"And to us who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope that is set before us in the gospel, how unutterably sweet is the knowledge that our Heavenly Father knows us completely... no unsuspected weakness in our characters can come to light to turn God away from us, since He knew us utterly before we knew Him and called us to Himself in the full knowledge of everything that was against us."
The Knowledge of the Holy by A.W. Tozier
I recently wrote to a friend that I thought perhaps, as a woman, the desire of my heart was to be known for exactly who I am and loved because of it, not despite it.
How comforting is this chapter (The Divine Omniscience) from Tozier because it reminds me that I already am - known completely - past, present, future - and irregardless of what is found, I am loved with an everlasting love.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
110 comments:
It's just as well that most people DON'T know us too well!
I agree dear Llama - they might be quite disappointed in what they find. I think that is why this passage was so important to me because it reminds me that God had already found all there was to find and wanted me anyway.
Excellent quote.
God surely knows us eternally. And yet when we, by His grace trust Him, and obey Him, I believe this eternal love may even swell for us.
And when we have a moments, or even seasons of sin, our Father's Spirit is grieved, and we expect his loving hand of correction, for our good, and His glory.
Have a blessed Lord's Day.
Amen, Susan. Amen!
And we need in Jesus to grow into that same attitude in accepting each other as we are, and even ourselves, in the light that God is calling us in Jesus to fulfillment of all he has made us to be. Like a wonderful, perfect parent. And actually the Perfect Parent. And that in this, in Jesus, we're one family.
Thanks for sharing that.
Thank you Susan! What a comforting and true quote! There is so many things about my character which should make God turn away from me. Yet He knew all those things about me before time began and saved me any way. Is love is greater than an ocean. Truly unfathomable is His love and mercy.
Amen, Lit'l Luther!!!
well I simply think it is a desire for us humans to be accepted by others for who we are..
And when we are not, create a "relationship" that gives us what we crave i.e. unconditional "love". I.e. a god...
But its not unconditional- and you will be judged.... ( according to your scriptures)
Yes, Simon. I agree with you. I think the desire to know and be known may be intrinsic to all humans.
You also are right; there is a judgement and the judgement of "guilty" carries with it the sentence of death.
However, for me, both the judgement of "guilty" and the sentence of "death" have already happened.
So also has been the substitutionary payment of my sentence, my debt, by the death of another who willing bore the penalty for my sin although he alone was judged and found not guilty.
This is the good news of the gospel, that one has come and willingly offered to pay a debt he did not owe because I owed a debt I could not pay.
Why he would do that for me, I do not know. I just know he did and I am eternally grateful.
Those beautiful words from your heart Susan, made me think of this hymn.
"When from my dying bed
My ransomed soul shall rise,
“Jesus died my soul to save,”
Shall rend the vaulted skies.
Jesus Paid it all,
All to Him I owe,
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow
And when before the throne
I stand in Him complete,
I’ll lay my trophies down
All down at Jesus’ feet."
but what of your life now if death and guilty have already happened? does that mean you are now living in "perfection"? how many times can you stumble. what if you are 'taken" before you ca repent of your sin, or is that just a general repentance...??
My life is imperfect at best (giggle – you surely have read some of my previous posts?) - but my desire is to live to please Christ - something very new for me rather than pleasing Susan.
I think what I liked so much about the Tozer quote is that it expresses so clearly the idea that He already knew before time began how many times I would stumble and fall - even after I believed and was forgiven and as Ephesians says, “acceptable in the beloved” - and He loved me, accepted me and forgave me anyway. He forgave me in advance of every sin I ever would commit - so it's not like I live under fear of there being one I forgot to confess and what would happen if I died before I got it properly confessed. He has already taken care of that - past, present and future sins.
Does that give me license to sin - as the apostle Paul said - "GOD FORBID"? But my obedience and desire to be more like him are driven by love, by a desire to please Him, not by fear.
Simon,
I don't believe there is any sin that could separate me from God's love because Jesus has already paid my debt. God has already judged Him in my place and will not commit double jeopardy by judging me for the same thing. I have no concern about whether I am "repented up" before I die. My sin is completely paid for. I've been ransomed and am as secure as one can possibly be because my assurance rests on the fact that Christ is righteousness (for it is Jesus' righteousness that God will be looking at when He judges me). My assurance rests on Jesus' death being sufficient to pay for my sin-debt and His righteousness being completely sufficient to merit a place in God's kingdom for me. It has nothing to do with me at all—not my goodness or my repentance or anything. As Luther taught "Salvation is completely outside of us." It all depends on Jesus Christ and that is why my assurance is so certain because my salvation depends entirely on Jesus' worth, not on mine. I'm hid in Christ, as are all who belong to Him, and when Christ who is our life appears we also will appear with Him in glory. It is guaranteed. And it is His great mercy toward us that makes us Christians want to live for Him, not to keep ourselves saved. Our salvation is already assured. Now we live for Jesus simply out of gratitude.
>> the desire of my heart was to be known for exactly who I am and loved because of it, not despite it.
Halfmom, in my opinion the desire of your heart must surely have already been fulfilled, even if you don't recognise it yourself. Devoting your life to a career of teaching and research in a field of science that is likely to eventually result in the relief of suffering from such dreadful diseases as Parkinson's and Alzheimer’s must surely win the love and respect from all who know you.
>I believe this eternal love may even swell for us.
Sadly Donsands, there is a rather poor record of correlation between belief and truth. I believed in the Tooth Fairy once.
Maalie,
Jesus said, He came to bear witness to the truth, which is what He did.
He said, "I am the Truth".
Mighty bold statement.
I know He is the truth, because He said, If it wasn't the truth He wouldn't have told us.
But that's where we disagree. I "believe" the manuscripts of the NT & OT prove Christ to be the Truth, and you don't "believe" this 2000 year old book, and it's sayings are true.
Can I ask you, Do you think that these writings are real? Was the Iliad by Homer real?
Not the content so much, but the fact that these were truly written by these men?
Or how about any writings that have been passed down from 1,000's of years ago, do you think any of them are for real?
To be fully known, yet loved...isn't that the heart of the gospel?
Yes ESI, I think that it is!
Donsands, that is a nice question, I spent two years of my life at school translating Virgil's Aeneid from the original Latin, and I loved it. Gripping stuff :-) Sadly I never studied Greek so I have only read translations of the Iliad.
But I'm not sure if I properly understand you. In the sense that these works, including the bible, exist, they are of course real. But I have never been confronted with any independent peer-reviewed evidence that any of it is true. I think it is just as likely that Scylla_and_Charybdis existed as those inter-continental swimming kangaroos! It is blindingly obvious that it is all just mythology, Donsands, just mythology. Every culture has its own creation myth and I think it is arrogant for us to assume that ours is better than anybody else's.
Thanks for popping over Halmom! Yes, there is a party this weekend. Hope Maalie doesn't tease little Allan too much or little Jimmy!
No worries, Lorenzo, I'll take care of the bed-time reading. I'll bring Selected Essays of Richard Dawkins. You can't start too early.
"they are of course real."
The written words of the Scriptures, or the books, or epistles, are real. The authors wrote the words they wrote to tell others true things that occurred, and the narratives are reliable. These were not stories, nor myth, as Homer's stories were intended to be, though all these writings are real..
I'm not very good at explaining this, but for me this would be the same as JRR Tolkein's stories, which are real, and wonderful I might add, and, say, Winston Churchill's writings on history, which would have been quite acturate, as he was a superb historian I am told.
So Churchills writings we can take for truth, but Tolkeins we simply enjoy as fantasy.
I don't know if you will get my point here, but That's the best my pea brain can do right now.
I'm surprised you are not bringing The God Delusion!
>The written words of the Scriptures, or the books, or epistles, are real.
