It's time for vacation!!
School starts for my daugher right after we return and I have some things I haven't finished - so, the laptop must travel with us.
Here is the first stop on the road home - Mountain City TN.
Then through these as we head for the the foothills of SC. Our biggest concern right now (other than actually getting packed and out the door) is whether the new car makes it through the mountains without new puppy barf in the back seat!
218 comments:
1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»What is SC Susan?
SC. That would be South Carolina. They tawk funny over thar. The people of South Carolina supposedly have a stellar reputation for good manners and warm hospitality. Some day, I would like to bask in some of that. For now, I march forward, tugging ponytails, nugding my buds to let them know I was there, and shouting "WAZZAAAP" to people on the other side of the room.
Oh, hey! I just came back from Tennessee. (We'll see if I get to the meme. I'm a little traveled out.)
Beautiful pics, btw.
i hope that you have a wonderful trip.
Those mountains are so beautiful. I'll have to check and see if Deb has seen them in person, because she was at South Carolina for a year in the past.
Hope you and yours including the puppy have a wonderful vacation.
Home, eh? That explains your accent I guess, that I have yet to hear.
Sorry Llama dear - my home state is North Carolina, my parents live in South Carolina and my aunt and uncle - where we are headed today live in Tennessee - so NC, SC, TN. We stopped for the night in Cincinnati Ohio (OH) so we could have breakfast with my daughter's old college roomate - now we're on the road again.
And compared to Craver - yeh, I talk funny!
Do your parents live near Bob Jones University? I was a student there back in 1976-1977. A fellow student and friend from church and I enjoyed a little romping at the foothills of the mountain as her Dad permitted before arriving on campus.
Deb Gossard (Ted's wife)
Of course it is Washington State WA that is best!
Susan, you were explaining the acronyms for the US States. I created my own simple acronym for faith. Ted, you might be up in arms! I still believe it to be true, however.
Triston's ABC's on Predestination:
A: God
B: The Elect
C: The Reprobate
A loves B but hates C. C hates A. B also hates A. A shows mercy to B and justice to C. Now B loves A because A first loved B. C still hates A, however. A gives D(amnation) to C and E(ternal Life) to B. Now you see?
LOL! Litl Luther, it's like one of those logioc tests I had to do at school. You make it sound as if God has already made up his mind (isn't that "predestination" means?). I was taught that Jesus died to save us ALL. In French, reprobate is "vaurien", a no-good. I think that's what I am. I feel sure I belong in your category C, not B.
It all sounds a bit silly to me, I'm afraid.
Halfmom, so sorry, I didn't comment on your post, which is what I cam here to do (Little Luther gets my mind tangled up). Those mountains look lovely. Have you seen the Grand Canyon? I would love to go to America one day and see sights like that.
Does "Elect" mean what some people call "saved"? People who have been saved seem to know they have been saved. Since I have no idea whether I am saved or not, I presume that I'm not. I don't think I have been good enough for that.
"People who have been saved seem to know they have been saved. Since I have no idea whether I am saved or not, I presume that I'm not. I don't think I have been good enough for that."
What a marvelous statement. So honest.
The truth of Jesus Christ living, and then dying is the foremost question for us all.
A human needs to cry out to Christ, who is alive. If one cries to Jesus, and longs to know the truth, then, according to Jesus' own words, shall know the truth, and shall in fact be set free.
It's true, when a sinner, who is blind, and callous, calls upon the merciful Savior, Jesus Christ, then this same person will know that Christ heard, and Christ's grace will bring this person to trust Him, and repent, or turn from his/hers old ways, in order to follow Jesus Christ. And all heaven will be rejoicing, when this lost sheep is brought back into the fold!
Thank you Don. It all seems terribly compicated. I'm worried about this predestination thing. What if God has already made up his mind about me? I don't think I am a bad sinner, just a little naughty (I like having fun). I don't break any laws and I try to be kind.
Alive? Didn't Jesus die on the cross to save us all?
"Ted, you might be up in arms! I still believe it to be true, however."
It's all a matter of personal belief, isn't it? One man's belief up against another. The persuaiveness of one man's rhetoric against another's. Nobody actually knows what (if anything) is true. You can believe what you like.
No wonder people like Estelle get skeptical.
S.B. You seem to read my thoughts. I used to think I was a believer and then they start pontificatng about predestination and reprobates, Jesus dying and then being alive, being blind and callous, lost sheep, it's all blooming metaphor and it makes me want to run the other way.
Where are you now?
E des C, we're cruising at about 48.13N, 114.40W, off San Fransisco. We intercepted an armed drugs runner, rather frightening. I hope you lot are praying for us few who are guarding your coast!
Estelle said, "What if God has already made up his mind about me?" I think he has. None of the "elect" come fresh out of the womb with a mature faith. No one can know until they cross that threshold whether God has chosen them. But if you find your heart is inclined towards Jesus, you can be sure that he won't turn you away.
We're all a bit naughty, aren't we? (I think they like to use the word "runcible" here.) My saved friends are not likely to rank sinners. A saved person's sins stinks just as bad as the unsaved. If we think of our sinfulness as a relative thing, there is only one true standard to compare to, and if we measure right, we ALL fall short.
Yes Seattle Boy, I hope so too. I am thankful for your service.
Craver 7: The first time I read your reply, I thought it was helpful. Then I read it again and am now confused. Especially by:
"None of the "elect" come fresh out of the womb with a mature faith."
You mean we have been elected to go to heaven (or not) before we are born? Is that actually fair?
and
"My saved friends are not likely to rank sinners."
This seems to confirm my suspician that I made somewhere up above that those people who have been saved know they have. I now feel sure that I am not saved (or elected, is that the same? I am confused by the jargon).
Oh, S.B., do take care. I have been googling about you. I know about the dangers that you face.
My friends,
From the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains to double predestination!
I challenge you Lit'l Luther that a clear, even handed reading of Scripture will not let your position stand. God's foreordination and foreknowledge are clearly separated specifically in the famous Romans 9-11 passage.
