Magic Words

Magic words. Words that in themselves carry efficacious power.

Magic words are discredited among empiricists. Words are the inventions of humans, what in them could be intrinsically powerful?

Don't be too quick to reject magic words, difficult as it may be to acknowledge such a thing--not that I'm superstitious or credulous.

I know this to be true: faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Apparently, there is magic in some words, and we can draw that magic out!

Then that magic draws us out of the grave and into Christ.

What Must One Believe to Be a Christian?

First, we need to understand the kind of belief that's relevant to the question. When the New Testament speaks of belief of the sort that's in view here (Koine: pistis), it's referring to a persuasion. In other words, belief (i.e. faith) is quality of certainty regarding a proposition: for instance, "God exists." Hebrews 11:1 (ESV) describes it as such, "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." So belief is a state of certainty about things that can't be seen.

When we add the parameter of belief according to the standard of the Bible, a rather clear picture emerges. 

Let me lay out on a scale which builds this standard from the most fundamental and necessary to the least. Only one who believes according to the entire scale could truly be called a Bible-believing Christian, anything less would call into question the genuineness, according to the biblical measure, of such a person's faith. Will people who believe less than the whole scale be saved? Yes, I think that is possible, but they will be weak in faith and limited in their growth into Christ.

1. Jesus rose from bodily from the dead
2. Jesus is the Son of God, that is, God with us
3. Jesus is our leader, unquestioned, as is everything he taught and said
4. The Old Testament is true, every jot and tittle
5. Moses was an actual deliverer, the Exodus an actual migration
6. Noah was an actual person, the Flood an actual event
7. Adam and Eve were actual persons, the Creation Week an actual occurrence

What is generally concentrated on in discussions of Christian doctrine is the why's and how's (e.g. penal substitution, grace vs. works, etc.), but often at the cost of ignoring what is actually the foundation underlying everything. Christianity starts with an event-- Jesus rising from the dead. If you buy the top of the list, the next three are logically consequent, leading to the last three. One repercussion of this approach: a theistic evolutionist is not in any way, shape or form, a biblical Christian. Are you?

God Is No Will Rogers

I find that most people are likable. There are jerks out there, don't get me wrong, but I think they're the exception, not the rule. Not that everyone doesn't have his or her faults, they would be fiction rather than fact if that were the case. Regardless, I wouldn't want any harm to befall any of them, despite their faults.

It is easy to project that kind of Will Rogers outlook onto God, and think he feels similarly. I don't think he does, though: in fact, he hates the soul that sins. The earth shudders, 200,000 men, women and children vanish into eternity suddenly, ignorant of gospel--did God lift a mitigating finger? Not that I can tell. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, does he shed a tear for lost Indonesians, Haitians, Chinese, or Pashtuns?

Does God love the world? The Bible says he does, the sacrifice of Christ put forward as the ultimate evidence. Furthermore, the scriptures also say God wants the world to hear of his love in Christ, but what about the multitude of lost slipping into eternity without so much as ever hearing a word about Christ? Where is the love there?

To say that it is the church's responsibility does nothing to allay the problem; not anymore than a bartender who served the obviously impaired can say the blame for the roadside tragedy that ensued lies only with the drunk. What kind of God is it that would leave such a monumental task in the hands of the flawed, the failing, and the faith-challenged? It would be a bizarre kind of love indeed, if that were the case.

Calvinists at least have logical cover, and can slough off such questions by adjusting the meaning of words in the scriptures. God's love doesn't extend to the unelected anymore than does Christ's blood (as long as any, all, whole, and world do not really mean any, all, whole, and world, that is). That is a game that should not be played by those seeking truth.

Is it possible for man to be more magnanimous than God? No, it is impossible that any man can be more virtuous than God; it is also impossible that any man be more righteous. God knows what he's doing in balancing competing considerations. Those he foreknew, he has also predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. God may be no Will Rogers, but I don't think he can be less!

Purpose In Noah and Abraham

From Adam to Abraham, God's governance of man and time appears somewhat chaotic. Violence filled the earth, to which God responded by violently overturning the earth. God commanded the survivors to disperse and repopulate the earth. They refused and instead began planting the seeds of idolatry, to which God responded by overturning their ability to communicate and enforcing dispersal and tribalism upon them.

God apparently adopted silence thereafter until confronting a single pagan. God called upon him to drop all his relational ties (one's safety and security in that day), and travel hundreds of miles across the desert to a destination unknown. Abram believed what God said and acted upon it (eventually) and the covenant of relationship was established. Later, in perhaps the most significant event in Abraham's life, God's love was graphically illustrated and the blessing that would come to all the world presaged in the actions of a father and son.

