I remember the early days of being a Christian, the absolute determination to "go gaga" for God, firing on all six cylinders (good bye V8's of an earlier day!). I actually thought it was possible to be so thoroughly clean, so perfectly in tune, so intimately known of and knowing God that I could be like Jesus. I threw myself wholly into the effort, and expected others who followed Christ to do the same. To do less would be to dishonor God.
Part of the problem with that outlook was that it did not truly reflect the depth of wrong in my human heart. I thought I knew what my hangups were, the flaws in my attitude, the extents of my emotional fracture, the volatility in my desires, the shape of my depravity. I did not. I could not, most of that only rises to the surface through the testing process--the vicissitudes of life, the facing of challenges unfaced before, the sparking of temptations unknown before. The human heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?
Some place along the line, sometime, humans have to find peace. We need a space where there is no struggle within ourselves about where we stand with God and we fall back into the arms of his acceptance. I believe that place is ours in Christ Jesus: his work is a finished work, for nothing can undo what Christ has already done in history. If faith grasped the certainty of my place with God through Christ yesterday, faith can rest in it today. I wasn't worthy of it then, I'm not now, nor will I ever be.
Oh, I realize that we are working out our salvation, but that in no way, shape or form is the equivalent working for our salvation (or even working to keep it). We have peace with God through Jesus Christ--yesterday, today and tomorrow. God has plans for us, as long as we stay on the train. The life of the faithful is a lot like a bumpy subway ride, the journey is necessary, but a lot less anxious when we have a place to sit.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Fishing for Men
I used to fish a bit when I was younger, before the slime, the smell and the effort got the best of me. I often wondered if the fish truly understood what was happening when the hook was set and the battle to draw them in began. Probably not, how sensible can one be if a little flash of silver, some wet hair, and a treble hook looked like something good to eat!
Nonetheless, I think that the experience of the fish in fishing parallels the experience of the human in the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Something moving through the ethereal realm of spirit flashes by, the soul craning its neck to look, feels the tug of the hook being set and an inexorable pull toward... something. Soul "flesh" pierced by Spirit hook, it's the way the work of salvation gets done.
What does God's lure look like, I wonder? It seems to me, the working end of the Spirit's wooing or drawing is the word of God coming to us. Words are not stuff, per se, they're ethereal, real but unreal. They can hit one like a ton of bricks, but they don't weigh a thing (even when they are weighty). There is something more to words than meets the eye, especially when those words are from God.
The prophets of old recorded their experience with the Spirit of God as the word of the Lord coming to them. They found the experience unforgettable and compelling. I think that is so for anyone who ends up ultimately standing right with God. His word comes, we find something about it unforgettable and compelling, we're drawn thereby to the Lord's side.
That lure doesn't hook every fish it's dangled before, and some fish, hooked, begin a-flapping and break free. But for those fish landed, the story's always the same--the word, conviction, faith placed in Christ, salvation. Jesus was a fisher of men, who taught others to fish for men. A pole and tackle box is not needed, only the word of God is.
Nonetheless, I think that the experience of the fish in fishing parallels the experience of the human in the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Something moving through the ethereal realm of spirit flashes by, the soul craning its neck to look, feels the tug of the hook being set and an inexorable pull toward... something. Soul "flesh" pierced by Spirit hook, it's the way the work of salvation gets done.
What does God's lure look like, I wonder? It seems to me, the working end of the Spirit's wooing or drawing is the word of God coming to us. Words are not stuff, per se, they're ethereal, real but unreal. They can hit one like a ton of bricks, but they don't weigh a thing (even when they are weighty). There is something more to words than meets the eye, especially when those words are from God.
The prophets of old recorded their experience with the Spirit of God as the word of the Lord coming to them. They found the experience unforgettable and compelling. I think that is so for anyone who ends up ultimately standing right with God. His word comes, we find something about it unforgettable and compelling, we're drawn thereby to the Lord's side.