Here's
a description more of where I'm at.
Good Christians will disagree, though I must say while majority itself means nothing, the majority of Christians disagree with your thoughts on reprobation and the like. Those in Scripture who end up lost clearly are those who have chosen that for themselves. But again good Christians will disagree.
Show me, Ltl Luther, one passage where the gospel is being preached in which this kind of language comes out, then I'll change my tune.
A good Calvinist like Charles Spurgeon avoided that error, and published the glad tidings of salvation through Jesus as open for all because that is what Scripture says. And says so in the evangelistic context. And I believe throughout, as well.
I could go on but I think it's best not to. We can agree to disagree, but I challenge the nonChristians here to go back to Jesus and the good news that in spite of the fact that we are sinners, lost and with no strenth of our own, yes- ungodly- Christ died for such, and is indeed the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himeself, not counting people's sins against them. So God holds nothing against any of you, because of what he has done in his Son, Jesus. Nothing at all!
BUT, because of that
all are called to be reconciled to God! So all of you nonChristians here; look to Jesus! Take the claims of Jesus from the gospels and the gospel itself, of his death and resurrection for us, to forgive us of our sins and reconcile us to God and others, seriously. We all need this, and in Jesus we have it.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3
And God is near to all who call on him, in fact all who call on the name of the Lord on the basis of this promise, will be saved!
And we're called to do this now, or as long as it is still called, "Today". God calls us back to himself and to our true selves, to each other in Jesus, and to the world in mission and stewardship- all of this "in Christ Jesus"(see above passage on behind linked word, "that").
Seattle Boy,
In spite of all our stumblings and bumblings, and I'm good at that- God continues to use his word. It's a living word pointing us to his final Word in Jesus.
In Jesus we see God's final Word and we see in the face of Jesus, God. It's the God who has become one of us and draws us to himself, and is not willing that any should perish, and has no delight in the death of the wicked, but wants them to repent and live (Ezekiel).
"I challenge you Lit'l Luther that a clear, even handed reading of Scripture will not let your position stand"
You see what I mean. A man challenges a man, thankfully here is is only a cyber challenge. In real life a gaunlet is thrown and a sword could be drawn. Then a nation challenges a nation and there are battles, bombs and bloodshed, history is full of it. All because humans can't agree what the bible means. I want to run the other way. I am not a sheep, I don't want to be in a fold, I want to express my individuality and have some fun. If I read you correctly, if I am saved (elected?) then I am; if I am not, there's nothing I can do about it (that's what predestination means, isn't it?).
It used to be all so simple, singing hymns etc in church but now I only see the divisions.
Estelle,
Predestination means nothing of the kind. The post is rather long I have a link to in a previous comment, but it explains that.
Though good Christians disagree, God calls all to come and Jesus wept over Jerusalem, over those lost sheep who would experience judgment at the hands of Rome in 70 AD. Scripture/ God's word never lets us hide behind election or predestination as any excuse. And even many Calvinists say they can't be sure they're one of God's elect/predestined until they've finally persevered to the end and are in heaven. But the book of 1 John in the New Testament is written in large part in order that we may KNOW we have eternal life, the life that is in the Son, Jesus.
We can't hide behind God's will, and God wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2).
We need to hear God's call for us in Jesus. Only those who respond are the chosen. We see over and over that God convicts people but people choose for themselves, either life or death. The choice is ours. Life in Jesus, or death left to ourselves and our sins.
So friend, again like I said, in the end we have to look to Jesus. Look at Jesus as we have in the gospels. Read the entire New Testament (I know, that takes time :) . All of us Christians agree with this. Salvation is found in him, and after we come to faith, we're to live a life of continued faith in him.
Grace, Estelle. Grace in Jesus is offered to all.
So none of us can hide behind anything. We're all held responsible before God to accept God's word of condemnation of us in our sins, and then to accept God's word of forgiveness and new life in Jesus. Salvation is a gift from God in Jesus, and we must receive it with empty hands, knowing we're undeserving, but also knowing that God loves us and calls us back, in the One he has elected, Jesus. And when we place our faith in Jesus, commmiting our lives to him, we are in the Elect One.
Being "in Jesus" is the key for us all.
Ted, thank you but I don't want to be compared to a sheep. I am a simple girl. I don't say that I am an atheist but I don't feel any calling and I feel I am drifting away.
LiL Luther will disagree with you and then we will be back to square one.
Estelle,
Ted and I agree on many things. Even when it comes down to our fierce disagreement on predestination, we actually have more agreement than meets the eye. For instance, both of us would agree that no one will be damned because God didn’t allow them to come to Him. When Ted says, “Those in Scripture who end up lost clearly are those who have chosen that for themselves.” I completely agree. God does not force anyone to go to Hell. They end up there of their own freewill. I agree with Ted on this. Jesus opens His arms wide to the whole world and says “Come.” Both of us would agree to this point. It is when we get to the finer points of just how they come, how they are enabled to come, that’s where we look at it differently.
I know it can get confusing, and we Christians do disagree on several things: Ted can quote the text, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son…” (John 3:16) and I could quote that the Bible also says of God, “You hate all workers of iniquity.” (Psalm 5:5). Ted can speak of foreknowledge in the context of election, and I can explain that the Old Testament understands foreknowledge as “to forelove”. Ted can say to the unbelievers at this site, “God holds nothing against any of you, because of what he has done in his Son, Jesus.” But I will vehemently disagree and say that the ever-present wrath of God (not His love!) abides on all who do not come to Jesus Christ! (John 3:36). Even when it comes to mutual heroes like Charles Spurgeon, we will find disagreement. Ted tells us that Spurgeon avoided [my] error. Yet, I know Spurgeon said of my belief system, I quote him here: “It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.”