They are real words, true enough, but are they true words? You evidently made a choice somewhere along the line to accept them as true. I have not myself found any real evidence to suppose they are all true. No doubt there is an element of historical record of Jesus' life on earth, but I think even that may have become distorted by the imagination of the authors and it would not now pass as an acceptable archaeological record.
There is one thing that I will never ever EVER believe (and of course I share this view with your own brilliant American anthropologists) and that is that all the 100+ of the world's diverse ethnic groups could have evolved from two persons in just a couple of thousand years, as the bible purports. It is genetically absurd. Modern Man emerged as a population from African forerunners about three million years ago and then migrated north into Europe and then East into Asia (the rate at which this happened is still under discussion). The evidence from a variety of angles is incontrovertible.
Halfmom, you are already a quarter of the way to another century of comments! I really think you ought to consider including some advertising here - it could earn you a fortune! LOL!
"100+ of the world's diverse ethnic groups could have evolved from two persons in just a couple of thousand years"
Actually it was Noah and his wife, and his 3 sons, and their wives.
God wiped out perhaps a billion people in the flood, though He regretted having to do so. But mankind had become so wicked and violent.
The divers ethnic groups of people came from Babel. That's when God spread people out, and gave them languages.
The explanation that all mankind evolved from apes, and these apes produced all the languages we have, is something that I will never be able to believe.
Thanks for the responses, and for the interaction. Once again I appreciate your speaking your most genuine thoughts from your brain. (I usually use the word heart, but seems this may be a better way, I guess.)
See? This is what I do not under stand at all-
I have no "debt" nor "guilt" nor do I need "another" to substitute my responsabilities on... I am 100% acountable for my own actions. I bear no guilt for them. I am made of carbon and will return to carbon. My life is no more or less important than anyones.
I do not seek unconditional acceptance or love ( call it what you will) from anyone.
and I have no regrets.
I try to live life to the full, respect, and treat each day as if it is my last. I am grateful fro wha I have.
It's that simple.
All the "god speak"/church going/bible study/pope watching/propserity doctrine/ rapture/healings/
is really just time wasting.
I believed in the Tooth Fairy once.
yes Maalie, lots of children believe in things like santa or the tooth fairy as children.
but that argument has no merit to explain why adults choose to believe in God later in life.
imagination of the authors and it would not now pass as an acceptable archaeological record
there is more than acceptable archaeological record as to the events/places as described in the bible.
i know because i have visited many of them - (in israel, turkey aka. asia minor, etc) - and seen evidence as such.
"I do not seek unconditional acceptance or love ( call it what you will) from anyone.... and I have no regrets."
Interesting Simon - how very different we are then. I work hard at NOT seeking love and acceptance from people and I have many, many regrets!
Simon you are quite right of course. The world we observe has exactly the properties we should expect if there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.
Dana
>i know because i have visited many of them - (in israel, turkey aka. asia minor, etc) - and seen evidence as such.
That is a very fair point and I accept without question your personal testimony of the tangible evidence from which archaeologists can quite accurately reconstruct the social circumstances of the times Jesus was alive. Just as anthropologists can do some of that for our immediate precursor Homo erectus that lived 3-4 million years ago. But, in the the opinion of me and most other scientists, it falls short of demonstrating that Jesus was the son of God, or the existence of the Garden of Eden.
Donsands
The explanation that all mankind evolved from apes, and these apes produced all the languages we have, is something that I will never be able to believe.
That is of course based on your own personal incredulity, it is not based, I suggest, on your witness of the scientific evidence. Scientific incredulity of the bible is based on evidence. Of course we didn't evolve from the existing apes; our forerunners are extinct long ago.
I appreciate your speaking your most genuine thoughts from your brain.
Thank you. The world knows that, unlike our gracious hostess Halfmom, I am not endowed with the gentle virtue of modesty. But even I cannot accept that accolade unqualified. My thoughts and reasoning are not always entirely original, many are shared with your country's own brilliant anthropologists working in your justifiably world-renowned academic institutions. I recommend that you read their work and see for yourself the evidence in some of your magnificent museums.
Now I have to withdraw from this discussion as I have a number of social and family engagements over the next three weeks. I shall try to look in from time to time. Meanwhile I leave you with the words of the genius Einstein: If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I could not have put it better myself!
Amen.
Susan- the difference between us is that most religions see people and the world "full of sin" i.e we are essentially "bad".
I see us as esentially "good"...
I believe all things have a purpose and that is to just "be". each link in the chain no more or less important than the other..
I personally would never attempt to spend my life trying to please "him"... Instead, I please myself. I will not acknowledge a devil nor a god... to cast my poor points on the devil and my good points on god...
AS I said before I am acountable between my birth and death for who I am, and what I do..
My ONLY regret today is:- I CANNOT TYPE to save my life!!!!!!!
:o)
Have a great day on the other side of the earth...
PS I read with interest that 400 children have been rescued from a Mormon ranch in Texas..... what do we think of this??
it falls short of demonstrating that Jesus was the son of God, or the existence of the Garden of Eden
historians often assume that if most words in a text can be demonstrated to be based in fact and reality that the whole text can be accepted as such.
we should expect if there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference
but there is the notion of good and evil, you would be false if you did not recognize there is an inherent sense of it in all humanity. and call it structured into our DNA or whatever, but it's still there.
and if there is a sense of good and evil there are only 2 options. 1) they are both equal and neither is seen as "better". or 2) one is "right" or "true" and the other is a rejection of that "truth" and "rightness". (as CS Lewis admirably points out)
i think we would all agree that in the conflict of good vs. evil, there is a clear preference in humanity for the "good". therefore evil is a rejection of good. but how did the notion "good" come to be, if neither should necessarily be more selectable than the other (if good and evil are equal)?
to cast my poor points on the devil and my good points on god
but Christ followers do not play the blame game with the devil or God. humans have flaws, it is our nature, but Jesus is glorified in our weaknesses, because it is His strength that sustains.
you may say "well i sustain myself" and that is wonderful for you. i find that relying on God (or relying on other people for that matter) is beautiful.
the difference between us is that most religions see people and the world "full of sin" i.e we are essentially "bad".
I see us as essentially "good"...
neither do i count the reality of sin (the nature of humans to err) as showing humans are inherently "bad". i also think we are inherently "good", all with some spark of the divine but prone to be weak at times. the good news of the Gospel is that my weaknesses and my sins have been paid for, the original good in me can shine out because i am washed clean by God's sacrifice.
I guess Dana and I don't agree on one issue because I DO see humans as essentially bad as a result of the Fall--but not as bad as we could be. The measure of 'good' that all people may possess is probably the result of some level of God's grace upon all people. I have no reason to believe that Fallen humans are any better today than we were in the days of Noah:
"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5
This (above) is a biblical definition of human 'goodness' at least what goodness we possess apart from what God does in us by His grace. There is nothing about man that has not been corrupted by sin.
PS: Simon Mormons are not Christians....BTW: Were the 400 kids by the same father?
litl luther, i don't think we disagree so much, maybe a matter of degrees:)
i think we are all "good" in as much as God bestows love on all of creation (His grace as you mentioned). that's more than good, that's great. also, as made in His image. "God said it was good" - the fall happened, but the fall was from a place of good standing.
therefore the presence of sin and weakness became real in humanity, thus the need for Jesus.
I agree Lil-Luther.
God cursed this universe, because of Adam. I watched a wonderful nature film the other day, where a whole pride of Lions died out. It was depressing to see these Lions dying from tearing one anothers flesh off, and a lioness killing five cubs, and lions killing Zebras.
Then I thought of God's new earth and heaven, where the lion will lie down with the lamb.
Looking forward to that.
BTW, Triston lil-Luther, Greg spoke of you in his sermon Sunday. It was quite honoring to the Lord, and the Gospel, and to you as well.