How does one make sense of this human wasteland of violence and sin or God's reaction to it? At least the prediluvian sinners lost in the flood saw the promise of redemption eventually; the postdiluvian sinners do not appear to have fared so well. Why did God do what he did they way he did? Covenant or Dispensation can, at best, describe the scenerio; neither reasonably explicates it. Unraveling the knot, I think, is what this reveals about God's purpose:

• The saved found grace in the eyes of the Lord, not merit, as they have always;
• The blessed had to respond to God's promise by the obedience of faith until the end;
• In God's eyes, love is demonstrated in the sacrifice of an only son;
• Though specific historical events appear exclusionary, the ultimate aim of God's actions in history are inclusionary.

Though God cannot uphold sin or sinfulness, there is a loving compassion in the heart of God for humanity. Because of his grace, an intimate relationship with him that will last for eternity can be established now which begins and ends with faith. What can a human do in light of the purpose of God? Trust him, believe what he says, and to follow him into life.

Purpose in Relation to Adam

Genesis 1:26-3:15

Adam was not the ultimate picture of God's purpose. If he was, the promise of eternity would look like Eden: it does not. Adam, Eve, the first heavens and earth were but the beginning of the revelation in time of God's purpose. Everything from the beginning in time to its end moves toward that purpose.

Adam, untainted by sin, does, however, reveal something of God's purpose with man:

• Man was in creative partnership with God (Adam named the animals);
• Man was free to do as he pleased as long as what he pleased was not in direct opposition to what God pleased;
• Man was empowered to make up his own mind about God's thoughts;
• The knowledge of good and evil would have been shared with man once man had decided to go with God (I acknowledge this point is speculative on my part).

Adam, in failure, was the testing prototype and role model that taught us the lesson that trusting in God rather than our own wits, or the gossip of the Devil, is the way to life. That his failure was not the end was announced in God's curse upon the Serpent. Hope was birthed, now that he knew death, that if he ever had the opportunity at redemption, he'd go with God.

Islam as a Precursor to the Antichrist

An interesting quote from John of Damascus in Fount of Knowledge (c.a. 726 CE) [HT:Christianity Today]:

"There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist."

I do believe the Antichrist will be a nominal Muslim (at least when his career begins) and that Islam will be the precursor to his worldwide empire and religion. Perhaps the thought isn't all that new after all!

The Purpose of God

When I contemplate the overarching theme of the Bible, and what might order its interpretation and theology into a cohesive framework, I do not find the concepts of covenant or dispensation very useful. To such an end, I find the concept of purpose (specifically, the purpose of God) a much better construct. Everything in scripture can be understood in its relation to God's purpose; everything in theology can be seen through this lens. The Bible is, according to this view, the revelation of the God of Purpose and how his purpose effects the past, present and future.

In regard to God's purpose, I do not think, generally, that mankind has had a grand enough vision. In my opinion, we tend to concentrate on God's transcendence in understanding such and bypass his associativeness (despite the well developed doctrine of the Trinity). The result has been, it seems to me, a reliance on form to define our relationship with God instead of the experience of relationship. When emphasis is placed on form, which is the very essence of covenant and the backbone of dispensation, distance from God is baked in the cake of our conception of our relationship with him. Jesus, in his high priestly prayer, revealed that he has something much more than that in mind for us.

I do not believe that Covenantalism or Dispensationalism adequately capture the overarching message of the Bible or provide a sufficient framework to order theology. Either misses that intimacy and faith color everything. Covenants establish relationship between two parties at arms length on the basis of boundaries for acceptable action by the participants. Dispensations seem scarcely different to me than a series of laboratory experiments performed on lab rats.

It is not that there are not aspects to either approach that recommend them to the student of God and his Word. Either, however, leaves the student who can't see past them dawdling, waxing cars for Mr. Miyagi, without a true apprehension of what is ultimately in the master's mind. From a practical standpoint, unregenerate sinners could never have confidence in their standing with God apart from a covenant, and prophesy is a muddle without seeing Israel in a dispensational sense. But God is aiming for more than sinners daring to come out from behind the bushes or for folks to get a history lesson from God's timeless perspective.

What, then, is the purpose of the covenant? Is it not merely an agreement with sinners that God will declare them righteous and make them new if they'll turn to him and put their trust in Christ? After one has come to that point then what? That is where covenant ceases and purpose must take over. It has never been God's purpose to leave sinners as sinners (but at least on friendly terms), and it certainly isn't his purpose to wait until the Rapture to get on with his purpose.

Covenant as the framework for understanding the overarching message of scripture falls short of the purpose of God. A covenant may give a sinner comfort, but God isn't aiming at sinners' comfort--his purpose is transformation. Dispensations are no better a framework: at best they are merely mile markers along the road of progress to God's purpose. God has made mankind to walk in eternal fellowship with him, a meeting of mind and spirit. That purpose is what gives all of the Word and theology cohesive structure.