And of course Ted and I disagree about sharing issues of Predestination with unbelievers. But I believe the whole Word of God is useful. I am bent toward doing things the way they did it in Protestantism a few hundred years ago: Unbelievers came to the church, waited upon the Lord, hoping that they are one of the elect. Quite simply, Ted and I are different people, but where we are exactly the same is that we both have an undying love for Jesus Christ. We both happily call ourselves one of His sheep.
But I will speak like Ted for a moment to you, Estelle. You give excuses about not knowing if you are one of the elect, one of the saved, yet all the while Jesus says to you as He does to every human being: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28) And: “The one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” (John 6:37)
Jesus has offered salvation to all—including you Estelle—every single human being: elect, reprobate, saved and unsaved alike. But if YOU don’t come, and YOU don’t want to be one of Jesus’ sheep, who is really to blame for YOUR eternal destiny??? Ted and I both would say “you are to blame”. Though Ted and I are at opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to the topic of Predestination, neither of us would blame God for the choices you make. We both agree: Anyone who ends up in Hell has only their self to blame, and anyone who ends up in Heaven has only Jesus to thank.
Ted,
You are so wrong about Charles Spurgeon, I feel compelled to include an extended quote of Spurgeon here. He clearly believed "election" should be included when preaching the Gospel:
"The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, 'Salvation is of the Lord.' That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, 'He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.' I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. 'He only is my rock and my salvation.' Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, 'God is my rock and my salvation.' What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ-the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross."
Lit'l Luther,
Okay, You may be right, though when Spurgeon preached the gospel he make it known that the invitation was open to all.
Of course what Spurgeon is saying if you take it in a way in which I refuse to take it completely, anyhow, is that neither John Wesley nor Billy Graham really preached the gospel. That's why I refuse to take Spurgeon that way. Let's include D.L. Moody another great evangelist through whom many came to Christ. He loved Spurgeon's book on grace, entitled something like, "All of Grace," but was himself, not a Calvinist if being a five point Calvinist is the criteria for being one.
Of course I'm not a Calvinist, and I still much appreciate Spurgeon and know he preached the true gospel of God's grace in Christ, just as Wesley, Graham, Moody and others.
We need to major on what we agree on. We agree it's by grace we're saved through faith, and that not of ourselves. It is the gift of God, not by works so that none of us can boast! And we agree that salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone, that there is no other name under heaven given to us, except that name, by which we must be saved.
Thanks for the quote from Spurgeon. Maybe we should carry this debate to another place, though this is not my blog, so I can't say. I'd be glad to engage it elsewhere. Much more needs to be said, but I'm afraid we're muddying up the waters for those who are not Christians here.
Remember, it's Jesus Christ and him crucified that we must remember and proclaim! And I know you agree with that, brother.
Every person has a choice to make:
1. Do you want to come to Jesus and find God’s love, forgiveness and mercy?
Or:
2. Do you want to reject Jesus and find God’s hate, wrath and retribution?
There is no third option. Make your choice. It’s yours to make.
"Alive? Didn't Jesus die on the cross to save us all?" -Estelle
Yes He did. But He was raised back to life on Easter Sunday, and He's been alive ever since, with His Father in heaven!
I'm sure you must have sung about the risen Lord Jesus in the hymns you used to sing, didn't you ?
How about this one:
"Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!
our triumphant holy day, Alleluia!
who did once upon the cross, Alleluia!
suffer to redeem our loss. Alleluia!
Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia!
unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia!
who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia!
sinners to redeem and save. Alleluia!
But the pains which he endured, Alleluia!
our salvation have procured, Alleluia!
now above the sky he's King, Alleluia!
where the angels ever sing. Alleluia!"
Estelle, thanks for pronouncing my name correctly. :-)
Regarding Calvinism and Arminianism, I doubt these theological divisions will exist in heaven. My love and respect for Ted or Lil Luther is not less just because they are not the same as me.
My point about none emerging from the womb with a mature faith is that I did not always believe the same way I do today. At one point, I was un-interested, and then even rebellious against Christianity. Despite that, God did not give me what was fair, but instead chose to redeem me by His grace. He changed my heart, and I believed. NEVER ask God for fairness; ask for grace instead.
Amen, (Lt'l Luther)-Triston, Don and Craver. Amen, brothers. Amen!
Amen, to you, too, Ted, for you said: "We agree it's by grace we're saved through faith, and that not of ourselves. It is the gift of God, not by works so that none of us can boast! And we agree that salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone, that there is no other name under heaven given to us, except that name, by which we must be saved."
This is our mutual faith. It is the faith of Triston, Ted, Don, Craver, Susan and every Christian. Amen.
What about us Catholics? On Bluecollar's blog I am beyond the pale because I am a Catholic.
Why is it difficult for non-Catholics to disbelieve transubstantiation but believe whole heartedly in Maalie's inter-continental swimming kangaroos.
Yes Estelle, it is all metaphor. Jesus spoke in parables, and there are so many different interpretations to these. It depends on your branch of the 'Church'. I think most of Genesis is metaphor too, but I think Genesis is a lesson about how we should be living our lives; in other words don't mess it up.
What I can't cope with are the sort of Christians who pin you against the wall and ask you if you are saved. How on earth do we know if we are saved? Jesus had no time for the smug, self-satisified Pharisees who thought they knew it all and thought they were the elect. He loved the humble and dare I say the runcible.
Quotes like 'he who is first shall be last and he who is last shall be first' spring to mind.
Lorenzo,
My Grand mother is 81, a Roman Catholic and I believe her faith in Him is genuine. I truly believe she is saved. She doesn't use words that Protestants use. She doesn't call herself born again or saved. But I believe she is because her faith in Jesus is real.
I'm sure there are saved and unsaved people in both Catholic and Protestant churches. But why shouldn't we back you against a wall, Lorenzo? Jesus certainly did that. He expected people to put Him first in their lives. To be His disciple, you must put Jesus before your family, before parents, before children, before everyone. He must be more important to you than your success; more important than your own life. Jesus has to be number one in your life if you want to belong to Him. Is He? You have to love Jesus more than your very own life. Do you?
