There is a God". Logically, 'There is no God' is a universal negative and universal negatives are the most hard to prove. To prove it you would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time and have the power so nothing could block your ability to assess the question. This is not possible for any human and so the atheist is taking something very much on 'faith' when he says: 'The is no God.' It is actually a great leap of faith given that he is a finite being with a limited knowledge and only his limited education in his life and experiences to go on.

Agnosticism I can take better because they are at least willing to admit how ignorant they are and that there are some things that they may never know including whether there is a God or not. Most dismiss religion as an attempt to control and for the most part they are right. Most of the better ones though come back with the idea that there indeed may be a religion that is right, but how can you know which one? I understand the issues of agnosticism well because I considered it for a long year. I believe that it is a sensible option, but it may have its perils. Agnostics put faith in their reason and humanity much like atheists, but I think we can all admit that faith in both of these things can fail as well because of their limitations.

Now, what about the person who says -- There is a God. In some respect he is in a better position logically universal positives do not require as much effort to prove -- once you find evidence of God's existence that would be conclusive you can stop searching the universe. The problem is given the same limitations we can't do this either.

What we are left with is the hope that said God will reveal himself to us and show us He is real. Now that is what all religions in one sense or another claim has happened in one form or another. They all claim some divine revelation from a divine source that proves that their version of God, or the gods, or Karma or etc. is true.

What remains then is to assess if a religion has had a genuine visitation by the divine that can be verified. Which one the rises to a level where it stands highest in the most likely to be true.

Can we prove God exists conclusively -- no, but I believe that it is possible to prove which version of divine reality is the most true and provides the surest foundation for faith -- which all humans have.

Returning to True Fundamentalism -- Part 6 -- Why Does This Matter?

OK. Let's recap. True Fundamentalism is about making a list of the minimum things required in a Christian doctrine statement to be Christian. my list is only five things long:
1. The Bible is the Inspired Word of God
2. God exists in three persons: The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.
3. The reality of the person and work of Jesus Christ as both historical and spiritually significant
4. Through the person and work we can find salvation and find it in no other
5. Christ will return

Now, I want to note something -- I think this is all one needs to know to become a Christian and get saved. That said can anyone note all that is not said:

1. Type of inspiration (verbal, etc.)
2. The nature of God outside the trinity doctrine -- how is God omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
3. How one is saved by faith (faith and works controversy)
4. How salvation works and the nature of salvation are left somewhat open
5. End times -- completely open.

Why is this important? I think that unity is better achieved by fighting for the core, making allowances for differences outside the core and in all things being loving. Probably, the greatest downside to the Protestant Reformation has been division and hostility between the children of God. The fact is we often fight about many things that are not central to faith and the real issues often go by without really looking at them. The kind of unity Paul talked about in his writings is quite frankly imposable as long as these issues exist. We simply have a hard time accepting someone whose beliefs about Christianity are not very similar to our own and tat is becoming our downfall.

Finis

Returning to True Fundamentalism -- Part 2 -- The Trinity

Wow! This is a series I started way back in October but I must have lost it in the shuffle.

Once it is established that the Bible is our authority then one doctrine is clear -- there is one God. It does not take very long to get the fact that God stands supreme in the Old Testament as the one and only but then the New Testament and it becomes pretty clear that three individuals all claim to be God and at the same time one with each other.

True Fundamentalism maintained the Trinity was the true doctrine and so do I -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. All are God. All are separate persons.

So far, True fundamentalism is about the Word and God. Not too bad as this is essential to understanding of faith. These two are the most basic fundamentals but there are a few more.