Today is a long day - a dissertation defense this afternoon and I still need to slug through some 60 odd pages of his dissertation and some additional departmental paperwork I'm sure as it seems I'm always behind in that. Then there's the data that still needs to be sent in to a grant agency and packing up the teaching material I need to read while away. Then there will be errands to run and packing! Goodness, I'm making myself tired.
I'm off to San Antonio in the morning to attend the Neurochemistry meeting. Hopefully the US meeting will find better weather than the International one which, after I'd been in Mexico for a week for a pre-meeting school, wound up in a hurricane. I'm looking forward to this meeting very much. The science is good; the people are personable; the weather promises to be sunny and warm, whereas we are expecting more snow tonight here in Chicago.
I'll be around in cyberspace though; the laptop travels with me like an extra appendage! I've asked my friend Dianne to keep an eye on things as she is a favorite of Lorenzo's and mine as well - so BE NICE!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
76 comments:
Of course we will look after your blog Susan. Dianne and I will be the referees! Have a nice trip.
Love Lorenzo.
Thanks! Hopefully my flight doesn't get delayed due to the snow we're to have tonight!
>the laptop travels with me like an extra appendage!
We look forward to analysing this statement to death!
Have a good trip :-)
Too funny Susan! What makes you think you need a referee here? (:-)
And speaking of that extra appendage...
Dianne
PS Enjoy the warm sunshine! Did you bring your springtime pocket protector?
Your meetings always sound like the kind I'd like to go to!
Today, I was reading something about how random activity in mold slime creates a complex response. And I wished I had a good scientist to discuss it with. (Hmmm... maybe when you get back?)
Sounds great! And I'll only be able to listen appreciatively, to that kind of discussion you would have with L.L., if that were possible.
Look forward to whatever you might share here, on that.
LL - I'm sure Maalie can give it a good go as to an explanation and probably better than I - but his interpretation of what it actually means will be dramatically different than mine! Now, do tell, what in the world were you doing reading that when you were supposed to be finishing your book proposal????
Maalie - analyze away - I'll probably be the better for it and you may find that you and Dianne agree whole-heartedly!
Oh Dianne - the white one with the pink writing that says "I heart Jesus" of course - a friend sent it to me in the mail one day - you may remember her, mother of two, wife of a wonderful carpenter, wacko sense of humor!
Hi Lorenzo,
It is good to hear from you. Stephen Hawkins may very well know the Bible from cover to cover. I know who he is but have no idea of his position on God, creation and the like. Is he an atheist? I don’t know. My point is that for anyone to have an authentic 'appreciation' for the Bible requires much more than merely knowing what it says or even memorizing it. There may be several scientists who know the content of the Bible better than me, but that doesn’t indicate they appreciate the content or its Author. Anyone who genuinely appreciates the Bible realizes it is much more than a book. There is no book like it on earth. Even the greatest and most intelligent people of this world can spend childhood till their deathbeds studying the Bible and not even come close to unearthing all its treasures. 2000 years of Church history and its peoples’ study of the Bible has still not unearthed all its treasures! The inspiration of God is clearly evident in the pages of the Bible to anyone who truly 'appreciates' it. Mockers can’t possibly appreciate it.
"the Bible requires much more than merely knowing what it says or even memorizing it."
I think the point that was being made was that at least some scientists are aware of the contents of the bible, whereas many who depend on 'faith' have little knowledge at all of science. But I'm just watching from the outside.
Well, anonymous, I never thought I'd be getting support from you! LOL! Actually my point was a little stronger even than that. Many (maybe even most) scientists have been 'believers' at some time in their lives and can see the bible from a believer's perspective. But many, as they mature and come to understand the overwhelming evidence for an alternative explanation for what we observe on earth, then reject creation mythology. On the other hand, non-scientists who (for what ever reason) have not been privileged to receive a scientific training, can never have a balanced perspective and resort to the comfort zone of their indoctrination.
Micro-Luther, are you implying that scientists are too dumb to understand the bible? I shall regard that with the contempt it deserves.
maalie, it's not me. it's not the anon from the previous post. I'll call myself anon1
I hope you have a successful conference Susan. I look forward to hearing from your appendage :)
Maalie,
You love to continually change my blog name for some reason. Enjoy!
No. I was never insinuating that scientists are too dumb to understand the Bible—quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps they are too smart, in their own eyes, to submit to and appreciate the Creator's hand in writing it. This text says similarly:
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.’ Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." (1 Cor. 1:18-21)
A Scientist (and I venture to say Halfmom will agree with me on this point) who appreciates the Bible will see that though it was written over a 1500 year period by scores of authors, there is nevertheless, an unmistakable continuity and harmony in the book as a single unit. All the parts fit together as one. It is an incredible feat that could not have come together by the wisdom of men. I think scientists could prove this fact, if they pulled their heads out of the sand long enough to take a serious look (like you, I can dish out contempt with the best of them). I have no contempt for science, however, but only for those who scorn truth.
BTW: No scientist who left the faith was ever a believer in the first place. That is what the Bible teaches about all who leave Christ:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (1 Jn. 2:19)
no more anons of any kind please! even if you don't have an account and need to use the anon to leave a comment, please leave your name at the bottom - if won't own up to it, don't leave it!
C_R_A_P!!!! ( thats Aussie speak!)
Sorry mate.. But what you have just said is utter emotive crap...