Lorenzo, the following is a quote from Jesus. Read it and then try and tell me Jesus didn't expect everything from you. Anyone who is unwilling to give up everything to follow Jesus Christ should doubt whether they belong to Him:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple....In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26,27,33
The idea of "hate" here is that our love for Jesus should be so much stronger than our love for anyone or anything else that it is like hate in comparison to our love for Jesus. He must be number one in your life or you can't belong to Him. It is that simple.
BTW: I don't recall the Pharisees ever saying a single word about election, but Jesus said a great deal. I'll happily provide quotes from Him on that subject too if you want.
Luther: the word election is always subject to translation. We can make what we will of anything by different translations.
The point is I cannot believe that everyone who thinks they are 'saved' are saved per se. As Jesus himself says, everyone who calls me Lord will not be welcome in the Kingdom.
Also if we are to do what Jesus said, how many rich Americans (and British, Nepalese, Australian etc. etc.) would there be? Dare I ask whether you have given everything you own to the poor? No, of course I daren't because that is too nosey!
I have heard so many phoney excuses about not giving up all we own. Things like '... er, well it's only the LOVE of money that's important, not the owning of it'.
I just don't see that being saved is a foregone conclusion. Like Estelle, I get very confused, but if all this being elect is correct, then I fervently pray that I will understand.
The elect do not necessarily have to understand election to be saved. What matters most about election is that God knows whom He has chosen. I believe that theology an important, useful and worthy pursuit, but nowhere does God's word say that we have to connect all the dots and have all the answers in exchange for atonement for sins and entering into a right relationship with him.
About poverty though, I think it's a critical element of salvation to come to terms with our personal spiritual bankruptcy. We don't brazenly expect God to accept us because of who we are or what we've done. We need to be able to admit that by God's standards, the best we can muster up amounts to nothing, a worthless pile of filthy rags. God saves by His own accomplishments, not ours. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, and there is nothing that any human can add to that "altar" without defiling it.
When we place our trust, not in ourselves, but in God, that is not arrogant or foolish. He is faithful and true. And what does He ask from us, except that we believe.
John ("the disciple whom Jesus loved") writes in his letter, "I write these things to you who believe in the Son of God that you may know that you are saved." He didn't say that you have to understand how it all works, but nevertheless, we have enough that we can know it's true.
Craver,I wish there were more humble Christians like you. I do understand what you say and it is refreshing to hear it.
As for povety, Mother Theresa owned a bucket and a sari when she died. AND she had grave doubts about her own belief. What a woman!
If one knows the teachings of Christ on poverty, then it is surely not enough to say, "well I believe that Jesus is the son of God, therefore I am saved" without acting out his teaching? Is is right to hang on to your bundles of rags when others are naked? Is it right to eat off the fat of the land when others are starving?
These are the issues I struggle with. By an accident of birth we are in wealthy western countries. Oh Poor You, I can hear the Africans crying.
This conversation has been sweet and civil, and I appreciate that.
You're right 'Renzo, in that our actions are a good indicator of what we really believe. But social action can be confusing if it precedes a bent knee. Not that we can't help fund water purification systems unless we're first baptized, confirmed, etc. But the churches I've been to have been very active about areas where we can have an influence. Right now, we're working hard to care for women who have unplanned pregnancies, and sending aid for the Philippines, since they can't even afford to buy rice these days. One of the gals in my Sunday School class is preparing to go to Africa, and there are others who are going other places where they are needed. Even dangerous places! But here is something I cannot stress enough:
Social action, apart from salvation is the kind of thing Jesus was talking about, which you have already mentioned. "Lord, Lord. Did I not do such and so forth? And Jesus will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you.""
First things first. Jesus is God and therefore must be absolutely preeminent. After that, we can (and should) sort all these other things out.
"lost sheep back into the fold"
yes it is important.
My uncle is a farmer and he says its important so you can make money out of its wool,and then butcher it when its use by date is up...
Frankly thats how I see religions....
I would only return to the "fold" if I knew I could get a good return on the sheep I can get back into the pen and make some money out of it/them....
PS and why should we send aid to other countries?
Surely its suvival of the fittest??
pps- I rather spend money saving Whales.....
#1 - Those photos of the Smokies are awesome! (I'm assuming you found them online, though.)
#2 - I'm glad you'll both be home soon!
#3 - How on earth did you get 43 comments in one day?
Lorenzo,
You are free to ask me anything you wish. It does not offend me. And No. I haven’t given all I own to the poor. I’m not sure if I’ve even given 1% to the poor. But you are misunderstanding what Jesus said. You could have two people: one is saved and is as rich as Donald Trump. And one who is lost and yet has given everything away like Mother Theresa. Giving away all you own won’t save you! If Mother Theresa (and I am not making any judgments on her; she is just a good example), but if Mother Theresa gave up all she had in the hope that it would make her right with God, she has no hope of salvation! There is only one sacrifice that can make us right with God: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.
As I said before, Jesus must be first in our lives. That means holding everything we have (possessions, family, life, etc) in open hands before God. We must be willing to give up anything for Him. He wants our hearts, not our money. He doesn’t need our money. He wants our hearts. Now, he may very well ask you or me to give up something (or everything!) precious to us. That’s because he wants first place in our hearts. If, for instance, our money is more important to us than God is, then our money is an idol—our money is a god we worship. And in that case, He may very well say “Give away all your money and come follow me.” He may say give up that job. Give up drinking. Give up this; give up that. And if we do actually sacrifice that at His feet, He may very well give it back to you or me. That’s how it works. He must have first place in our hearts, and He will ask us to sacrifice anything and anyone that we put before Him. It is not about simply giving to the poor. Doing so will not get you even one step closer to God. Of course, if He asks you to, you should do it; because you want Him first in your life, and you should do it out of gratitude for the salvation Jesus has provided for us, but not to save yourself.