That lure doesn't hook every fish it's dangled before, and some fish, hooked, begin a-flapping and break free. But for those fish landed, the story's always the same--the word, conviction, faith placed in Christ, salvation. Jesus was a fisher of men, who taught others to fish for men. A pole and tackle box is not needed, only the word of God is.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Your Word Is Truth
"What is truth?" Pilate asked.
Truth is not an objective quality. That's not to say that there is not some quality, truth, that comports with some standard presumed to be unchanging, or that is experienced the same for all observers, or that conforms to reality, or is seen to function consistently. That is to say that quality can never be seen to represent the absolute end of a thing, as in this is it, period. Only God has that quality, he alone is truth, all else designated by the term is subject to his whim.
Can anything be truly independent of God? I do not think that it can; that includes gravity, the speed of light, or the existence of stuff itself. It seems to me that some philosophical schools posit a concept of truth in which there are things which even God cannot do anything about, or that are independent of the divine will. In that case, truth would be even greater than God, over him, so to speak. That, certainly, is not the case.
Truth has its foundation in God. God is not encompassed by truth, truth is encompassed by God. It's communicated by the words that proceed from his mouth. It is a derivative and dependent property. The ultimate truth is God, all other truth flows from him. The truth is that there is nothing by which God must abide, but himself.
Truth is not an objective quality. That's not to say that there is not some quality, truth, that comports with some standard presumed to be unchanging, or that is experienced the same for all observers, or that conforms to reality, or is seen to function consistently. That is to say that quality can never be seen to represent the absolute end of a thing, as in this is it, period. Only God has that quality, he alone is truth, all else designated by the term is subject to his whim.
Can anything be truly independent of God? I do not think that it can; that includes gravity, the speed of light, or the existence of stuff itself. It seems to me that some philosophical schools posit a concept of truth in which there are things which even God cannot do anything about, or that are independent of the divine will. In that case, truth would be even greater than God, over him, so to speak. That, certainly, is not the case.
Truth has its foundation in God. God is not encompassed by truth, truth is encompassed by God. It's communicated by the words that proceed from his mouth. It is a derivative and dependent property. The ultimate truth is God, all other truth flows from him. The truth is that there is nothing by which God must abide, but himself.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Because God Says So
How can a possibility which never occurred have any substance in truth? It did not pan out, afterall, so how can it be known to be true? Ultimately, truth is about fact, or what actually is, or a correspondence to reality, is it not? So how can a mere possibility be true, what would make it so? The question may seem inconsequential to you, perhaps the musings of too active an imagination, but since counterfactual statements are made in the Bible, I think the issue is more than the cogitations of someone who drank too much coffee and couldn't get to sleep.
If a statement is merely about the future, I think it is simple enough to divide the timelessness of the observer, who could know such things (God), from the timeboundness of the actors. Future tense statements about what will happen will be grounded in fact when the time rolls around. Our access to truth in these cases is a matter of faith. God's access to truth in these cases is from his timeless observation platform, where, for him, the future is real and every bit as accessible as is the present or past.
The case of "what-ifs" statements is not so simple. They never come to pass so never have the opportunity to become fact in reality. Yet, God speaks as if they are not the mere musings of possibilities, but as if they were settled verities, as certain as anything can be. Could they be words spoken by the Lord that return void? No, it is impossible for God to be impotent, in error, or to be lying. If these kind of statements are true, they can only be so because God said it and God does not lie. Of course, that opens whole 'nother can of worms.
If God can make true counterfactual statements, it means that God's omniscience cannot be merely observational, as if God must await the decision of an agent before he can know what that agent will do. God's omniscience must be of the sort that is perfectly analytical and predictive. That raises the specter that whatever an agent will or could do is ascertainable by presently (or formerly) existing facts. That, really, is a deterministic framework: A leads to B leads to C, etc. Follow the trail backward and eventually you end up with a thought in the mind of God and a decision to make it so, or so it would seem.