This book was put together by a committee! There is argument amongst religious scholars as to just what was the correct content! Even today the highest level of the committee still argue this point....
Why even quote it? It would be like me saying "Thus sayeth The Terminator... movie 1, scene two- "Come with me if you want to live"
All hail the terminator!! I want to live !!!
Why cannot scientists understand that this movie is indeed the word of god? for only a fool has said there is NO terminator- it MUST be real. scientists are working on robots...
I mean, this movie series has been directed by a number of different people, over many years, but there is a continuity that we can see...
But hell has a place for those who scorn this truth....
No one who ever left the movie theatre was a believer in the first place-
Anyway:-
Really- how can you say that??
I ask you this:- if god created everything- then he must have created adam, eve, the snake, the sin, the illness, the death, the life, the day, the night, jesus, hell, heaven, sinners and saints alike- he must know the outcome BEFORE it happens. He knew that jews would be gassed, that Mao would kill millions, that people would starve- even before it happens-
Can i ask you what you think of the Palestinians??? because if my historic understanding of the old testament is correct ( and it might not be).. the Palestinians ( read Philistines) tribe were as a result of a father being seduced by his 2 daughters).. and therefore this is the reason for the conflict that exisits today.... so, Jew hates palestinian....
so all this war, suffering and hatred is as a DIRECT result of these 3 religions- JEW, Muslim and Christian.
I even have American fiends who say "God Guns and Guts"....
c-rap.........
Just like a movie director....
He must have created the devil himself-
or at least knew what is most favorite angel would do------
so god in fact MUST be good and evil??
I mean come on....Ying and yang....
ahahahahha
me? I'd rather have a beer and watch the rugby..
Look, what you should do is- get a grip on reality, come and watch the football with Maalie and me and chill out
("" hug"" for you... man)
BTW I am a Russell, and they have direct links with the illuminate -
Now lets get going on one world government
(chuckle)
ps- I agree Susan- using "Anon" is "no good"
BTW Luther I am not "cranky" or "upset"
good debate is good. don't you think?....
Glad you have some American fiends Simon! I have a few too, including Mr Bush!
The Bible might have been put together by a committee but it wasn't written by a committee.
Luther: As far as I know Stephen Hawkings is not an athiest.
Can I come and watch the rugby and have a beer too, Simon?
Simon, yes, that has intrigued me too, the business about an omniscient God knowing everything in advance, including who is going to heaven and who isn't. The Calvinists call them the Elected, and if you weren't elected at the dawn of time, you ain't going to get in, Mate, no matter how good, charitable and lovely you are in your life. Some even believe that only a proportion of new-born babies (and even aborted foetuses) are among the chosen Elect. Though the Arminians dispute this. It seem to be not so much as whether you follow the purported Word of God, but the word of John Calvin or Jacobus Arminius.
Someone here (I think it was one of the Anonymouses - or should that be one of the Anonymice? LOL!) said we were bitter. Spot on, as far as I'm concerned, too right I'm bitter. Bitter about the violence and bloodshed through history in the name of the Holy Bible; bitter that two armies on opposing sides of a battle will pray to the same God for a just and holy victory to Glorify His Name; and bitter that George W. Bush has spent trillions and trillions on a war in Iraq because he thinks God told him to. Just think what that cash could have done in Africa (or even in the USA, where now their economy appears to be in tatters and is dragging ours down with it).
Maalie and company,
Yes, I'm a believer and Jesus-follower, but I don't dream that I have all the answers or even understand life as it is. Believing in God for me means I can let him sort that out and believe in the end he does all things right and good. But that doesn't give me an answer to the parents who just lost their child in an accident, etc., etc., etc.
God reveals alot, I take it, from Scripture, but we Christians often think we know more than we do, I believe, and that's inevitable with any of us humans, anyhow.
So on the election, foreknowledge thing, to foreknow from the Hebrew is probably more of a relational thing, so that God looks forward to the relationship God has with his creation. In the Christian god, relationship is inherent since God if Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in communion in himself. So election and foreknowing, knowing again having the idea of fellowship and getting to know someone are related to relationship somehow.
And theology is good on what is clear, I mean Christian theology here, as God being Trinity, Jesus being God and human, salvation being by grace through faith, Jesus to return to bring in the redemption of this old creation made new.
But theology over matters like election and water baptism (as in mode and who gets it), etc., is disputed, because probably, I'm thinking that oftentimes humans are trying to be clearer and say more than what Scripture actually says.
Of course I'm an uncurable believer. I say that only "in Jesus". Apart from him I'll be as sceptical and hardened as anyone, but in him is the way, he who said, "I am the way."
But many of your concerns and thoughts ought to be taken more carefully in seriousness by us Christians, I believe. At the same time we follow on and all comes together enough for us, in Jesus, so that we can continue on in faith without having all the answers.
I wish I could engage when you get on, but hard to do so at my work, even when on my breaks and lunch, which are rather short, anyhow. But I'll come back and try to listen and think along with you, from my perspective. Though again my perspective is of one in Jesus, and it is Ted, as well.
Hope you're having some good days to get some of your good scientific fun work done, Maalie. I look forward to Spring here; the snow looks pretty and still alot of it, but Spring is not far, and we're ready. I hope to see more birds myself this year; wish we lived in the country though not bad here, for the city/suburbs.
Lorenzo, thank you so much for your comment!!
"The Bible might have been put together by a committee but it wasn't written by a committee." Amen to that!