To give to the poor to save ourselves would actually be sin! In effect we would be saying, “Jesus, your sacrifice is not sufficient to save me. I must do this to save myself.” It would be sin against the Son of God. If there was anything we could do to save ourselves, then Jesus would have died in vain. “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:21)
“Righteousness” is our right standing before God. The “Law” is God’s commandments. Think of the 10 commandments or how Jesus explained them: loving God with all our heart and loving our neighbor as our self. The things we do (even the keeping of God’s commandments) can never make us right with God. If it could, then Jesus wasted His time dying. We do things, such as obey God’s commandments or give to the poor, out of gratitude for the salvation Jesus has wrought on the cross, not to save ourselves.
I’ll say it again, if even Mother Theresa gave up all she had in order to save her self, then everything she did was sin—an insult to Jesus Christ and His death. There is nothing we can do to save ourselves that has not already been done on our behalf by the Son of God. Put Him first in your life. Do what He asks you to do. Look nowhere else for salvation but to Jesus. And as Craver pointed out regarding the Apostle John quote: You can indeed know that you are saved and have eternal life. “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13). God’s Spirit will give you that great assurance once you have submitted your life and heart to Jesus Christ. I can promise you that assurance will be yours if you truly give your life to Jesus. It is God’s promise: “You will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 29:13-14)
I agree. that is why I give nothing to the poor at all....Its actually their fault 'cause they don't belive in Salvation and the prosperity doctrine.
That is also why I pay tens of thousands of dollars to kill endangerd species 'cause god gave me dominion over the earth...
And I could not think of anything worse than having eternal life...
waffling on, sing songs of praise blah blah blah.....
:o)
Anyway. here is a song that is truely great and sung by one of the few guys I had a lot of respect for Keith Green.....
Grace by which I stand.
Lord, the feelings are not the same,
I guess Im older, I guess Ive changed.
And how I wish it had been explained, that as you're growing you must remember,
That nothing lasts, except the grace of God, by which I stand, in Jesus.
I know that I would surely fall away, except for grace, by which Im saved.
Lord, I remember that special way,
I vowed to serve you, when it was brand new.
But like Peter, I cant even watch and pray, one hour with you,
And I bet, I could deny you too.
But nothing lasts, except the grace of God, by which I stand, in Jesus.
Im sure that my whole life would waste away, except for Grace, by which Im saved.
But nothing lasts, except the grace of God, by which I stand, in Jesus.
I know that I would surely fall away, except for Grace, by which Im saved.
Simon,
I wasn't saying don't give to the poor. Jesus said, "You have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good." (Mark 14:7)
Giving to the poor is something we don't even need to pray about. We can do it whenever we wish and know we have God's blessing. I was saying something completely different, and I don't think I need to rehash what that was. I was pretty clear in my post to Lorenzo.
Good song, by the way. Keith Green is a great man. (I say "is" rather than "was" because he still is. He's alive and well with the Lord.)
Transubstantiation:
Lorenzo, it is not difficult for Protestants to believe in transubstantiation. The Bible is full of the miraculous. Transubstantiation would not give us trouble in the least if we believed it biblical. The main problem we have is whether it lines up with Scripture. At the Mass, Roman Catholics believe the bread and wine becomes the literal body and blood of Jesus, and it is at that time that the Catholic Priest "sacrifices" Jesus' literal body and blood. We have grave problems with that because the Bible teaches the following: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:10-14)
Many of us Protestants (including me) believe that when we take communion it is “spiritually” the body and blood of Christ. But the idea of repeatedly sacrificing Jesus in the Mass is completely unbiblical. All Christians make mistakes, including me. All of us have errors in our theology. None of us are perfect. The "sacrifice" of the Catholic Mass is one of those errors. Will a lack of perfect theology keep people out of Heaven? Of course not, or none of us would get there! I don't at all believe the Catholic belief in transubstantiation will keep Catholics out of Heaven. But what will keep both Catholics and Protestants out of Heaven is works-based salvation. People who believe their own goodness and good works will get them to Heaven are the very people who will end up in Hell. True Christians (whether Catholic or Protestants) are those who look to Jesus ALONE to save them. Everyone else will be excluded because there is no salvation available expect in Jesus Christ. So we who believe in Jesus cling to Him for our very life, for that is what He is. There is no life outside of Him.
Litl Luther and Ted,
my point is that you two disagree (violently) over something biblical. Which means one of you is wrong. Which means you could be wrong on anything.
Luther: Transubstantiation - It is Biblical in as far as Jesus said 'this IS my body' and 'this IS my blood'. He said nothing about symbols. That's good enough for me.
There are quite a few things about churches that are not Biblical. The New Testament was only put together a few hundred years after Christ's death. The early Church is very different from today's Church. The Church has evolved, just like creation has.
Mother Theresa is a bad example to use about grace through works. She did what her conscience told her too. I don't think she gave any thought to her own glory. I hope she is cannonized.
Simon - you make me laugh so much you runcible man you!
You still need Jesus Estelle. Ted and I are both right about that. We all need Him....I'm not sure why you speak of violence because Ted and I would probably be willing to die for one another.
You shouldn't expect "perfection" out of me, Ted or any other person. If you want to find perfection go to "The Truth". Jesus calls two things "truth": Himself and the Bible (He also calls the Author of the Bible--the Holy Spirit--the truth, but I don't want to overload you with verses).
Himself:
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father expect through me." (John 14:6)
Anything or anyone that contradicts Jesus is a lie for He is truth incarnate.
Scripture:
Jesus prays to the Father, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). This verse is interesting because Jesus does not use an adjective “true”, which we might have expected, to say, “Your word is true.” Rather, He uses a noun, “truth”, to say that God’s Word is not simply “true,” but it is truth itself. The difference is significant, for this statement encourages us to think of the Bible not simply as being “true” in the sense that it conforms to some higher standard of truth, but rather to think of the Bible as being itself the final standard of truth. The Bible is God’s Word, and God’s Word is the ultimate definition of what is true and what is not true: God’s Word is itself truth.