Blessings to you and your fam.
"I find relying on god or on others for that matter really beautiful"
Dana- I find that weak. If we rely on ourselves we are stronger and can contribute more to others.
As for C.S. Lewis- I read them all. Found them nonsense. To me its proof that one can find anything to read and satisfy an opinion or view that we hold.. ( whether it be true or utter rubbish)
The notion of good is just instinct, thats all. "good" helps us survive.
Luthers position on this is correct by christian standards ( ie we are all sinners therefore essentially bad " for we all have fallen short of the glory of god")
Mormons:- Again I agree with you Luther.. but for me it clearly demonstrates the lunacy of religions of all types...
I guess you know that Mormons believe (depending on the "level") That through works, ie promotion through the church, that when they die, the men get a chance to go and re populate a planet ( like adam and eve) and can have many wives... (bit like Muslims)
And frankly not far off the "prosperity doctrine" preached in a lot of pentacostal churches recently.. Not only can you have riches in heaven (again a line used to motivate suicide bombers), but also god wants you rich here too....
What is the real result? the clear example is the 400 abused children and women in texas
No they are not real christians... but this luncay is happening on our door step....
BTW what religion does Obama follow? And what are Hillaries links to the illuminati?
Donsands:- if god cursed the universe, does that mean he created blessing and curse, heaven and hell, jesus and devil? Again I ask- if he created these he himslef must be both. therefore good and evil! ( I am not being insulting or disrespectful mate.. just enjoy the debate)
:o)
Anyway:- I hope you all have a reall wonderful night over there! or closer by!
If you want the lions etc to stop dying do something about it...don't just watch rm the side line...
Oh Luther! My Mother in law is catching a train to Tibet... and leaves ina few weeks.. is it quiet over their?
(grumble.. my typing!! I mean "over There")
sorry for the waffle too... ( hope we can get this to 150 comments!)
Maalie is good to call me a gracious hostess when what I am is really an absentee blogger!
Have fun on your trips Maalie - we will miss you.
Litl-Luther/Dana/Don/Simon - interesting discussion. I think I would have answered, theologically, that man is inherently evil. But I also see Dana's point for we are, however flawed, the image-bearers of God. So perhaps I would say that we are inherently flawed and incapable of doing good on our own - could we all agree theologically on that?
Simon - I understand what you mean about self-sufficiency. I am afraid that I have a tendency towards that myself. But I have been reminded many times over in the last year, even right on this blog, that brothers and sisters in Christ are to love and support one another.
I think this expresses it best for me: "And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart."
"Again I ask- if he created these he himslef must be both."
No He mustn't.
He created all that is. There was not one thing in the universe.
God created every star, planet, and especially earth, where He created a being in His own image.
Adam disobeyed, which surely caused God to grieve, and yet surely He knew this as well, would take place.
This leaves us, those with a finite mind, with a mystery, but not a mystery to the Infinite Creator.
God is perfect and holy. We are cursed.
The animal kingdom is under a curse.
I watched a Komodo dragon in a nature film once kill a deer. It was gruesome. He locked his jaws upon the deers hind part, and held on till the deer died an excruciating death.
The New Earth, and New Heaven will put these types of things away, and God will restore the curse, through Christ Jesus, who became a curse on the Cross, for all who bow their knee to Him and trust Him, and for the whole universe really.
Thanks for the dialog Simon. Have a nice day, or evening.
One more thought: "What is the real result? the clear example is the 400 abused children and women in texas"
Jesus said, very clearly, "Anyone who harms, or offends these little ones; it would better for that person to have a milestone tied about his neck, and drowned in the sea."
So perhaps I would say that we are inherently flawed and incapable of doing good on our own - could we all agree theologically on that?
yes susan, well put.
i guess i was thinking more along the lines that though flawed and sinful, God does take pleasure in His creation, ie. us. and that gets to happen because He is glorified in our weaknesses
if god cursed the universe, does that mean he created blessing and curse, heaven and hell, jesus and devil? Again I ask- if he created these he himself must be both. therefore good and evil!
your logic is flawed simon. curses, evil, hell, the devil is all a REJECTION of God's original design. God is inherently and purely 100% good, as was all His original design.
part of that wonderful design is freedom, thus the fall. i don't think any parent would say they "created" their own child to, say, commit murder but there are criminals whose parents love them nonetheless.
and Satan himself was wonderful and beautiful but did not see that as a divine Gift from God but something that made himself great, and took pride in himself.
it would be like if a piece of beautiful music (lets say Mozart's Requiem) suddenly started to praise itself, forgetting entirely that someone else composed it.
or if the instrument (piano, harp, clarinet, whatever) took credit for the beautiful music.
the piano/viola/harp (etc) is not to be praised for the song. it is the composer. neither is the song itself to be praised. but the song writer who makes possible the music.
There was an interesting discussion once on someone elses blog about just this - "did God create evil?"
We know that He did not for to create evil or to tempt is not in His character - even if we missed it in every other aspect of the Bible, James tells us this quite clearly.
But what interested me was that the entry of evil into the world always gets blamed on Adam or Eve - interesting that I don't think that there was ever a time when anyone used there names together.
However, what seemed to be missed by all but the blog owner was the fact that sin was already present on the earth because the wonderful angel Lucifer had already sinned and lead a rebellion, become satan and had been cast to earth - that it had become his territory.
Even so, in the Garden of Eden, there was no sin for God walked there daily with Adam and Eve. Though God allowed satan to enter the snake, to tempt the woman and Adam, who was right there, did not stop her - it was Adama and Eve who chose to sin, just as satan chose to go against God's will for him.
So - let me reiterate - God created no sin, nothing impure. But, He gave, at least to the angels and to mankind, the ability to choose. Choosing against what God designed, against God himself was our choice as well as satan's.
And there we are now stuck, without the ability to consistently choose to accept God's correct will for our lives. That is, at least until He makes us alive again by entry of His Holy Spirit.
Mystical - yes, absolutely, but true. Can I be good and do good for a little bit - maybe - but doing and being good based on my definition of such is just rubbish compared to what God created me for - so it is still the "wrong" choice, just like satan made, just like Adam and Eve made - so still sin. God gets to decide on what is "good enough", not me - and He says that none of us have done good - not one" on our own without Him.
Very well spoken Susan.
Yet, there was one Man who lived, who never sinned. Never had an evil thought, nor spoke a dishonest word, nor did a deed that was not purposed in love; love for His Father in heaven, and love for His creation, especially His children.
Hey Don,
Thanks for the encouragement. Please say hello to Greg for me. What an excellent and God-glorifying preacher He is! (and NOT because he mentioned me, but despite it!). I still hope to build a much closer relationship with him and his congregation.
Sounds like agreement all around among the Christians on this blog. Hurray! If only it was universal! ...I personally would have used the words "total depravity" rather than simply flawed, but I'll let it go and rejoice in the agreement any way....All people, saved or not, have dignity because they are in God's image.
Simon, it is not a good time to be a Tibetan anywhere in China, but as long as your mother-in-law isn't wearing a "Free Tibet" tee-shirt or shouting it on the streets, she should survive the trip. :) I hope she has fun.
Just peeping in!
Dana, it is illogical to say that Simon's logic is flawed because he is not perpetrating a logical argument - he is simply asking a question.
If it comes down to logic, it is your own that is the most flawed, for it is founded on tautology: "It's in the bible so it is true; it is true because it is in the bible".
Litl Luther, you shouldn't be surprised that there is agreement. In India there is a general agreement in the Hindu faith that sins are washed away by bathing in the River Ganges. In the Mayan culture, there was agreement that human sacrifice was required to ensure that the sun rises the next morning. As I have said before, there is a poor correlation between faith and truth.
Maalie- well said!! thanks!