I already liked Stephen Hawkings when I thought he might be an atheist. One cannot help but admire how he has dealt with his adversity...but now that I hear he wasn't an atheist, he just jumped up much higher on my "cool people list".
Maalie and Simon:
It sounds like you guys are upset with people more than with God: The people who decided what books would be included in the Bible; people who fight in the name of God; people who spend fortunes on war rather than on real needs like those in Africa; upset by the plight of the Palestinians, etc....and for some reason Maalie especially has it out for Calvinists for some reason. You have mentioned that name more than any other (I could be classified as a Calvinist by the way). I'm sure that will give you great delight to hear and a new avenue of assault! It doesn't mean I follow Calvin, however. Not at all. It simply means I believe the Bible does teach the Reformed doctrine of election. Solomon, Jesus, John, Peter, Paul as well as Clement of Rome, Augustine of Hippo, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc. all taught the doctrine. Calvin hardly deserves all the credit.
I'd love to have a couple beers with you guys and watch Rugby. One advantage of living out of my own country for so many years is that football (soccer) has become my favorite sport—a sport unappreciated in America.
Here is a quote you guys (especially Simon) might appreciate more than any I've given so far from the Bible. "Martin Luther explained the entire Reformation as “…while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.”"
One of many reasons I love the guy!
Litl-Luther and company,
The Bible doesn't solve the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, but holds up both as if they're equally important in the mix. For example, God's word calls everyone, everywhere to repent.
I believe Scripture holds up election, and yes included in that is election to salvation, for service. Paul's conversion is a prime case of this. He was blinded on the Damascus road, and responded to this experience with repentance and faith, to be a servant for the nations as the apostle to the Gentiles.
The idea that God predestines some to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation or judgment is not something that has been strong in the church over the centuries, in fact I'm not sure it existed at all through most of the early centuries including Augustine's thought. I believe such teaching is from a superficial or at least mistaken reading of Scripture. And I don't believe it for a second.
But God is greater than all our errors. And God in the face of Jesus has made himself known. That is where we need to turn, to the face of Jesus. From that revelation lived out in history, we have the beginning of good answers and solutions, even for this present world, now, as well as for us all. (e.g., the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa)
just popping to say hello
Maalie and Simon - I will address your questions - if those were, in fact, questions rather than rantings, when I return home. Meanwhile, it appears that Ted and LLuther are doing a fine job - so thanks guys.
Hang about Maalie, it's not God's fault that people on Earth are prats and get things wrong and go off and fight in His name because they are deluded enough to think He told them so!
I don't believe all this nonsense about the 'elect'. I'm sure that is not Biblical. It somehow rings of Jehovah's Witnesses to me. There's a group for you now. If you are not in one of their 144,000 elect, then you've had it anyway.
I suppose it depends on whether you believe in the Book of Revelation or whether you believe it was a vision. If it was a vision, was it a Divine vision or was it caused by the local mushrooms?
Thank youj for being nice to be now Luther!
>it's not God's fault that people on Earth are prats and get things wrong
Lorenzo, you might say that, but there are others who don't. Have you seen the Calvinist's Five-point plan? The Lord is Sovereign. He will pick and choose on a whim. Or shall I say, he did, for it was predestined by Him at the Big Bang. So whatever we get wrong, He ordained it. He predetermined Original Sin, and continues to threatens us with punishment on pain of the lake of fire and demands perpetual repentance.
What intrigues me is the range of belief here, even within these comments. You believe this, but don't believe that. Ted believes something else and Micro-Luther believes (or doesn't believe) something different. I don't have evidence that the world's biodiversity stemmed from what could be crammed into Noah's boat, or that humanity was derived from Mr Adam, Miss Eve and the talking snake.
The bible means what you want it to mean. It can mean anything to anybody.
maalie,
5 points to die on a hill for
Jesus's virgin birth
His sinless life
His death on the cross for atonement for sin
His resurrection
His return
Who cares what mere man says, this is the Truth. Man will always muck things up. Believe it or not, your choice.
Why do you continue to argue (yes, argue) if you don't believe this? Are you not convinced of your own beliefs?
You will not convince a true believer of anything else because they have experienced(real life living experience, not mere emotions, but life changing, soul wrenching experience) the True God. The One and Only God.
Please don't pick apart this comment. I really just want you to answer my questions. Can you?
Dianne
...oops, meant to say life giving experience!
Have fun and enjoy the weather.
Ted: I don't want to get into a debate on election here. If you want to do that, come to my site. Much study combined with my personality type has caused me to have some pretty strong opinions on most subjects. But this site seems hardly the place to debate these things!
However, the major differences of opinions among Christians--even after 2000 years of Bible study--shows that the Bible is a book unlike any other. It has so much in it of which finite man is simply incapable of full agreement because the Bible deals with an infinite God! The finite simply cannot comprehend the infinite perfectly.
Lorenzo, I truly wish to be nice to you from now on....
By the way, though I am clearly a Protestant, I admire the faith of many Roman Catholics, like my Roman Catholic Grandmother whom I admire so much. She has buried 4 children, two husbands and despite these tragedies, she is in love with God. She trusts Him implicitly. She is a wonderful, godly woman and a staunch Roman Catholic. And so despite all the major Catholic\Protestant differences (that even my blog name indicates), I still see the common faith we all share: Our faith in Jesus--in who He is and what He has done for us. Dianne, brings this out well in her "5 points to die on a hill for". Despite all the differences among Christians, we certainly agree on these.