So while Ted and I both are sure to make mistakes from time to time, God's Word remains true and the defining of truth. And Jesus remains truth incarnate and anything or anyone that goes against Him is a lie. You still need Jesus Estelle. That fact remains true not matter how much debating Ted and I might do!
Lorenzo,
I believe it is more than symbolic, too. I believe it is “spiritually” His body and blood. Interestingly when Jesus said those words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” He hadn’t died yet! It could only have been spiritually His body and blood when He said those words because He had not sacrificed Himself yet. Moreover, in John 6 when He went into a long discourse about our need to feed on His body and blood, He ended that whole discourse saying “The words that I speak to you are spirit”. (John 6:63). It seems to me the most biblical way to understand Jesus' words, therefore, is that the Lord’s Supper is not merely a symbol (i.e. Baptists are wrong), nor is it transubstantiation (i.e. Roman Catholics are wrong), but it is spiritually His body and blood....But if you want to believe it is physically His body and blood, more power to you. I don’t think it is worth arguing about to be honest.
I'm not arguing Luther. I don't think it matters what each person believes because we only see a tiny portion of the truth, through a glass darkly.
I have never been an evangalist. Each person believes what is right for them, be it atheism, Buddhism, Christianity etc. etc. No one has the monopoly of truth, we only see just a tiny part now and again.
Luther: can you explain to me, simply if possible, what exactly the Heresy of Rome is? Is it something to do with Galileo or has it something to do with something the Pope said about 'fundamentalists'?
Hi Lorenzo,
THE HERESY OF ROME:
It’s a very difficult topic to keep simple because it is a theological one, but I’ll do my best. The heresy of Rome has to do with the doctrine of justification. Justification is very important because it has to do with becoming acceptable in God’s sight. Martin Luther believed “Justification is the article upon which the Church stands or falls.” It is the issue of justification that divided the Church.
The Roman Catholic Church taught that we are justified in God’s sight by both the merits of Christ and by our own merits. However, Martin Luther and the other Reformers believed that we are justified by Christ’s merits alone—not our own. How do we become righteous (acceptable) in God’s sight? This was the question of the day. The Roman Catholic Church taught “infused” righteousness—meaning God gives us grace to be better people and thus we become meritorious of salvation by the good things we do. Martin Luther and the Reformers rejected the “infused” righteousness doctrine of Rome and taught rather that those who put their faith in Jesus are “declared” righteous. That God, like a judge, slams down the gavel and says to the sinner who has put his\her faith in Jesus “You are without sin; you are righteous in my sight.” The Reformers taught that Christ’s righteousness (His goodness; His holiness) is imputed (credited) to us. We are not righteous ourselves but God gives us Jesus’ righteousness freely as a gift, so that when He sees the one who has faith in Jesus, He doesn’t see their sin, He sees the perfect righteousness of His Son.
The reason we believe the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine is heresy is because they taught: “Christ’s death + our own good works = salvation.” But we believe that the Bible teaches that we cannot add anything to the work of Christ. We can just receive the salvation He has fully accomplished for us on the cross. This is why the great cry of the Reformation was “Christ alone”; “Grace alone”, “Faith alone”. We refuse to believe anything we do can merit salvation. Of course, the Reformers also taught that true Christians do good works but it is “the fruit” of salvation not the cause of salvation.
The Heresy of Rome is documented in the official Roman Catholic Council of Trent decrees (which were Rome’s reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformers). It is where the Roman Catholic Church “officially” advocated heresy. And we do believe it to be grievous heresy, not a small matter, but rather one that touches the very heart of the Christian Gospel. And unfortunately to this day the Church still has not recanted. This, by the way, is the reason I left the Roman Catholic Church (I was raised in it till I was 20. I became a believer, and I read these very same Trent decrees in the back of our family Catholic Bible. I went to a Priest about it. He was defensive and confirmed that it was and still is the faith of the Church. But when I read these decrees, the Roman Catholic Church was telling me I should go to Hell if I put my faith in Jesus alone to save me. From that time onward I was a Protestant. Below are a few of the Trent decrees:
"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, let him be anathema.
"If anyone should say that justifying faith is nothing other than a trust in God's mercy remitting sins on account of Christ or that it is simply trust itself by which we are justified, let him be anathema."
"If anyone says that men are justified either by the mere imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or simply by remission of sins, without grace and charity, which is diffused in their hearts and inheres in them through the Holy Ghost, or even that the grace by which we are justified is simply a favor of God, let him be anathema."
Wow that is all a bit deep. Thank you for explaining. I still don't think it matters too much as it's what's in your heart that is important. As I said earlier, we understand so little, through the old glass darkly!
Good discussion going on here.
Sin is not tolerated by God. he will punish it.
We think sin isn't that big of a deal. I know i do.
But the Lord will call all of us to give an account for every sin. Every thought, every word, and every deed that is sin will be counted for.
Personally I have 100's of thousands of sins. i haven't a chance.
But God made a way. He, the holy Creator of every star, planet, moon, and hill and tree, took on His own creation, and became man. He did this in order to become our substitute. He willed to forgive, and show mercy to sinners, by becoming a sin offering for our sins.
He did this through Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, the Christ. Who is now the risen Lord of the universe, who calls to all humans to come to Him for forgiveness for their sins.
May those of us who have been forgiven, and know the mercy of Christ be even more grateful.
And may those who have never cried out for the mercy of Jesus christ do so tonight. This is my prayer. Amen.
Wow,
I can't believe it. Duck my head away from this blog for a few days and it's like reading a chapter in a book to catch up.
I'll go upstairs, get some black coffee, and do some catch up here in a bit.
Lorenzo, Estelle, Simon and anyone I may have missed who is discussing this with Lt'l Luther, Craver, Don, myself-
I add my "Amen!"
Lt'l Luther, Craver and Don have said it well!
No two people are going to see eye to eye on everything so that makes the unity we have in Jesus even more compelling.