Dana it cannot be flawed! I am asking a question. (As maalie said) I mean what was there before? somthing? nothing? If god is god he must have created it (good and evil) because nothing exists without god? it was void ( according to genisis) So god MUST have created the flaw in which adam sinned ie free choice- he gave that to them.. therefore he created it. He created the most beautful angel who then "fell".. yet again gave satan the choice.. god created that choice if he did not, it would not exist! Where did he fall to? He could not fall into nothing?
satan ceratinly did not create it?
so its the chrisitan arguement that is flawed!
Susan, if god did not create evil- who/what did?
Satan did? therefore satan is a creator? because he made something? Are you giving him god like ability? who gave him that power? he was only and angel?
A. god did.
I find the christian arguement too full of "romance."
The bible says, therefore it MUST be true...
Again I ask- if God is pure good then he had NO capacity to create the choice for evil... because evil could not exist unless he approved it/created it.
SO that is why I am happy with my choices. From carbon we are made and carbon we return- ( bible calls that dust I think)
Anyway guys thanks for taking the time to consider the debate
Be cool everyone and enjoy the beauty that surrounds you!
:o)
"Again I ask- if God is pure good then he had NO capacity to create the choice for evil... because evil could not exist unless he approved it/created it."
That's our thinking.
But the Creator, who always was, and who creates finite creature, and creates a trillion times a trillion stars, and puts them in the place he wants them, which for us to create one star is impossible, has to have things about Him, that we will never comprehend, until we see Him for who He is.
We can understand all the revealed things He has given us, which is plenty to know, but some aspects of a God of this magnitude, who always was, (try to explain that; God never had a beginning?), will be a secret to our minds.
Friends,
Tough questions and the answers aren't easy, either.
Key for me in faith is creation from god and new creation in Jesus. This god comes down and becomes human, taking up humanity into himself, itself- as Trinity. To make all things right and new from this old world. Dying on the Cross to reconcile the cosmos, so that in the end there is a renewing or resurrection that includes all creation, thourhg Jesus and his resurrection.
And if no god then why do we have a sense of right and wrong, love, beauty, wanting to know and be known. This comes from the One who made us, I believe, who has all this in that One-self. And who will make all things right and new, in the end.
But in the now, while there is good evidence in the appearings and empty tomb, this requires faith, hope and love. Faith, hope and love must be part of this knowing, intrinsic to it.
For us to ask such questions and not like the answers, would not be inconsistent at all if the Christian story is true, since this god and this god's ways, while having continuity with creation, is also beyond the humanity made in this god's image.
And the Christian god is radically personal and relational to the core. That is why to know and be known is so central for us all, I believe.
Simon,
Doesn't loving someone need to be free? We need to be free to choose that. And with that comes the freedom to spurn it, or choose not to.
Ted
Yes, it is only love if it is chosen, not forced, not coerced.
I think that our definitions of evil and sin may be different Simon and that's what's causing part of the disagreement.
I don't know about the others - perhaps they'll chime in - but I consider anything to be sin that misses the mark set by God and His standard is prefection. However, I think you can get there by either ommisions or commisions.
On the other hand I think evil is the deliberate choice to go against God's revealed will, remembering, of course, that I think Romans clearly says that creation has revealed all that man needs to know about the basic character of God.
>Doesn't loving someone need to be free?
Ted, the phenomenon we call "love" is one of the easiest to explain terms of Darwinian natural selection. Without the instinctive compulsion to procreate, coded for in the genetic code of our chromosomes, we would extinct after one generation.
Susan:- our definitions are not different. Sorry. quite the same in fact.
My question is very simple:-
Q. Did god create all things?
yes or no?
Q does God know ALL things?
yes or no?
Q if the answer is no, then there MUST be another creator, a creator of evil.
If the answer is "yes" then god must have created good and evil (or "choice" if you like) and he must know the outcome BEFORE it happens..
(Of course there is a warm fuzzy of "Well, who cold possibly know the power of the creator....
Also:- if the Bible was written by "man" and we are imperfect by definition- then the bible is imperfect?
Let me know?
:o)
Thanks, Maalie. That may be an excellent descriptor for what we know so far from scientific observation, but look at this
Though I must add your Tom Wright, a bishop in the Anglican church in UK, has a most challenging book that I find helpful on creation and new creation. It definitely brings out the allure spoken of above, and more.
Yes. Love is wonderful in that it is expressive in knowing and being known, and results in more of these persons who want to know and be known- and love. And love goes beyond that, we love for more than just that, I think. Though at the heart of it somehow is always the desire to know and be known and accepted and loved for who we are.
And I want to add that while this is great and experienced across the board in humanity, yet it is broken in oh so many ways. How can we go through a lifetime yearning for it, and thinking we've experienced so little of it.
Yet in Jesus is the hope and promise that at long last we will be experiencing this together forever.
But, and if you know me, I'm bad at adding on (piling on, I hope not), this is to begin now, imperfect though it is.
Is nice to see between any man and woman, or between two good friends- and this includes non-Christians. God's creation is good.
But it to be worked out for all, including those who are enemies, in the here and now. To know and be known. This could end so much of the cycle of violence ongoing in this world. Jesus, the sermon on the Mount, the gospel, all figure in for the here and now in this. Not some mere "pie in the sky" stuff.
If you or anyone answers I may be limited in my response until later, as computer accessiblity at work is spotty at best, lately.
(I want to add this as a parenthetical statement before I walk out the door:
Even though there are some literal elements the Tigris and Euphrates River- Genesis may be simply telling the story with symbols of how early humanity rebelled against the creator. Adam and Eve and the garden, etc., may just be a way of telling that story. I believe it's all true as written there, but what it conveys is more important than how it's conveyed.
Also- creation is good, but broken and is to be shaken, as we see precursors to that in natural disasters. In the end God makes all things new and rights all wrongs. That is the message of Scripture.
Now, I'll shut up! Sorry for all this additional stuff. But have been following the thread, some)
There is something very precious about being known and loved for who we are. It's a rare human who can do that for us, though. Maybe no one, really, as so much stuff gets in the way. When I think of God, I wonder if he loves us because of who we are or just because we are. Or both? (Now you've got me musing.)
I can say, I don't know why God loves me.
I was a blasphemer. I hated the Lord, and sinned like crazy. Broke every commandment God laid before me.
And yet when I was this ungodly, He came to take all these sins upon Himself, for the unbelieveable purpose of forgiving me for hating Him, and being unthankful to the uttermost.
But I do know He does love me. I know this because of the Cross, where Christ died for me, personally. Amazing love, and amazing mercy & grace.
Now I love Him, because He first loved me.
No Maalie - that is not love, that is copulation.
And survival would dictate that the more mating we did and the more offspring we had, the more prosurvival it would be. This does not even begin to account for the fact that some animals species mate with anything and everything they can versus those that animals species that mate for life.
(you know, in the creation story Adam is the first scientist Maalie, in naming all the animals.
Work and relationship and the problems involved in a world that even when created was only pointing towards its fulfillment.
we can even see how humankind is destructive towards the earth. What is this but rebellion, if indeed there is a god who created and put humankind as a steward of all things.
I do especially like the part when God made the woman and brought him to the man. But in the context of a relationship with God as well.)
Don, Amen.
Only in Jesus do we find again forever that which was at the beginning in creation, in the new creation.
Good point, half-mom Susan.
Though I might add that that is to be an expression of love in humanity, unlike animals. The extinct is more than instinct or is meant to be for humans. (right?)
Simon - then apparently our answers are quite different.
"Q. Did god create all things?"
My answer: God created all living beings as well as the planet.
"Q does God know ALL things?"
My answer: Certainly
Your question: "If the answer is "yes" then god must have created good and evil (or "choice" if you like) and he must know the outcome BEFORE it happens.."