>they have experienced(real life living experience, not mere emotions, but life changing, soul wrenching experience
Dianne, yes, I've had that too, when I read the works of Richard Dawkins. In particular his statement: "We no longer need to resort to the supernatural to explain the origin and development of life on earth". I knew in an instant he is right.
It was like a sort of rebirth, an awakening to an outlook based on experience and evidence, not indoctrination, brainwashing or delusion. It quite wrenching I have to admit. But I think that once you emerge from a delusion, you can never return.
But I will take your hint, you obviously don't like me here, taking things apart. But it is only by taking things apart that you can appreciate what utter drivel it (usually) contains.
Ooops, pardon me Dianne, I clicked off before I really answered you question.
>Believe it or not, your choice.
I try not to use the word "believe" for it has so little bearing on what is true. I "believed" in the Tooth fairy and Santa once, and I was clearly deluded. People once "believed" the earth was flat. I don't believe, I experience and witness evidence. Now the non-existence of an omnipotent and omniscient sovereign father cannot be ruled out. Such a being could do anything he/she wanted, even distort the evidence. But my own experience, with the evidence I have witnessed, suggests that would be so improbably as to be not in the frame for consideration. There are better explanations available.
Litl-Luther, Well said. I think my position would line up well with what N.T. Wright has to say on election, and which I believe reflects the Story found in Scripture quite well.
And Dianne, well said, also.
Maalie,
Science in exploring origins surely does not have to resort to the supernatural because it is science. Science must stay true to what it is. That's why I'm neither a fan of Intelligent Design nor Creation Science, because they claim by science to prove something of faith. But isn't science something like observation, hypothesizing, testing, more observation, etc?
So one can do good science regardless of their faith or lack thereof.
Faith or religion seems somehow intrinisic to us as human beings. And I believe that is so because we're made in God's image. But for whatever reason, it seems humans, in most any culture are incurably religious.
Scripture says that God is evident in nature, called natural revelation by Christian theologians, and in oneself- we having a conscience and sense of right and wrong, as well as what is right and wrong- though certainly variations on that, yet a unity we see in cultures past and present.
But back to science. I can hear with as much fascination and awe any atheist talking about their scientific work, as any Christian doing the same.
And I'd like to say that science needs to keep at its work with humility, knowing that there is much more to learn, which may make our understanding now an antique in years to come. Not to say there aren't things that will endure such as gravity. I'm sure you agree with me on this last part, Maalie, even though you would state it better, scientifically.
Looking forward to Susan getting back in this.
But suffice it to say, I don't see science and faith as being antagonistic and mutually exclusive. What becomes problematical is when either side insists that their field subverts the other, I believe. Instead we need to let each be what it is.
And on the faith side, we need to look to Jesus, in the faith that goes forth in his name, and will continue to do so, which no age or arguments can stop, if it is real and true.
Lorenzo,
Yes, the book of Revelation. Very vision-oriented in telling us the end of the Story when God makes all things right and all things new in Jesus. We need that in this world, as you and I know (as we're getting older) and I believe in Jesus this begins even now.
maalie,
This isn't it at all **But I will take your hint, you obviously don't like me here, taking things apart**. I just wanted to "hear" your personal experience, rather than scientific explainations which I can also appreciate(to some degree (:-)..) I am trying to understand and get to know you rather than just the science.
(:-)
Dianne
maalie,
Are you willing to explore this openly and with the fervor that you pursue science? Your words**Now the non-existence of an omnipotent and omniscient sovereign father cannot be ruled out.** Like I have said before, I believe that God is calling you, pursuing you. Can you let go of your doubts, even though, as you said, it seems **so improbably as to be not in the frame for consideration**?
Can you let go of your doubts?
Dianne
Ted, I've read much of N.T. Wrights works, and since I believe his new interpretation on justification borders on the heretical or is in fact heresy, I don't find it flattering for you to align yourself with him. Though, admittedly he has written decently on other topics.
Natural Revelation:
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth".
The bible means what you want it to mean. It can mean anything to anybody.
Quite Maalie. That's exactly why so many different people believe so many different things. It's up to each person to believe what they want to without let or hindrance (as it says on my passport).
I've been a bit quiet for the last week or so as my beloved youngest son has left to go backpacking around the world with his fiancee. However, it is time I pulled myself together and got on with life.
He will be in Nepal in a month or so Luther, so just you watch out for him!
Litl Luther,
N.T. Wright has been misunderstood and much maligned in his interpretation of justification. Not fresh to me, but I believe he says justification marks those who, by faith in Jesus and because of Jesus' faithfulness in his atoning work on the cross in his death, are marked out as members of the covenant community of God in Jesus. Something to that effect.
I don't believe that comes even close to bordering on heresy, and I think both of us need to read up on that more, though I've read his first book on Paul and justification.
I believe in more of a mediating view which takes Luther's insight of the judicial (which Wright, by the way, does not deny is a part, i.e., forensic) aspect of being declared righteous (and Wright certainly believes that).
Your thought will make me dig a little, but I know Wright is not heretical or close to it, though I myself don't necessarily track with him on everything, or care to. He's a great teacher, wonderfully gifted, and I don't believe for a moment, he's playing fast and loose with the text of Scripture, but just my take at this time.
Thanks for your words. And I agree with your text quoted for natural revelation. I do believe that's a big topic in Romans 1 as well, and I believe the law written in people's hearts I alluded to in my comment above (Romans 2) is also a part of that.