Covenant

Hebrews 8:6-9:15

2 Corinthians 3:5-18

Luke 22:19-20

Jeremiah 31:31-34

Purpose

Romans 8:28-30

Ephesians 1:9-2:22
Ephesians 3:11-19
John 17
1 Corinthians 13:8-12

Some Thoughts on the Redeemability of God's Image

...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.      Revelation 13:8

There are some things God cannot do. One of which is to make a duplicate of himself. To do so would not only violate his oneness, but it would make him a creature. How would the original and the duplicate be told apart? Therefore, even if God desired to make a creature with personal and relatable qualities commensurate with himself, that creature would not be him, could not be as his is, or do as he would do.

The repercussion, it seems to me, in making another being with God-like capacities of will, is that it would be inevitable, at some point, that the creature would chose a course of action not only independent of God, but also at cross purposes. In other words, the creation of the image of God necessitated the failure of the image according to the standard that is God himself. This failure, being one of inevitability, would not require a specific decree in order for it to occur. It would have been a foregone conclusion given the decision to create.

I find it interesting, perhaps telling, that the first test of conscience adherence to the standard was sufficient to prove the point. I have to wonder if God would not have foreseen the dilemma (he would have undoubtedly), and allowed the efforts of Satan in the Garden to expedite things. I do not think there is any necessity for an omniscient, omnipotent being to wait around for an inevitable occurrence. Certainly, no aspect of the Fall would have caught God by surprise!

If that failure had been made open-eyed, rapprochement would be impossible because there was no possibility to learn from error. What would fuel the reconciliation? If seeing God for who he actually is did not arrest the will to "do" other than God, what could stop a recurrence? At best, a reconciliation could only last until the next time wills diverged. This is similar to the situation with angels and it is unsustainable if God is to be God.

If that failure is made in ignorance, rapprochement would be possible because one could realize his error and agree that God's way is the only way. This is the situation with man. Mankind is redeemable because it is possible for him to awaken from his ignorance (with gracious assistance of course) and realize that harmony with God is the greatest and only good.

How Old Is Stuff?

How old is stuff? I don't know, but I don't think it's necessary that it's billions upon billions of years--not even million upon millions. It's not that I do not understand radiometric dating, the geologic record, or the concept of a light year. I think there is ample evidence to posit that the universe is something over 13 billion years, and that our solar system is well over 4. Folks who can do that kind of thing say the math works out--I don't doubt that it does.

The fact is, however, I have a credible witness who says the biblical account of creation is true, and that would make stuff orders of magnitude younger. He spoke of Adam and Eve as real people at the beginning, and spoke of Noah and the great flood as real history rather than a metaphor. Perhaps he should be written off as just a crazy rube, an ignorant man of his times, but he proved his trustworthiness by doing that which no one has ever done. Without a PhD, calculus, or a computer he, Antonio Cromartie like, announced his intents, and then went ahead and backed up his words up by dying and rising from the dead (and without any assistance!).

No cosmologist, paleogeologist, evolutionary biologist or any other scientist has ever willingly offered themselves to death so they could prove their mastery by raising themselves back to life on the third day. When they do, maybe I'll listen to them instead of Jesus when they talk about our genesis. It is not that they are dumb, or even mistaken about their evidence, its their forensics I take issue with. Like folk trying to definitively settle the Ripper case, the best they can do is spin a tale that fits the facts, but they'll never decisively prove their case after the fact.

So why is there so much heavy duty evidence for billions upon billions of years? I would think it would be a given that creation would reflect the properties of its Creator. God is infinite and timeless: he is from everlasting to everlasting and is everywhere. What would one expect a universe created by such a being to look like? It seems evident to me, it should look really, really big and appear really, really old. Otherwise, it would give a false representation of its maker.

Some old-earthers say that amounts to deception, but I honestly don't know how it would. It's perfectly reflective of God's attributes and it speaks parabolically to the pride of man. There has always been an issue with humankind as to whether we will depend upon God's word or our own reasoning. As it was for Adam and Eve in the Garden, so it is with us generation after generation. God says one thing, our reasoning says another--faith goes with God, pride goes with us, and soon thereafter comes the splat.

It's not that there are not reasonable clues out there that stuff hasn't been around all that long. We could see it if we were willing, some do, most do not. When we look at stuff, it should reveal the majesty of our infinite, eternal maker, without necessarily providing any clues as to how we've gotten here (that is what Genesis is for after all). I don't have any problem saying that stuff does so without the necessity of billion upon billion years of age, nor for that matter, that unbiblical formation concept called evolution.