My answer: A noncategoric NO. Choice, which He did create, is not a bad thing, else He would not have given us free will and the ability to choose. It is only evil when it chooses against God - and that makes the origin of evil a consequence, not a created thing.
When I run a red light and hit another car, the wreck is the consequence of my choice. I created the consequence by my choice, no one outside the incident needed to act inorder to cause the consequence.
Evil is simply put, not a created thing - it is the natural result of choosing against God; it is sin.
Your question: "if the Bible was written by "man" and we are imperfect by definition- then the bible is imperfect?"
My answer: No, it is not imperfect because it was written by men who were under the direction of the Holy Spirit who is perfect as an equal part of the Godhead - therefore doing exactly what God wanted them to do, when, where and how He wanted it to be done.
If they had been doing what they wanted to do/write, then yes it would be most imperfect. But, because God is more than capable of having His Word spoken through men His way, He is also more than capable of getting them to write it correctly and preserving it the same way all this time.
Ted - quit blogging from work!
LL - thanks for your musing.
I think about it in terms of my daughter; I love her first because she is part of me. That love both preceeds and allows the loving her for who she is - and even who she isn't.
the phenomenon we call "love" is one of the easiest to explain terms of Darwinian natural selection. Without the instinctive compulsion to procreate, coded for in the genetic code of our chromosomes, we would extinct after one generation
maalie that explanation does not even begin to explain the phenomenon of caring about humans we have never met halfway across the world. why do we care that children are starving in africa? why do we care about AIDS in 3rd world countries? natural selection and the compulsion to procreate to keep extinction at bay simply does not explain those tendencies.
halfmom, i love your explanation of evil. well put!
Amen, half-mom Susan on evil!!!
And yes, but it makes work more interesting when I can. (too fast to be boring here, most often lately, though usually I stay out of trouble one way or another with effort)
Also, amen to the Bible as the word of God. It is both human and divine, as is the Word Jesus. Yet retaining in its humanity every word God wanted to convey through the human messengers. Deeply human to the core, like Jesus, yet divine as is Jesus.
And Genesis is important as the beginning of the Story, especially Genesis 1-3, and 1-11 leads up to Abraham, a key figure in God's plan of redemption for the world.
evil is not a created thing? Then what is the devil? JUST a "consquence"? who created the consequence? who created the reult of an action. The "choice"?
Either God is in control or he is not. its that simple, don't you think?
Who created the tree of life? did god give adam the choice??? YES!
It seems the debate vaselates between emotion and logic. It seems that god only created "good" and therefore satan created "bad"
Who created the lake of fire?
Don Sands I do not live by some Jewish law given to them when they were wandering about the desert aimlessly...and I have no sins to "wash away".
Evil just a consequence of action? well I think you have just said there is no devil! ah ha!
Its just like the plot for star wars guys!
we have this warm fuzzy "force"
We have darth vader as the devil We have Luke Skywalker as some son of the good side of the force....
UNTIL he discovers that he IS in fact the son of Darth!! and that good and evil are in fact one
ahahahahah! its utter lunacy..
the sooner we all move on, and give religions the flick the better...
evil is not a created thing? Then what is the devil? JUST a "consequence"? who created the consequence? who created the result of an action. The "choice"?
consequences and results are not "created". if someone comes up to you and punches you in the face, they do not "cause" whatever your reaction is. you have the choice in how you react - to hit back or walk away. either way, your reaction is not their creation. but your reaction exists from your choice based on your personal response to them hitting you in the face.
just as humanities personal response to God's Good is their choice.
God created the world and humanity and the angels to have the option to choose (Satan did not "create" evil, he rejected good and became evil when He chose against God). it is the greatest gift, of free will. love is not love if forced upon us. children can choose to walk away from their parents, the parents did not "create" that rejection, it was a choice. God is in control, and part of His self-control is His gift to us to choose. He will not force humans into relationship, that is dictatorship.
relationship with humanity is God's desire, but He will not force His desire on humanity.
i think maalie would agree on the point that "consequences and results" are not created. that is part of the scientific method.
a scientist sets out to observe, results (as has been pointed out here many times) - they do not create the consequences or results of any experiment, they only observe them.
"and I have no sins to "wash away".
From your point of view, I agree. We are simply evolved apes, and apes have no sins to washed away.
But I believe we are created in the image of the Creator, and so, He calls all the shots for me.
That's alright Simon, we simply have to go our ways, and we shall both die, and I hope I see you in the presence of the Lord.
Have a good evening.
Thanks Dana for watching over things while I was away writing a letter to LL. If you haven't visited her blog, I think you will find it a wonderful encouragement! You will find a comment somewhere in here from her and a link to LL Barkat on my blog page.
Simon - I think there is little left to add to what Dana has said. So, I will let it stand as it is and bid you good evening. I'm quite tired I'm afraid much of the time these days, but I know that you understand that even though in degree it is far less than what you go through on a daily basis!
"Cause and effect" are often quite difficult to establish in statistics. Because two variables are statistically highly significantly correlated, does not necessarily establish that one causes the other. It may need careful experimental design to establish that.
We know from Hookes's Law, for example, that the length of a spring is proportional to the weight hanging from it. You can say that application of the weight "causes" the spring to stretch.
Alternatively, it has been observed that there is a correlation between height and weight in people. But it can't be said that one factor causes the other; both factors are likely to be independently linked to a third, underlying genetic factor.
That is why global warming is so contentious. There is a good correlation between average annual global temperature and our consumption of fossil fuels, but the causal relationship is difficult to prove. But we can say that the accumulation of evidence from a variety of directions (including computer modelling) suggests that the cause is very probable (90% sure by the IPCC).
Faith is what it says: faith. Belief in something with no means of independently verifying it. "It's true because it says so in the bible; it's in the bible so it must be true". The perfect tautology. The probability of an entity you call God is so low as to be out of the frame for consideration.
I think what we were discussing LitlLuther, was Simon's hypothesis that if a god existed, then the God we believe in created evil and was therefore not perfect or good. I think Simon's hypothesis might lead one to think our God capricious and unkind, deliberately "setting" people up for failure.
My hypothesis is that God did not DIRECTLY create evil or DIRECTLY cause evil to happen, He simply allowed it to. For an omnipotent God, it wasn't a big jump to see what would happen if He gave Lucifer free will to obey and worship or disobey and fall into evil and sin.
Doubltless God knew the results before the beginning of time, not just for the angels in rebellion but for Adam and Eve and then down through the ages to the rest of us.
>for Adam and Eve and then down through the ages to the rest of us.
Halfmom, these "ages" that you refer to since the alleged creation of Adam and Eve amount to no more than a blink of an eye in terms of Man's occupation of this planet. The rate of evolution could not possibly have generated the scope of human diversity that we observe today in such a short space of time from just two individuals. It is genetically absurd. The process would take some three million years, at least, and there is more than ample evidence that is indeed what happened.
Yes Susan, I am not trying to disagree with you. I think I have agreed with all you said. However, I don't believe the word "allow" is strong enough to capture what the Bible teaches as God's involvement in our world. "Ordain" is a better word. God ordained the fall of Satan; God ordained the fall of Adam, and He ordained everything that comes to pass in our lives too. That is what I believe the Bible teaches. Of course you are free to disagree with me. You wouldn't be the first!
Wayne Grudem in his systematic theology writes:
"We may define God’s providence as follows: God is continually involved with all created things in such a way that he (1) keeps them existing and maintaining the properties with which he created them; (2) cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and (3) directs them to fulfill his purposes."
>That is what I believe the Bible teaches. Of course you are free to disagree with me. You wouldn't be the first!
That is the problem with the bible, nobody can agree on what it actually means. It can mean anything you want it to.
Maalie, I think we have went over this ground before. There are several essentials of which all Christians agree. And then there are several non-essentials of which we can have various opinions and remain Christian. The issue we have been discussing is certainly a non-essential.