Thanks again, brother
Neurochemistry meeting? More like NERD-o-chemistry! Fellow science geeks unite!
My students ask me all the time, "Mr. Hall, were you popular in high school? Were you a nerd?"
Hi Lorenzo,
We meet again, today.
I'd like to say that while I agree with you that the Bible can be interpreted as to mean anything, yet I would gently think or want to say that that involves misinterpretation.
Though the Bible purports to be the word of God, and I take it that it is the written word of God, it is also a human book, written by humans with their vocabulary, and personality present. Like Jesus who is both entirely human, yet entirely divine, or God.
Therefore we have to interpret the Bible, on a certain level, just like any other book. Admittedly, like other books, there are difficulties in doing so. But we must read each part in its immediate context, as well as in the context of the whole, the whole Story from Genesis to Revelation.
And since it's a book from God, as it alleges, then we have to have God's help to really "get it", into our bones, our heart, our lives. By faith. That comes of course through Jesus and by the work of the Spirit. So each believer can be taught by God as they read Scripture.
Also, I believe it's very important to respect and to a large extent adhere to the interpretation of the Church through the centuries. God brought us Scripture through his people, and the New Testament through the Church (a nice insight of the Roman Catholic Church) and God helps us understand it, not only as individuals by ourselves, but through the understanding the Spirit of God has given to and through the Church.
The Church is not infallible, but it has been given truth from God from Scripture, such as the Trinity, salvation through Christ by grace through faith proven by works following, etc.
Sorry about the long comment, Lorenzo. Just wanted to try to give an answer to that thought which I've read more than once.
Am I connecting with what you're saying, or did I somehow misunderstand (which I'm good at doing!)?
Ted: I owe you a big apology. I wrote papers for an M.A. course a few years ago on James Dunn and N.T. Wright. I went back into my notes to debate you. Looking at those papers, it was actually Dunn, not Wright, who twists justification. Sorry bro. I'm only human. I remember more clearly now. I had to read a massive 900 page volume by Dunn. But I couldn't get anything out of it because his "new perspective" attempts to overthrow the traditional Protestant understanding of Justification and he also denies Original sin. On the other hand, I enjoyed the "fourfold" gospel according to Wright. It brings deeper light on the Gospel....I'll admit when I'm wrong, and I screwed up big time. Dunn is the heretic, not Wright.
Litl Luther,
Fine, and thank, brother.
I will say, I don't believe James Dunn is a heretic either, and I think he's had some good things to contribute. Except if I say that, I'll have to defend Dunn. And I'm not well read up on him, only have his fine double volume Word commentary on Romans and a book on freedom in relation to Galatians by him. Dunn has some good things to say as well, but they're only human, as Luther himself was.
So please forgive me for that, as well.
Hey Lorenzo,
Can you email your son? What is his name? Once he is in Kathmandu, why don't you get him to give me a call. While in Kathmandu they only need to dial 435-7389 and they'll reach me at my home. I'd be happy to show him around, bring him into the British Club and by his a beer or something. I'll be in Thailand 31Mar and will return 21Apr. Are they coming after that time?
PS: Lorenzo, I responded to your comment at my site. I hope you find my explanation satisfactory.
Ted: Here are excerpts from my paper. I’m happy to email you the whole thing, with reference from Dunn’s volume, if you want. Sorry everyone if I shouldn't be including something this this lengthy here:
Dunn argues against the Reformation view of justification, which, by the Reformers’ definition, is entirely forensic in nature. The believer being legally declared righteous in God’s sight is lost in his “New Perspective”. Dunn goes on to claim that his new perspective undercuts “the traditional debates of post-Reformation theology ... and leaves much of the dispute pointless.” ....the foundational doctrine of the believer being forensically justified is marginalized and replaced with Paul simply having in mind the doing away with “boundary markers” ....the legal declaration of the believer being credited with God’s righteousness in His sight by faith in Christ is at the heart of the Gospel message. Sadly, his “New Perspective” undermines this foundational Christian doctrine.... In his dissertation on Adam, Dunn writes: “Nevertheless, guilt only enters into the reckoning with the individual’s own transgression. Human beings are not held responsible for the state into which they are born. That is the starting point of their personal responsibility, a starting point for which they are not liable.” Dunn denies that the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to mankind....if mankind is not responsible for Adam’s sin, then neither would Christ’s righteousness be imputed to us who believe....Without the doctrine of Christ’s righteousness imputed to the believer, the Christian has no hope of salvation. Dunn undermines this pinnacle doctrine in his denial that Adam’s sin is imputed to humankind....Dunn downplays the substitutionary nature of the atonement in his exposition of the cross....his explanation of the atonement is vague at best.
Another related issue that warrants attention is Dunn’s downplay of the doctrine of propitiation....[Dunn writes] “Should we translate “expiation” or “propitiation”? The problem with the latter is that it invariably evokes the idea of appeasing God....Properly speaking, in the Israelite cult, God is never “propitiated” or “appeased.”...” ....To sacrifice the core doctrines of our faith in order to make way for a “New Perspective” on Pauline literature is dangerous. To accept Dunn’s reinterpretation of these key, historical doctrines, in my mind, would be inconceivable. Like Martin Luther before me, I am convinced that ‘justification by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone’ is the article upon which the church stands or falls....In light of Dunn’s “New Perspective”, it is my humble opinion that one must approach his work with skepticism and extreme caution...less the heart of our Christian heritage and faith be torn asunder.