Do true counterfactual statements demand determinism? No, because that leap is made without understanding how God actually knows what he knows, and ignores what God tells us about what he is and isn't responsible for. I do not think it is possible for us to formulate an understanding of how God knows what he knows--it's too far out of our plane of existence. We know what he tells us about his deliberations, nothing more. He tells us that humans do things on their own, things that never entered his mind to tell them to do. Sin itself is the consequence of an agent truly having the ability to make a choice counter to God, not initiated by God.
Therefore, the grounding for counterfactual statements is nothing less than God's character. I can make counterfactual claims, but they'd always be taken with a grain of salt. How many such claims made by blokes like me have proven out when conditions made them actually possible? It seems to me the problem arises, not in the grounding of such truth, but in how it could be so and still allow for human freedom. There is no puzzle here, truth is not about anything other than what proceeds out of the mouth of God! The question for us comes down to brute faith--we're forced to stand in the simplicity of a child and answer, "because God says so."
If a statement is merely about the future, I think it is simple enough to divide the timelessness of the observer, who could know such things (God), from the timeboundness of the actors. Future tense statements about what will happen will be grounded in fact when the time rolls around. Our access to truth in these cases is a matter of faith. God's access to truth in these cases is from his timeless observation platform, where, for him, the future is real and every bit as accessible as is the present or past.
The case of "what-ifs" statements is not so simple. They never come to pass so never have the opportunity to become fact in reality. Yet, God speaks as if they are not the mere musings of possibilities, but as if they were settled verities, as certain as anything can be. Could they be words spoken by the Lord that return void? No, it is impossible for God to be impotent, in error, or to be lying. If these kind of statements are true, they can only be so because God said it and God does not lie. Of course, that opens whole 'nother can of worms.
If God can make true counterfactual statements, it means that God's omniscience cannot be merely observational, as if God must await the decision of an agent before he can know what that agent will do. God's omniscience must be of the sort that is perfectly analytical and predictive. That raises the specter that whatever an agent will or could do is ascertainable by presently (or formerly) existing facts. That, really, is a deterministic framework: A leads to B leads to C, etc. Follow the trail backward and eventually you end up with a thought in the mind of God and a decision to make it so, or so it would seem.
Do true counterfactual statements demand determinism? No, because that leap is made without understanding how God actually knows what he knows, and ignores what God tells us about what he is and isn't responsible for. I do not think it is possible for us to formulate an understanding of how God knows what he knows--it's too far out of our plane of existence. We know what he tells us about his deliberations, nothing more. He tells us that humans do things on their own, things that never entered his mind to tell them to do. Sin itself is the consequence of an agent truly having the ability to make a choice counter to God, not initiated by God.
Therefore, the grounding for counterfactual statements is nothing less than God's character. I can make counterfactual claims, but they'd always be taken with a grain of salt. How many such claims made by blokes like me have proven out when conditions made them actually possible? It seems to me the problem arises, not in the grounding of such truth, but in how it could be so and still allow for human freedom. There is no puzzle here, truth is not about anything other than what proceeds out of the mouth of God! The question for us comes down to brute faith--we're forced to stand in the simplicity of a child and answer, "because God says so."
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
To Be Trusted By God
Faith is the currency of heaven. It is the means by which the provisions made by the grace of God are translated into the vessels of need. Without faith we receive nothing from God, and anything not of faith is SIN. Faith is truly, the only issue that matters.
Faith is not mere belief but reliant trust. It is not just an acknowledgement, for instance, of the existence of God, but an assessment of his character as well--he is reliable, trustworthy, responsive. And it is yet more than that, it is the impetus for reaction on the part of the believer: "because God is, because God is trustworthy, I will act on what he's said."
Faith is essential to eternity. The Apostle Paul lists it as one of the eternal verities, even though classifying it as not as great as love. That makes sense if you think about it. Love is a more "sight" oriented experience that actually entails reliant trust, whereas faith is most functional when sight is not truly operative. Eternity will be a realm of "sight".
Faith will still be necessary, however. For humans to walk in the image of God (like unto Christ, that is), they have to have absolute trust in God. They will have to willingly rely on his judgment rather than their own; they will have to trust God in order to walk in absolute agreement with him. They will still be, afterall, creatures made in the image of God, capable of an independent choice.