I love what Lt'l Luther, Craver and Don have said- about the gospel. I underscore my AMEN to it.
We need Jesus and when we come to Jesus we receive life with and in Jesus. It's all in Jesus. He is the way, the truth and the life by whom alone, we come to the Father (John 14:6). By faith, just as we are. Just rest in him, depend on him, place your life in his hands.
God is faithful, even when we are not. He will answer every prayer in which we trust in his promise to us in Jesus. The promise of forgiveness of sins and a new life. The promise that Jesus our Shepherd will be with us his sheep in loving, tender care, to the very end. That he will guide us and give us all we need as we hear his voice and follow him, beginning now, and forever.
Lorenzo,
This issue DOES matter. Peoples’ eternal destiny hangs in the balance on this issue.
But just because the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church 450 years ago was heresy, and they still haven’t recanted, it does NOT mean that all Roman Catholics hold to that teaching today. For example, the Priest at my Grand Mother’s Church (Father Tom) has said on a few occasions during Mass and while talking to me, that Martin Luther was right and the Church was wrong. There will always be people like Father Richard Lobert (the priest I talked to about justification many years ago) who will hold to the old heresy of Rome. And I’ll tell you the truth; those who do hold to it (those who believe that “Christ’s death, plus our good works, equals salvation) will be condemned. The only hope those people could possibly have is if they were sinless and as perfect as God Himself. THAT is the standard. Jesus commanded us, “Be perfect, just as Your Father in Heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) This is what is required of us. Jesus tells us that if we want to go to Heaven on our own merits we must be as perfect as God, and then we can go. But who could measure up to such an impossible standard?? What hope could any of us possibly have? JESUS!! He is God. And He is as perfect as God. And we who have placed our trust in Jesus have been accounted as perfect in God’s sight. We have been gifted with Jesus’ perfection. Without it, there’s no hope. And that’s why “Jesus death + our good works = Nothing!” Our supposed good works will condemn us—not save us.
But most Roman Catholics today do not know what the old Protestant\Catholic debate was about. And EVERY Catholic who genuinely look to Jesus to save them WILL be saved. It does not matter what church you go to. What matters is who you put your faith in: Do you put your faith in Jesus or in yourself? Believe me; it is not just some Roman Catholics who are making the mistake of putting faith in their own good works. There are plenty of Protestants too who are trusting in their own goodness to save them. And unless they repent and put their faith in Jesus alone to save them, they will be condemned, for God does not grade on a curve. You want to enter His presence? Then you MUST be as perfect as He is. Jesus is therefore our ONLY hope.
Luther: do you ever go to bed? Every time I click on there is another comment from you! I ducked out at 10.15 last night and went to bed. Nepal is about five hours ahead and you are still posting!
You do seem to assume I am basing my life of good works only.
Thoughts are sins? Well yes if you nurture and nourish nasty thoughts, but thoughts come and go without our permission. How can these be sins. Buddhists teach letting thoughts drift through our minds without holding on or pushing away.
Are dreams sin too? Some things cannot be helped. It is part of our humanity.
"Thoughts are sins?"
"I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." _Jesus Christ
The human heart is wicked beyond belief. I know, because I know my own heart.
But God changes hearts. And though He comes to make His abode with a human heart, through the Holy Spirit, and makes this heart new, the humanness, the sinfulness of the heart is not eradicated. there's still the remnant of wickedness.
So we now fight agianst the lusts of our hearts, where as before we didn't. Or if we did, it was for self-focused reasons, not because they offend Christ our Lord.
We have a problem as humans. We sin. We then try to justify it by either saying, "I feel bad about what I did". And wanting others to acknowledge our self effort of humility. Or we simply say, "I'm a sinner, and I don't really care what others think.
Who can deliver us from this body of death?!
Jesus Christ can, and shall rescue all who call upon His name.
If you look at a woman and lust after her, that is your decision.
You could try looking at her without lust.
Or if you can't help lusting, you don't have to 'feed' the lust by continually thinking about it.
Wasn't it you Donsands who referred to Luther's new born baby as 'a bundle of sin'?
A new born baby, utterly innocent and uncorrupted?
Hi Lorenzo,
I didn't sleep much last night. I wrote my last post to you at 2:30am, but then had to be out of the house by 8am to get petrol. The last time I was able to get any petrol was on 13 June, four days after Samuel was born. They were rationing the fuel this morning, only giving 10 liters per car, but the line was shorter than I've seen it in the last 2 months, so I got in line three times and was finally able to get our car filled up. Jaya, baby Samuel and I all went out and celebrated as a result! I'm serious. That's why we went out to lunch in celebration of finally getting some fuel in our car.
It was me, Samuel's Dad, who called him an adorable bundle of sin. I know is a harsh, kind of extreme statement, but I use them sometimes to make a point. Besides, you of all people, as a Catholic, should be aware that children aren't innocent. That is why the Roman Catholic Church baptizes babies because the Church believes infants are not innocent, and could not go to Heaven if they died un-baptized.
"Or if you can't help lusting, you don't have to 'feed' the lust by continually thinking about it."
That would be nice. Also Jesus talked about murder. And how to hate someone, or to even call one a fool, is sin.
But the greatest of all sins is when we disobey the greatest of all commands from God, i would think.
God's Word says we must love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. And then to love everyone else, as we love ourselves. Ane even love our enemies.
I fail every day.
But if I only sinned once, it would be as Adam's one sin, when he disobeyed God. I would be seperated from God's presence.
Until one sees sin as evil as it is, then one will not see the need for forgiveness, and a Savior.
That's how I used to think. But now God has opened my eyes, so that i see His wrath against sin as right and just. And sin as evil, and God hates it, and will judge every sin.
Either in His Son, Jesus Christ, or in the person who rejects Christ's gift of forgiveness.
Glad you got your petrol. It was a bit like that when I stayed with my daughter in Spain a few months ago, but not quite as bad as you are having it. Diesel was the really difficult thing to get and as her van only took diesel we were often stuck!