If Dunn is heretical than so are the Anabaptists from which the Mennonites- Menno Simons- who denied the forensic element in Luther's view of justification. And that's simply not the case.
Both the Mennonites and Anabaptists and Dunn believe that people are saved by grace through faith in Christ, and that this salvation is necessary, with the Anabaptist insistence that works must follow. I buy into alot of the Anabaptist view, though I pick up with Luther on the forensic aspect, because that seems evident in Scripture.
Unfortunately many Lutherans- and Luther decried this- were baptized and "believed" but seemed dead in their faith in that their lives seemed unchanged. Go to Scot McKnight's "Jesus Creed" and find under suggested online readings "Anabaptism" and read that paper. Directly deals with what the Anabaptists (who were drowned by both Catholics and Lutherans because they believed in and practiced believer's baptism) saw as the difference between them and Luther.
As to original sin, all Christians have held to some form of that, and one does not have to hold to a Calvin or Lutheran view to hold to original sin. If such were the case, then much of the church prior to Luther would not have held to it like he did, though he was influenced by Augustine.
Of course we must believe that somehow sin passed to the entire human race through Adam, so that all are sinners even at birth. How that's spelled out varies among Christians, the essence is clear in Romans. The specifics are not, hence when Christians try to explain original sin, they vary.
So brother, while my own theology is closer to Wright than to Dunn, Dunn has some excellent things to contribute, I believe.
Those who think they're Reformed need to be open to ever reforming which was what the Reformers were after, I believe. Not to say you're not Reformed, because you are.
As to propitiation versus expiation, again, while I go with the propitiation side, you need to read it with the possibilty that expiation may be present there as well, as I recall. John R.W. Stott in his book "The Cross" as I recall the title, covers this very well.
As to the New Perspective, I like a mediating view which brings some of that insight into New Testament theology such as from Paul's letter to the Galatians, but keeps the essence of Luther's view. Scot McKnight has helped me on that, for that is what he does, and I agree from what I can understand. The New Perspective for one thing sees the communal/community aspect clearer of our being in Christ. I must admit I'm rusty on this; I don't try to follow the New Perspective, though N.T. Wright is the one who has kept it alive, and Dunn does have some good insights that Wright has built on, clarified, and in some cases improved (Wright the main, but not only one in this- at least as far as being well known).
Not to say there's not heretical teaching out there, because sadly we know better- teaching that deviates from the orthodox Christian faith.
Thanks for your view and thoughts on this, brother. I appreciate your work in the Lord and pray his blessing on it, there in Nepal.
"the bible can mean anything to anybody"
true Maalie. that's why it's a load of crap...
Hey Simon,
Wow! There sure must be a lot of crap in Australia. You’ve mentioned that word so much. Isn’t there anything your country can do about it? Couldn't they dump it in the outback out put it on a barge out to sea? :-)
Hi Ted,
I have deep respect for Mennonites and Anabaptists and Dunn, too. I would never question whether they are Christian. That’s not for me to judge. However, I look at forensic justification as the heart of the Christian faith. Christians should have no assurance of eternal life without it. To merely have our sins forgiven is not enough. What "merits" us a place in God's kingdom if it is not the merit of Christ—His righteousness? So, while I know good Christians can believe all kind of wacky things and still be Christian, to me a denial of forensic justification is a denial of the heart of the Gospel. It was the belief that we must obey the Law of Moses in order to be saved that Peter rebuked at the Jerusalem counsel (Notice Acts 15:1, 5, 11). Paul, in the book of Galatians pronounced anathema on all those who would teach such a thing (whether angel, apostle or laymen). It is a false gospel (Notice especially Gal. 1:6-9; 2:16, 21). Spend some time in Gal. 2:21. There is a wealth packed into that text. Anyway, bro, no hard feelings. I am not against the groups you mentioned. However, justification is at the heart of the Gospel, and those like Dunn who toy with it are dangerous, in my opinion.
“The chief dangers to Christianity do not come from the anti-Christian systems….It is corrupt forms of Christianity itself which menace from time to time the life of Christianity.” -Benjamin B. Warfield
If you sent all the crap to the outback, it wouldn't actually do any good without rain to wash it into the ground for nourishing purposes, and Australia is pretty short of rain at the moment.
There was a brilliant programme called 'Tropic of Capricorn' shown on British TV recently, following one man's travels around the tropic. It was such an eye opener seeing what Australia's lack of rain is doing to the country.
p.s. Luckily this is Susan's blog, otherwise I would have been deleted for going 'off topic' long ago.
Safely home - exhausted - but a good meeting and a good time too - will try to post this weekend.
as to on or off topic - it seems that the only topic we all agree on is that there's no topic we all agree on - so I don't think you're in any danger Llama dear.
off to sleepy-land - I did quite a lot of dancing last night and am totally exhausted!
Welcome back home, Susan. Glad you had such a nice time.
Lit'l Luther,
You must not be unfair to the Mennonities or Anabaptists. Lutherans could have sat at their feet and learned plenty back then, and vice-versa, I believe. You need to get hold of Timothy George's book, "The Theology of the Reformers". Very good. It will help you understand the Anabaptist view. It is definitely not anti-gospel and does believe in the righteousness of God in Christ is given to us in forgiveness and a new life. Assurance is in the Son.