Faith has always been the only issue between God and mankind. From the Garden of Eden until this very moment, all that God has wanted from human beings is for them to look upon him with reliant trust. Works have never been determinative, because there is really nothing we can do for God anyhow. He does have big plans for us, but we have to trust God in order to be trusted by God.
Faith is not mere belief but reliant trust. It is not just an acknowledgement, for instance, of the existence of God, but an assessment of his character as well--he is reliable, trustworthy, responsive. And it is yet more than that, it is the impetus for reaction on the part of the believer: "because God is, because God is trustworthy, I will act on what he's said."
Faith is essential to eternity. The Apostle Paul lists it as one of the eternal verities, even though classifying it as not as great as love. That makes sense if you think about it. Love is a more "sight" oriented experience that actually entails reliant trust, whereas faith is most functional when sight is not truly operative. Eternity will be a realm of "sight".
Faith will still be necessary, however. For humans to walk in the image of God (like unto Christ, that is), they have to have absolute trust in God. They will have to willingly rely on his judgment rather than their own; they will have to trust God in order to walk in absolute agreement with him. They will still be, afterall, creatures made in the image of God, capable of an independent choice.
Faith has always been the only issue between God and mankind. From the Garden of Eden until this very moment, all that God has wanted from human beings is for them to look upon him with reliant trust. Works have never been determinative, because there is really nothing we can do for God anyhow. He does have big plans for us, but we have to trust God in order to be trusted by God.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Deliberative Stranger
According to my rational, human understanding, God, in knowing all that could transpire, determined what would transpire by speaking the cosmos he foresaw into being. Inexorably, unavoidably, all will happen as it does because God, foreseeing all that would occur, actualized that world and thereby made it so. Now, that is not to say that all will happen in that world necessarily, because God decreed it so as an expression of his sovereign will. God actualized a universe which contained agents who had the God-like freedom to act according to their own wills. God merely foresaw how those agents would act in their freedom, and set in motion the reality that produced the effect he foresaw.
Except that...
In the scriptures, we see God seemingly making real time decisions and adjusting his action and response on a basis other than his foreknowledge or omniscience. That can be sloughed off as anthropomorphisms, or as metaphorical portrayals, but that undermines the reliability of the word (not that there are not figures in the Bible properly understood as such). If the Bible presents God responding to contingencies as if they cause him regret or that they were never part of his thinking, then we must admit that there is a strangeness in how God interacts with creation. Logically, there is no way an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being would be caught by suprise, or get stuck saying, "Shucks, why did I do it that way?" If the Word says that is so, what can that mean?
God certainly has the ability to plan--he sees the end from the beginning. We are clearly told in the Word that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and that grace was given to us in Christ before times eternal. Before reality and the willful acts of man gave rise to the need, God already established in his own deliberations the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. And yet, God often interacts with creation in a way that is commensurate with its time-boundness rather than his timelessness. It leaves one scratching his head in wonder, and me wondering if one more name can be added to those God already has: The Deliberative Stranger.
Except that...
In the scriptures, we see God seemingly making real time decisions and adjusting his action and response on a basis other than his foreknowledge or omniscience. That can be sloughed off as anthropomorphisms, or as metaphorical portrayals, but that undermines the reliability of the word (not that there are not figures in the Bible properly understood as such). If the Bible presents God responding to contingencies as if they cause him regret or that they were never part of his thinking, then we must admit that there is a strangeness in how God interacts with creation. Logically, there is no way an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being would be caught by suprise, or get stuck saying, "Shucks, why did I do it that way?" If the Word says that is so, what can that mean?
God certainly has the ability to plan--he sees the end from the beginning. We are clearly told in the Word that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and that grace was given to us in Christ before times eternal. Before reality and the willful acts of man gave rise to the need, God already established in his own deliberations the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. And yet, God often interacts with creation in a way that is commensurate with its time-boundness rather than his timelessness. It leaves one scratching his head in wonder, and me wondering if one more name can be added to those God already has: The Deliberative Stranger.