You say the Bible can say whatever you want it to. Not really. You could never get it to say Lucifer is the savior for instance or that Jesus is unnecessary, and on it goes. There are certain things which of which there can be no doubt and there are others where we can have much diversity. In Creation (the world) there is a great deal of diversity. Why should there not be just as much diversity in God's second creation (His Church)?
Litl Luther, I did actually write that the bible can mean anything you want it to,(not 'say').
>And then there are several non-essentials of which we can have various opinions and remain Christian.
Yes, I thought this was the case. People simply "cherry pick" the bits of the bible that suits them, and assign the rest as non-essential. Pretty convenient that the Word of God can be treated so arbitrarily, don't you think?
In Creation (the world) there is a great deal of diversity. Why should there not be just as much diversity in God's second creation (His Church)?
Sorry, I have no terms of reference with which I can understand, let alone reply to, this question.
I'm off for the weekend, have a good one everybody.
Pax vobiscum.
Maalie -
the question was not evolution or creation - the question was the origination of evil. So quit throwing about your favorite red herring or I shall be quite annoyed with you!
As to cherry-picking - that simply is not so. In the essential, unity, and in the non-essentials, freedom. We are simply discussing what we believe, among ourselves, about a non-essential and thereby trying to come to an agreement on how best to answer Simon's perfectly valid questions as to the origin of evil.
Yes, LitlLuther. I thought that was what you were referring too. And I do not disagree. I also have tremendous respect for Grudem - I just seem to have either loaned out or never unpacked my copy of Systematic Theology. Mores the pity because it is quite good reading!
Rather, although I can but guess the motives behind Simon's questions, it does seem to me that the origin of evil is an appropriate question for a non-believer to raise. So, I was trying to think of a way to correctly, but simply (read that, "in short fashion") answer the question. It seems to me to do more harm than good to throw a lot of scripture, much less theology at someone who does not acknowledge that God exists.
The probability of an entity you call God is so low as to be out of the frame for consideration.
the probability for natural selection to be the ONLY explanation for the diversity and novelty in our species is also low. Dawkins himself points out in Climbing Mount Improbable that it is impossible to quantify just how improbable our existence is.
so whether a theory or belief is improbable or not cannot be the reason you reject it.
that is the problem with the bible, nobody can agree on what it actually means. It can mean anything you want it to
there is large occurrences of interpretation in science maalie, so whether there are many ways to interpret something also cannot be the reason to reject it.
one example:
in The Selfish Gene (published by Oxford University Press) Dawkins discusses "genes swarming in huge colonies, locked inside beings" and states:
"they are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence
in Biology Beyond the Genome (also published by Oxford University Press) Denis Noble (physiologist, systems biologist from Oxford) states regarding the same empirical fact of genes swarming in huge colonies, locked inside beings this:
"they are in you and me; we are the system that allows their code to be read; and their preservation is totally dependent on the joy that we experience in reproducing ourselves. We are the ultimate rationale for their existence."
both statements have excellent grounding in observation and evidence. they are empirically equivalent. but they are interpretive and include very different value judgments and metaphysical statements. there is no way to decide which is more scientific or "more right". in fact, both Noble and Dawkins agree that no one could possibly design an experiment that could detect the empirical difference between them (you can refer to Noble's aforementioned publication or to Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype)
so you see, varying interpretations do not sink a theory or belief.
Simon,
I have wondered (if you don't mind me asking) why it is you are so unwilling to consider the idea of God when at the same time you admit that your condition can greatly limit how much time you have left on this earth. As unlikely as the idea of God is to you, even Maalie admits a slight possibility that He could exist. What if you do turn out to be wrong after all and the day you die you do, indeed, stand before God as we believe and have to give an account of your life and your choice not to believe in Him or follow Jesus? What then?
I hope you don't mind the question.
Greetings from Lorenzo's computer!
Litl Luther: Surely you are not enticing Simon to partake of Pascal's Wager? I feel sure he will not gamble on that.
>even Maalie admits a slight possibility that He could exist
But only at an intellectual level, since it is logically impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. However, I shall resolutely refuse to repent for sins that I did not knowingly and willfully commit, and that such a God pre-ordained from the beginning of time (or should I say the time/matter/energy continuum?).
Dana:
> Dawkins himself points out in Climbing Mount Improbable that it is impossible to quantify just how improbable our existence is.
Yes, of course, that is axiomatic. It is not necessary to quantify the probability, only to say that there is a probability, however small. You will know that Dawkins also says (and as a statistician, I agree with him) that however small the probability of an event, given enough time, it is a certainty. As he points out so eleoquently: "Time is on the side of chance". So how much time do you need? Is a couple of billion years enough for you?
the probability for natural selection to be the ONLY explanation for the diversity and novelty in our species is also low.
But it is the most parsimonious explanation (applying Occam's Razor). The point is that it is the only explanation that we need because it accounts for all the evidence that we have to hand without invoking the supernatural. If you have a more likely explanation, then I entreat you to write to the Editor of Nature for I am sure that he/she willbe seriously interested. So will I.
I had fun the other day swimming in the river Kwai (Yes. The same one from the movie). Me and a couple others walked up river after lunch, swam against the current a little bit and then floated down to our hotel. It was fun. We did it twice. The water looks pretty clean. You can see your feet as you swim. I was nervous about crocs nibbling at my toes though (I imagine Simon can relate), but otherwise it was a good time. Then today I woke up with a swollen right index finger. It has bothered me most of the day, until I accidently slammed it in the door!! To my delight I didn't curse but endured the pain! But the pain is bad. It is hard to type.
Hey Ted,
I read a little book today by John Piper called "Counted Righteous in Christ" which is written in defense of imputation. Piper quotes several present day theologians (including Wright) who are going against this pinnacle doctrine. It made me think of our previous debate. You should check out the book. Some say it is the best thing written on the subject since John Murray's work 50 years ago. It really is good. Most of it is exegesis but easy to read and concise.
Lit'l Luther,
Listen to this, as Wright is asked about this challenge from Piper, and I think answers rather aptly. For one thing, Wright does not at all deny that we are not imputed in the sense of being taken into Christ's death and resurrection as we find in Romans 6. Wright is also insisting that justification be pressed according to the language used with it, and the context of the passages. And he's challenging Piper and company to measure all by Scripture, which he thinks they're failing to do. He is simply seeing as is true, even in the key Romans 3 passage, that justifcation is at heart about helping us see just who the new covenant people of God are, as is worked on throughout Romans. Remember: "Or is God of the Jews only? Is he not also God of the Gentiles, too? Yes..."
Wright does believe that the moment one has faith they are justified and declared in right standing with God and a member of God's covenant people. And that it is not of works. One must listen to all he says and test it by Scripture. He's not the be-all and end-all for me, and sometimes I don't track with him. But I'm not happy either, with those who champion the Reformation like Piper does, but who I'm afraid are sometimes more concerned about defending the theology of the Reformers rather than testing it all by Scripture. Nor do they have the spirit of the Reformers, I believe, at times, in that they seem unopen to change if Scripture warrants that. Parts of Wright's so-called new perspective on justification I believe are easily verifiable when reading Scripture.
Just my view on it at the moment. And read Tom Wright's latest book, which is excellent: Surprised by Hope. Judge it by Scripture. It's good, I think!
Blessings on you and your good work, brother!
I so love it when you guys talk over my head!! Glad you understand each other!
what have I missed????!!!
Little Luther- your explination was exactly what I was trying to say- you see most christians have this "sugar coated candy" approach to their realationship with god.. instead of the "fear" of his power ( again according to your scriptures), that he can ( according to the bible) harden hearts etc etc...
that was my point- he can create that! (if you believe it that is)..
and I do not mind your question:-
I do not believe in a god at all simply because I see no evidence.