And most Mennonites today believe in a forensic element in justification, for our salvation. They recognize both that Lutheran aspect and the aspect they've emphasized, on Biblical exegetical grounds. So rest assured there, brother.
Hey Lorenzo,
I responded to the last comment you left at my site. Wondering if you have any thoughts, comments, concerns.
Lil' Lu
(I suppose if I was a rapper this would be my stage name)
Hey you guys sure have some interesting chat here. I wonder what you would say about this (coming from the angle of a Unitarian Universalist). Do we have any idea how snakes got about before God commanded that they must crawl on their bellies? And what about the eating dust curse? Now, I am no biologist, but it is easy enough to check out the info on snakes and none of them appear to eat dust. They all seem to eat other creatures. Some of them even live in the sea where there is certainly no dust to eat. Was that just a temporary curse, do you think?
Hi Seattle Uni,
When I road a hotrod years ago, I said "Eat my dust." several times. Sounds more like an expression to me. However, if your face was inches from the dirt all the time, perhaps, it would feel like you are eating dirt. I can assure you, I eat dust everyday it doesn't rain in dusty Kathmandu, and I don't crawl on my belly. Dust particles are in the air, especially close to the ground. Perhaps a scientist would agree? I'm no scientist, though many theologians believe theology is the greatest of the sciences:
"Theology is the Queen of the sciences and systematic theology is the crown on the queen."
Since I'm a systematic theologian, I'm rather fond of that quote.
Thanks Litl Luther. So what God really meant when he said "thou shall eat dust all the days of your life", was "thou shall eat dust as collateral to your main diet of critters"? But doesn't everything do that?
I'm not sure my kids will buy that, they are doing a school project on evolution of reptiles. I was hoping to give them a different perspective.
Hi Seattle,
If you are trying to question the Scriptures infallibility, surely you can do better than that. There are other places in the Bible that would be more convincing.... Perhaps the curse was not on the snake at all but rather on he who possessed the snake, Lucifer. Moreover, the curse is spiritual in nature, not physical. How come you don't argue about death? God said Adam and Eve would die "the day" they ate the fruit. The snake said they wouldn't die. They didn't die that day, so the snake was correct and God was wrong, right? No. They died spiritually that very day: they were separated from God. God was correct; the serpent was wrong. That was the real curse: Spiritual death, not toiling or childbirth pains. So if Adam and Eve's curse was ultimately something spiritual in nature and not physical, why would we think the curse on the serpent was physical?
Hey Ted,
It seems you might be under the impression that I am Lutheran. That’s not the case. I find Luther’s Consubstantiation appalling, and I can’t stomach the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration either. However, they are dear family in the Lord and Luther is one of my favorite heroes of Christianity. I’m not totally Presbyterian either. I suppose I am closest doctrinally to “Reformed Southern Baptists”. But really I’m just a follower of Jesus saved by His grace--just like you, Susan, Dianne...
Litl Luther,
Yes, we're Christian. The stuff that unites us in Jesus is so much more important than any of the stuff that divides us.
Shouldn't be surprising that I might think you are Lutheran, though I do think Luther gets a hard wrap. Yes he said regretable things, but all in all had much insight. His age was more open to that kind of polemic, though I don't believe, even trying to use some passages in Scripture to do so, that it is justified.
Christians, yes. What kind, I little care, myself- as long as we're "in Jesus."
Thanks, and blessings on you and your minstry.
Oh Litl Luther, I'm not questioning the infallibility of the bible myself (though obviously most of it isn't factual) but it came up in the family on a project on reptiles. "What do snakes eat" was a primary query and the discussion led on from there. I stumbled on this site through another one. But I thank you for your great suggestion and will suggest "God made snakes 'feel' as if they were eating dust. That should satisfy everyone.
Hi Uni,
I'm not sure which things you believe are not factual, the miracles maybe? I don't believe any of it is a myth....But to remain a universalist (as you described yourself) and be consistent, you would be forced to deny that some things in the Bible are literal or factual. It is all factual as far as I’m concerned.
I hope the school project goes well. It is good to see a father who spends time with his kids\family.
No, not forced at all. It is a question of choice.
"Eat my dust" sounds like something Bart Simpson would say.
sounds more like something Clint Eastwood would say to me...
"On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel." Gen. 3:14-15
These words are from Yahweh God. We need to consider what He is saying here. Seems very serious to me.
I believe He is declaring the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ in this most holy verse.
Do you agree?
BTW, I have been reading along, and the discussion has been good; heated at times, which is normal, but good.
I actually like snakes. I was once allowed to hold a huge python and it was a really nice experience. He felt so soft and smooth, sort of dry, but really loved it.
Hi Don,
Yes. Gen. 3:15 is the very first prophecy in the Bible about Jesus, the seed of the woman--that He would crush the devil, which is exactly what Jesus did when He rose from the dead.
It is so sad really that people can come to a text like Gen 3:14-15 and all they can see is snakes eating dust.
First, it talks about “the seed of the woman”. Obviously, women don’t have “seed”. That’s the man’s contribution. This is alluding to the virgin birth of Christ.
Second, it says the serpent will bruise his heal. And indeed, the Son of God died on the cross. The reason it says only “bruise” even though Jesus’ died an agonizing death was because death for Him was only temporary.