Monday, August 9, 2010
The Failure of Preterism in the Olivet Discourse
Important aspects of the Olivet Discourse which factor into this article:
2) The woe upon the pregnant and nursing seems clearly to refer to the same circumstance in all three accounts, and therefore can serve to "align" the details of three accounts. In doing so, it makes Luke's unique language describing the misfortune coming upon the Jews and Jerusalem merely a different description the same events presented in Matthew and Mark. Therefore, there is no description whatsoever in the Olivet Discourse of events occurring in 70 CE.
Specific Prophecies that Prevent a Preterist Intepretation
1) The occassion of the discourse was a question from the disciples after Jesus stated that not one stone would be left upon the other in Herod's Temple complex. Though Luke and Mark record virtually the same question, the detail of the question in Matthew tells us most specifically what was asked, and what Jesus was responding to. Matthew's question: "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" directs us to the end of time rather than to 70 CE.
2) The woe upon the pregnant and nursing seems clearly to refer to the same circumstance in all three accounts, and therefore can serve to "align" the details of three accounts. In doing so, it makes Luke's unique language describing the misfortune coming upon the Jews and Jerusalem merely a different description the same events presented in Matthew and Mark. Therefore, there is no description whatsoever in the Olivet Discourse of events occurring in 70 CE.
Specific Prophecies that Prevent a Preterist Intepretation
- "The beginning of birth pangs" in regard to earthquakes in various places, famines, and plagues seems a lot to jam into the space of time from 30 to 70 CE
- "A great falling away" which never occurred before 70 CE
- "The Gospel preached to every nation," which only now is a possibility ("then the end will come")
- "The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel" has not been fulfilled yet
- "Great tribulation like never before and never again" could in no way describe events before 1940 because of the nature of the Holocaust
- "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" could not have happened before 1940
- "The Son of Man comes in the clouds" has not occurred even yet
- "Angels gathering the elect" (from the earth and heaven) has not occurred yet
- "When we see all these things happening, this generation will not pass until all these things take place" binds the prophecies in the discourse into a unit (at least from the gospel being preached to all nations) that will be seen in its entirety by the generation that sees these signs
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Questions from God
Do you trust me? Will you bet your life on it? Will you follow me as a result?
What God is after, why God made mankind the way he did, why things happen in historical time as they do is that God has a desire for mankind that requires the right answer to these kinds of questions from God. If one sincerely answers, "yes," God can share himself with that person. If one does not, he or she cannot be trusted with God's image, freedom, or even life itself, and will ultimately be contained and confined in a way not repulsive to God's omniscience.
The Bible demonstrates this from God's testing of Adam to Jesus' dealings with his disciples. God is looking for a response from people that demonstrates their "yes." What God is endeavoring to achieve is not the kind of thing that can avoid choices and the freedom to make them, for God's image cannot be God's image apart from freedom and choice. Within the Trinity, there is always a yes between the persons of the Godhead, there needs to be a yes between our persons and God's.
Calvinism is totally out to lunch when it comes to any understanding whatsoever about God's intents and purposes. The system doesn't begin to understand what we are here for, what God is trying to achieve or how. It is astonishing to me that it is considered intellectual in some corners when it is so fundamentally ignorant! On top of that, it assaults the character of God, making him out to be someone who cannot rise above the level of playing with toy soldiers.
God made mankind to know him, to walk with him, and to experience life along the the lines that he does. The agreement within the Trinity is a picture of what it takes for distinctive people to be able to do that. What must be understood and remembered is that as God puts the questions that matter to mankind, only faith in God can provide the answer he's always looking for.
What God is after, why God made mankind the way he did, why things happen in historical time as they do is that God has a desire for mankind that requires the right answer to these kinds of questions from God. If one sincerely answers, "yes," God can share himself with that person. If one does not, he or she cannot be trusted with God's image, freedom, or even life itself, and will ultimately be contained and confined in a way not repulsive to God's omniscience.