The bible is not evidence just because it says it is.
The actions of man are no evidence based on what has occured in the name of god to others.
The churches are not evidence ( heck even I could lay people in the aisles in a healing service... and get the giggles after)
I saw no proof, no changed lives no deep real lasting behviour from anyone whether it was the catholic church/fellowship, the Church of England (I grew up in it), the pentacostal movement etc etc etc - tried them all.
My mother and grandparents are heavily involved in the Baptist church.
In my job many of my leading clients are the various church movements- Isee theft, lies and deceipt when it comes to the business side of there faith.. no different to the pharasies in the old testament
I have friends who are "born again"..and again..and again...
( and I know the weakest arguement is "Oh but Simon you simply have not met a REAL born again"...) sadly I have, and given time they fall over...and over.
I think if christians had 1% of the power the bible says they could have WOAH! it would be incredible..
Frankly it just seems a waste of time.
I do not have a lot of time- so I get on with what is important.. my friends and my family and helping others the way I can.
If I am wrong? well I will be judged and he will return me to carbon. If I am right- then I am returned to carbon anyway...
I am happy with that. It motivates me to be the best I can be today.
NOW can we discuss the lords prayer and what it means to us?
;o0
OH as for crocodiles- if you are in fresh water and they are fresh water crocs you will be ok
If they are salt water crocs- watch out!!!
Ted, you are being completely unfair to Piper (which I am sure you would agree if you read this book!) In it, Piper does not champion the Reformation but merely deals exegetically with the biblical text. In fact, his treatment of the Scriptures are so faithful to the text, I would honestly think anyone who reads it would be convinced if they are not utterly bias. The book is extremely convincing exegetically. That was Piper's aim—not to say "This is what we have always believed, but show that the imputation of divine righteousness, received by faith, is what the Scriptures teach.
The main scholar who Piper argues against is Robert Gundry—mainly because Gundry has been the most clear in his denial of imputation. Gundry writes "the doctrine that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believing sinners needs to be abandoned." And "That doctrine of imputation is not even biblical. Still less is it 'essential' to the Gospel." Gundry goes on to say "I join the growing number of biblical theologians, evangelical and non-evangelical alike, who deny that Paul or any other New Testament author speaks of a righteousness of Christ that is imputed to believing sinners, and find instead a doctrine of God's righteousness as his salvific activity in a covenantal framework, not in terms of an imputation of Christ's righteousness in a book keeping framework." Gundry mentions Mark Seifrid, Tom Wright, James Dunn, Chris Beker, and John Reumann among others as representatives "of a newer view of justification that does not include the imputation of Christ's righteousness."
These men seem like deceivers to me because Gundry 'appears' to hold to a forensic declaration of sinners as righteous, yet when Piper asks Gundry what it means that God declarers us righteous if there is no doctrine of imputed divine righteousness, he answers that "It is our faith, not Christi's righteousness, that is credited to us as righteousness." Making our faith in our faith rather than our faith in Christ alone.
Ted, you are going to probably say I am being unfair, but I will retort, you are being just as unfair in your comments about Piper because you have not read the book, and I'm persuaded if you would read the book, you would be convinced by Piper's exegetical arguments. Personally, I believe the Gospel is at stake. This is an extremely important issue that all Christians should take seriously. There are many scholars today quietly ripping the heart of the Gospel out of Christian faith.
Simon and Maalie, if there is no God, then isn't it "lucky" that we have gravity to keep us from bouncing off the earth? Isn't it "lucky" that the sun is the right distance away (93 million miles) to keep us warm? Isn't it "lucky" that the earth rotates in such a way as to give the whole earth seasons (summer, fall, winter, spring) of weather, along with night and day? Isn't it "lucky" how even though the Sun is gigantic and the moon is quite tiny, yet from our perspective here on earth they form both the perfect size to produce an eclipse? ....Maalie, you are a scientist. I'm sure you could come up with a 101 "lucky" things about our situation that makes life on earth possible. But I find "luck" quite unsatisfactory. I see a Creator involved in all these things.
PS: I guess I am lucky number 100 for this post!
Litl Luther: I agree with you that a complex combination of circumstances are required in order for life to develop in the way that it has. But if I may say so, I still think you are adopting the argument from personal incredulity. What you seem to be saying is something like: "I cannot believe that such an unlikely combination of circumstances could have arisen without a creator".
But try looking at the situation a posteriori rather than a priori. The point is, we would not be here to argue the point if circumstances had not militated in favour of life. An analogy is the National Lottery. We may be told that a priori the chances of your ticket winning the jackpot are ten million to one against. But if ten million tickets are purchased, it is likely that one of them will win.
If we consider the cosmos, each galaxy has millions of stars (="suns"), and there are millions of galaxies known to exist (you can read more about it here). No matter how small is the probability of all appropriate conditions being met, given enough stars, it will amount to a certainty. In fact, better statisticians than me conclude that planets like ours undoubtedly exist throughout the cosmos, and the probability of life elsewhere is almost inevitable. This is not your science fiction space fantasy, this is based on good current science.
Now folks, I am off to Scotland on a camping trip shortly and then straight off to Austria afterwards. I look forward to sharing Halfmom's gracious hosting with you in a couple of week.
Pax vobiscum.
>I think if christians had 1% of the power the bible says they could have WOAH! it would be incredible..
Simon, I absolutely agree with this: fortune and misfortune strike those of different faiths, and those without faith, equally arbitrarily.
Now I really....must...be....OFF!
Simon and Maalie: I have the power to raise the dead.
On several occasions I have simply spoken words from Scripture and seen people without faith melt before my eyes and go from disbelief and turn their lives over to Christ—people who once were spiritually dead came to life and were never the same again. Of course, I cannot really take credit for this. The real Creator of such spiritual life was God's Spirit who was at work convicting their hearts. But nevertheless, God has used me to raise people from spiritual death and change lives again and again.
Does death-raising count in your estimation, Simon, of "the spiritual power" we Christians are supposed to have?
Another thing I would say to you is stop looking at Christians for perfection; you will never find it. The Bible says "Taste and see; the Lord is good." It never says that Christians are good, just forgiven. I would encourage you Simon to start looking to Jesus, and not to Christians, and you will finally be satisfied with what you see. It is because I really do like you that I say this, not to preach at you.
I believe Maalie hit on something significant with his mention of "posteriori and a priori". It causes us to consider our "epistemology". Undoubtedly, Maalie and I hold to different epistemological sources. The term epistemology means, simply, how you know what you know. What do you believe is true and why? This is a very important consideration in any field of study. How will we know we are on the right track? How will we know truth when we see it? This relates somewhat to the foundation we choose to begin with. For most Christians there are at least three epistemological sources. The primary epistemological source for us is obviously Scripture. Tradition and experience are important, but they are seen as secondary. We recognize that tradition and experience will inevitably affect our understanding of Scripture, but we see Scripture as normative – it illuminates the other two. In other words, we intend to hold tradition and experience accountable to Scripture.
We are also reminded about a fourth source. This is the influence and illumination of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit works in all three of the above areas. He illuminates and helps us understand Scripture, both as individuals and as a community of faith. He also works in tradition. We see the guidance of the Holy Spirit over long periods of time in church history. One example of this is the central creeds of the Christian Faith, such as the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds as statements of faith. In some local traditions, we also see that the Holy Spirit has guided the development of statements of faith. They were developed with much prayer and careful attention to Scripture. In addition, the Holy Spirit works in our personal experience. We trust his indwelling presence to guide us and help us see the desire of God the Father.