Third, it declares that the seed of the woman (Christ) will crush the serpent’s head (which obviously is how you kill a snake). Satan was mortally wounded when Christ rose from the dead. Satan’s power was in that man sins and sin equals death: “For the wages of sin is death”. (Rom. 6:23) By being victorious over death, Jesus utterly destroyed the power of Satan, whose power lay only in death. Jesus forever conquered he who held the power of death (the devil) when He rose from the dead. And by rising from the dead, Jesus has provided the way for all who come to Him to be victorious over death as well. Death holds no power over the believer in Jesus Christ because we are in Him and belong to Him who is life itself, but outside of Jesus there is only death.
This is the meaning of the passage, not whether snakes eat dust or not!
I'm writing this courtesy of Lorenzo in her house.
>He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
I have never really understood this part of the mythology, all this bruising going on. Who exactly is "he"? (Adam or the snake) and who is "His" (owner of the heel)? Is that Adam or the snake? And who is "you"? Adam, Eve, or the snake? Help!
I definitely need to learn to proof read before I post!
Maalie, I think Litl Luther explained it quite nicely -but here is my brief explanation -
while satan dealt a painful blow to Christ (strike his heel) during the crucifixion, Christ has already shown his ultimate power over satan by rising from the dead - and at some time in the future (to this moment) known only to God the Father, Christ will for once and for all crush satan's head, his power, in all realms.
Lorenzo - I'm afraid I grew up afraid of snakes because my mother was - we weren't (and still aren't) allowed to use the word in front of her. To get over my fear, I took one of my sons to the pet store that had lots of snakes and carried him around on my shoulders so he could see into the upper tanks - ahh, the things we do for love.
It's spiders that freak me out! I have got better and can now trap them in a glass and take them outside. My mother was terrified of moths.
"Christ has already shown his ultimate power over satan by rising from the dead - ..., Christ will for once and for all crush satan's head, his power, in all realms."
Amen Susan.
Jesus said: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Behold I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing by any means shall hurt you.
Neverthe less do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven." Luke 10:19-20
Jesus says the greatest joy is to know your name is written in heaven, in the Lamb's book of life!
And He wants us to simply ask Him to forgive us and have mercy on us for our sins, and he will write our name in His book. And once He does that, and we realize this truth, then our joy will be unspeakable.
Thanks for allowing me to share.
Maalie,
I mentioned before how amazingly themes are interwoven throughout the Bible, even though it was written by a multitude of authors, in diverse places and languages over 1 ½ Millennium of time. This theme is interwoven as well: For instance, when Goliath’s stature is described it is described in language like we find in the New Testament (the number of the beast language). David slings a stone through Goliath’s scull, killing him. It is a picture of what Christ would eventually do in fighting the devil and crushing his head. Another example: In Judges four, when the great man of war Sisera was fleeing and hid in the tent of Jael. That was a big mistake because her name, Jael, has the name of God at its root and Sisera on the other hand means snake. She drove a spike through his temple, which again is another picture of Christ’s defeat of Satan, bruising his scull.
The “seed” theme is all through the Bible as well. In fact, the first 11 chapters of Genesis can be looked at as an introduction to the Bible just like other books have an intro. Three times we see the same theme come up: With Adam and Eve we see “sin”, “judgment” on their sin and then a “genealogy” is given. In the time of Noah, we see “sin” was rampant in the world; “judgment” of sin came in the form of a flood, and then another “genealogy” is given. Finally, with the tower of Babel, it was deemed “sin” that they attempt to climb of up to God. “Judgment” on their sin came in the form of confusing the language and scattering the people and another “genealogy” is given. Immediately after this in Genesis 12:3 the Gospel is first preached to Abraham, that God is going to bless the world through Abraham’s offspring, and through so much of the proceeding pages of Genesis we hear over and over about “the seed” of Abraham, “the seed” of Isaac, “the seed” of Jacob…later on too David and “his seed” and on it goes until finally the very first words of the New Testament are the “genealogy” of Christ showing the above. What God is saying through the very first pages of the Bible and then throughout the rest of the Bible is that yes mankind has sinned and yes there must be judgment for sin, but that He is going to send a Savior: the seed of the women, the offspring of Abraham who will redeem people from their sin. He will bear the judgment, the penalty of mankind’s sin, which is what Jesus did on the cross (providing redemption from the ultimate curse laid upon Adam and his offspring--humankind—which as I mentioned is spiritual death). And as indicated, Jesus dealt Satan a mortal wound when He rose from the dead. And as Susan points out well, the final enemy—death—will be destroyed once and for all at Christ’s second coming.
alright Simon - you've pushed your luck and my hospitality far enough. I will not have any more vulgar comments - Aussie, Brit or American - here.
If you have an honest question or even a valid comment to make, then please do - but if you continue to rant and attack the other bloggers or their viewpoints, I'll continue to delete what I consider to be drivel, unworthy of blog space -
you're clearly a bright and intelligent man, so please try to exhibit something of this intellect with your comments. It is not necessary to attack and demean to disagree.
L-L: I like the repetitions on a theme. I actually use the same with science, looking for the pattern in the body represented by the pattern seen elsewhere in creations - and so far it's been pretty successful.
Don: I'm glad to have you comment! Thanks for visiting.
Lorenzo - spiders don't bother me - ok, well maybe the thought of a tarantula actually touching my flesh - that would bother me - but ones I can squish - that's not a problem.
Amen, Litl'Luther!
Thanks. You're too kind.
(grin) but a really wanted to debate revelation!
Got your note. Okay, four. You're closing out the store. ; - )
Post a Comment