The Bible demonstrates this from God's testing of Adam to Jesus' dealings with his disciples. God is looking for a response from people that demonstrates their "yes." What God is endeavoring to achieve is not the kind of thing that can avoid choices and the freedom to make them, for God's image cannot be God's image apart from freedom and choice. Within the Trinity, there is always a yes between the persons of the Godhead, there needs to be a yes between our persons and God's.
Calvinism is totally out to lunch when it comes to any understanding whatsoever about God's intents and purposes. The system doesn't begin to understand what we are here for, what God is trying to achieve or how. It is astonishing to me that it is considered intellectual in some corners when it is so fundamentally ignorant! On top of that, it assaults the character of God, making him out to be someone who cannot rise above the level of playing with toy soldiers.
God made mankind to know him, to walk with him, and to experience life along the the lines that he does. The agreement within the Trinity is a picture of what it takes for distinctive people to be able to do that. What must be understood and remembered is that as God puts the questions that matter to mankind, only faith in God can provide the answer he's always looking for.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Man Gave Names to All the Animals
"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field." Genesis 2:19-20 NIV
In the midst of extending his creation of man from just male to male and female, God brought Eden's menagerie before Adam, sat back so to speak, and let man take the lead in something creative. Some might find fault with my characterization of this event this way, but I don't think it's all that far off.
This occurred before God's sabbath, so his "work" week wasn't quite finished when this happened. He was, in fact, not even done with the model called man, for female he had not made them yet. He tapped his son Adam to help his Dad finish his work, much the same way my dad used to "take me to work" with him on Saturday mornings to "help" him. Day 6 was the very first Take-Your-Son-to-Work Day in history!
The work wasn't hard (neither was mine with my dad). The Father could easily have done it himself, but he didn't want to. In fact, it seems to me, the Father got a kick out of having Adam do it. I know it doesn't come right out and say that, but it does say God went on to finish his creative work (including the part Adam "helped" with), and when done, pronounced it good. A perfect God produced perfect quality work with which he was perfectly satisfied--including the component added by Adam!
One might ask, "Why?" I think it speaks profoundly about the glory of God and what brings him satisfication and joy. The news flash is that it isn't doing a puppet show with the marionettes he made out of clay. God let man name the animals, and whatever man named them, that was their name.
God wanted mankind to be creatively free. He made them to be. That is what they must be, in order for the Son to incarnate as one of them and fellowship with them, Creator with the created. God has never shown any interest in dealing with mankind as robots so far as I can tell: it is a complete misapprehension of his purposes and plans to ever think that he would.
In the midst of extending his creation of man from just male to male and female, God brought Eden's menagerie before Adam, sat back so to speak, and let man take the lead in something creative. Some might find fault with my characterization of this event this way, but I don't think it's all that far off.
This occurred before God's sabbath, so his "work" week wasn't quite finished when this happened. He was, in fact, not even done with the model called man, for female he had not made them yet. He tapped his son Adam to help his Dad finish his work, much the same way my dad used to "take me to work" with him on Saturday mornings to "help" him. Day 6 was the very first Take-Your-Son-to-Work Day in history!
The work wasn't hard (neither was mine with my dad). The Father could easily have done it himself, but he didn't want to. In fact, it seems to me, the Father got a kick out of having Adam do it. I know it doesn't come right out and say that, but it does say God went on to finish his creative work (including the part Adam "helped" with), and when done, pronounced it good. A perfect God produced perfect quality work with which he was perfectly satisfied--including the component added by Adam!
One might ask, "Why?" I think it speaks profoundly about the glory of God and what brings him satisfication and joy. The news flash is that it isn't doing a puppet show with the marionettes he made out of clay. God let man name the animals, and whatever man named them, that was their name.
God wanted mankind to be creatively free. He made them to be. That is what they must be, in order for the Son to incarnate as one of them and fellowship with them, Creator with the created. God has never shown any interest in dealing with mankind as robots so far as I can tell: it is a complete misapprehension of his purposes and plans to ever think that he would.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)