Maalie, what you see as our "personal incredulity" is really not the case. For us Christians, God in His Word has proven Himself true to us again and again. Tested and verified. Incredulity, by definition means "Doubt about the truth of something." But we base our faith not on our doubts about something else (as if we are Christians because we don't believe this world could be here by chance). Not at all. Our faith is based on God's reliability in our lives. So many of us can give scores of testimonies of God's faithfulness and His Word being proven true in our life-experience again and again. Thus our chief epistemological source is God's Word, which has been proven faithful to us, and what His Word says about Jesus Christ. It says Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and we have found this to be absolutely true—as true as gravity and verified virtually just as much through the countless lives whom Jesus has redeemed. It is not personal incredulity.
i agree that Jesus can stand as our ambassador and representative. simon, if you looked deeply into the person of Christ you would find what you are looking for in the lives of other Christians.
neither maalie or simon have really addressed the reality of Christ in our conversations here.
Christians don't have just this idea of "a God" in Heaven. our God came to earth to make sure we knew truly who He was.
"Thus our chief epistemological source is God's Word, which has been proven faithful to us, and what His Word says about Jesus Christ." -Lil-Luther
Amen Triston.
The historical writings of the Bible teach us and testify. And Josephus, the historian, collaborates with the Scriptures as well.
jesus said the Book of God's Word is sufficient for people. If they will not believe the Bible, they would not believe if someone was raised from the dead, and spoke the truth to them.
That's a scary thought. But if one will seek Jesus Christ, and look to His truth, His Word, then one will find, when one seeks with all his heart, or blood-pump.
Jesus was resurrected from the dead, there's no doubt, and yet people simply will not believe.
Little Luther:- LOL!
seen all that before mate...
Dana- I do not need to look into anybody thanks. jesus did no more or less than other "prophets" simply to believe someone because they claim to be something is a mistake.
I have studied the bible- it does nothing for me at all. anymore that studying any other book. its a nice story-laced with fact and a lot of waffle too.
Simply because Luther "claims" to raise the dead does not mean that I should automatically believe him. Aboriginal medicine man could kill by pointing a bone at a person...
big deal. so I do not automatically believe the bible simply becasue it, you or anyone else say its the word of god...
AS for speaking the "word into people and them falling over Luther- that was my job in the pentacostal movement... people would thrash about or claim healing as a result...It had nothing to do with gods power ( or mine for that matter)... just their own desire for an outcome...
the human mind is a pretty amazing instrument.
its got nothing to do with god or satan.. they are just labels.
I agree with Don sands- the key here is whether you believe that the bible is gods word or not-
I do not.
ps- I do not mean to insult anyone ere. please do not take my comments as that. again I state- if it works for you great! if it makes you a better, peace loving and gentle peron - thats great too.
"ps- I do not mean to insult anyone"
I can appreciate that Simon. And personally, I appreciate a man who speaks his mind, though we disagree "big time", it's those who play politics who drive me nuts.
Not that you don't drive me nuts, but it's a respectful insanity, as I'm sure I may do the same to you. Keep on speaking your mind.
BTW, I do check out your blog. Nice blog.
(smile) Thanks Don! :o)
I drive a lot of people nuts.(wink)
Jesus did no more or less than other "prophets" simply to believe someone because they claim to be something is a mistake.
ah but simon there is plenty of evidence that Jesus is who He said He was outside the bible. from scholars from historians and from other record makers/keepers that wrote at the time Jesus was on earth.
Dana- there is plenty of evidence that Jesus made the claim. I do not disagree. We see this clearly in the last supper (as an example)
But that does not mean I believe it. Or that in fact he is. I do agree he was a great man- perhaps the greatest. And yes I agree he was living proof that we can all live full lives through forgivness of others and avoiding temptation ( as displayed with his 40 days and nights and as displayed at his crucifiction)
If you are chosing to live you life according to his example- go for it! he is a great example. But that strips away everything else I read in the bible.
At best the bibles chapters are just sign posts to jesus claim as to who he was.( eg his genealogy).
I have no interest in it at all.
Simon,
I do agree he was a great man- perhaps the greatest.
What do you do with the fact that, as a great man, he also said that he was equal to God and that the only way to get to God was through him?
Susan, I do nothing with it- because there is none.
See? So I do not have a problem with him making the "claim" becasue it was not linked with "nutty behviour" (as you know plenty make the claim too).
But if there is no god.. then jesus desire to live life according to his high standards is fine by me.
It seems that what he did as a man for all his short 33 years was be the best he could be...
I always felt that jesus lived by actions and not just the words- its in the actions that you know someone.
So I admire him for it.
:o)
The difference with us here is that you have "god" as your bench mark and I do not.
:o)
Lit'l Luther,
I appreciate your response. And what you share on this blog. You're a good man and witness of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I'll have to look at Piper. I have a book or two of his. While what I read from him is good, I don't see the emphasis on the communal aspect of justification and salvation we see so clearly in Paul, so far in Piper's arguments. And salvation must be considered with the gospels in view as well. Salvation is all about the new creation and resurrection and the kingdom of God come in Jesus in all of this. It's about people coming to faith in Christ to be part of this work of the kingdom, used by God as God does his work of making all things new, beginning now. The emphasis on who's in and out I don't see as God's emphasis, heaven and hell, though I don't deny their existence. But I see it as the work of resurrection in Jesus in the new creation, which begins NOW. And that's why, as I said in my comment on Susan's post of the Lord's Prayer, that the great chapter on the resurrection ends as it does.
In my view the forensic aspect of our salvation is simply that God pronounces us guilty as sinners, and then when we have faith God pronounces us righteous in Christ. I'm not sure this all absolutely proves imputation. And I don't think at all the gospel is at stake, for if it is, then the early church fathers were lost and the gospel was not present then.
The gospel involves Jesus, that is God becoming flesh or human in Jesus the Son, and beginning the work of salvation, as to the kind of work it was, concerning the whole human person (why lepers were "saved" in those encounters) and this in turn involves the salvation of all of God's creation in the new creation in Jesus. (Not being universalist here, either, just speaking of the nature of it)
The Roman Catholic Church was give over to works righteousness in such a way that what Luther stood for was needed. But Luther's exegesis is not perfect nor is anyone's. He is too indiviudalistic and he is too driven to promote a righteousness that is too far removed from the actual heart change which MUST take place when one comes to Christ by faith. And this then gets us involved together in mission to the world to see others come to Christ, but not just to get everyone saved, but also to work this salvation out in ways God is concerned about in the new creation.
This makes Susan's work in trying to find a cure of Alzheimer's, etc., important, etc., etc., as well as your good work over there, Lit'l Luther.
And read more of Wright. What's good for one is good for all. I'll get to Piper next time I hit the bookstore.
Thanks, brother!
Let me hurriedly add that i myself tend to believe in imputation of Christ's righteousness to us by faith. I just still hold to what I'm saying though. Must run.
Hey Ted,
I do believe the idea of God "imputing" divine righteousness to us (i.e. God's\ Christ's) is taught clearly in Scripture, specifically in Romans 4:5, 6, 11, 24; 5:17, 18, 19; 10:4; 1Corinthians 1:30; 2Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 3:9. Moreover, the Greek word for "justify" means to "declare righteous" in the legal sense of a guilty person being found innocent in a court of law. Justify does not mean simply to forgive. I believe the distinction is very important because forgiveness will only keep us out of Hell. Why should God let us in heaven? Only perfection is allowed there (Matt 5:48). I see no hope for anyone to have a sense of security outside of the perfect righteousness of Christ.
Any how, it is an especially important topic to me, but I don't do it justice the way Piper does. Ted, I am VERY encouraged that you said you would get Piper's book "Counted Righteous in Christ". I think you will enjoy it, and I look forward to talking about it with you after you read it.
Thanks bro. Thanks also for always being such an encourager too. I really appreciate that about you. I think we would be friends in person too; not just on a blog.
Blessings,
Triston
Post a Comment