I think original sin is not literally carrying sin from Adam and Eve but the fact that we are capable of committing the worst atrocities. Crowd madness etc.
Anyway, is original sin Biblical. It was a Jewish thing I think. I know Jews who do a sort of Baptisimal thing but they don't call it that. Can't think what they call it at the moment.
What was John babtising for? Does it actually say it is 'original sin'.?
The first time I had questions about original sin, I was told to be careful, because I was in danger of the Pelagian Heresy. The doctrine of original sin is one that I accept, and it has been cumulatively reinforced. But to date, I have not been satisfied with any single teacher's exposition of it. I doubt that we will do it justice here. More likely than not, it will serve as a catalyst for more verbiage.
Funny, how we moved from Halfmom's Tennessee vacation to these heavy tangents.
Those are beautiful photos - I especially love the blue mountains. Are they still blue when you get closer?
Have a wonderful time
My goodness what happens when I don't have internet access for a few days!
I'll be back to read each comment individually after I've caught back up on my sleep just a bit - but we're safely home, back in Chicago.
Thanks for all the discussion while I've been away - I'll look forward to reading it - and posting some pictures that, hopefully, show the lovely blue of the mountains.
Litl Luther, and especially Estelle,
I haven't read through all 70 posts concerning the matter, but I will say this: Luther himself did not believe that someone needed to know whether or not(s)he had faith in order to have faith. We are called to trust Jesus Christ as the sole savior for sinners, and to trust the Word which reveals him.
The defunct but all-too-common logic goes like this:
A: All who believe in Jesus will be saved.
B: I believe in Jesus Christ.
Therefore: I am saved.
The problem is that we were never called to KNOW if we believe, though this "self-reflective faith" is part of many Christians' lives. We are called to trust Jesus Christ and the truth of God's Word. God's Word proclaims us condemned sinners by nature, but it also promises free and complete forgiveness and being made new in Jesus. We should think of it this way:
A: I am a sinner under God's wrath, doomed to the old order of life (because God's Word says so).
B: Jesus is the perfect Savior for sinners, making peace with God and bringing me into newness of life.
Therefore: I am saved, reconciled to God, and possess newness of life.
This "logic of faith," if I may call it that, is squarely what Luther taught, and I believe it's what the Bible itself teaches. Such logic DOES mean we take God's Word and the person/work of Jesus at face value and believe all its truth--this is FAITH. But it does NOT demand that we are aware of our own faith, i.e., that we believe in and trust in our own faith itself. Our own emotions and commitments will vacillate, turn, and fail; but Jesus himself and the promises of God remain ever sure.
"A: I am a sinner under God's wrath, doomed to the old order of life (because God's Word says so).
B: Jesus is the perfect Savior for sinners, making peace with God and bringing me into newness of life.
Therefore: I am saved, reconciled to God, and possess newness of life."
Excuse me; let me add that the minor premise (B) is also because God's Word says so. I only know and believe I'm a sinner because the Word tells me so; likewise, I only believe Jesus is my Savior and Lord because God's Word proclaims that he is such. It's never a matter of what I feel or experience, or what I'm able to introspectively determine about myself. I either accept God's Word or I don't. Accepting it as truth and relying on it with all my heart and soul IS faith itself.
Can't argue with that Andrew. Lucky old you for being granted perfect faith.
Glad you are home safely Susan.
Lorenzo,
Original Sin is quite biblical and extremely important. Romans 5 deals with it extensively.
There are three imputations or "creditings" in the Bible, and they are all of vital importance to our faith:
1: Adam’s guilt has been “imputed” to the human race.
2: Our guilt has been "imputed" to Christ.
3: Christ’s righteousness has been "imputed" to us who believe.
Original Sin is an important issue to the faith of Christians. We are guilty, both by virtual of Adam's sin and by virtue of our own. However, Christ bore ours and Adam’s sin on the cross. Jesus took our sin upon Himself and now freely gives His perfect righteousness to those that put their faith in Him.
The imputation of Adam's sin to us, the imputation of our sin to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us are all crucial and inseparably connected in Christian faith.
The above may sound a bit deep or even unimportant to some, but I don't believe there is a more important topic for us than that Christ has taken upon Himself our sin and has given us His perfect righteousness. Moreover, Romans 5 clearly attaches these two crucial issues with the topic of Original Sin. Thus, Original Sin must never be discarded by Christians.
Can I hear an "Amen", anyone?
Luther: if Christ has taken on Adam's sin as well as ours, then surely we are free of original sin? If so, do we still need Baptism?
Christ took the "guilt" of Adam but we are not free of the "affects" of the Fall. If we were, people would have the potential of living sinless lives, but everyone sins.
Christ's death only benefits those who put their trust in Him. It does not benefit those who die denying Him (I'm NOT pointing the finger at you, by the way).
Yes. Baptism is necessary, if for no other reason than because we are commanded by Christ to be baptized.
The Doctrine of Inherited (Original) Sin
1: Inherited Guilt
-Romans 5:12f
2: The human race was probated in Adam (ie. established legal validity of all our guilt.)
-Romans 5:18-19
3: Inherited Pollution
-Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3; Ephesians 2:3
I'm passionate about this subject because of its connection with the other imputations in the Bible. In fact, I would like to write a doctoral thesis on the three imputations in Scripture (Adam’s guilt imputed to the human race; our guilt imputed to Christ; and Christ’s righteousness imputed to us).
" I would like to write a doctoral thesis on the three imputations"
Sounds good bro.
BTW, Llama, do you believe Jesus, who died, and was buried, rose from the dead?
And if you believe Christ rose from death, what does that mean to you personally, if you don't mind me intruding a bit.
BTW, I appreciate your sharing from your heart. God bless.
Llama: "Can't argue with that Andrew. Lucky old you for being granted perfect faith."
Hardly! Just ask my girlfriend, and she'll tell you I don't have perfect faith, whatever that would be. What would perfect faith even be like?
Andrew: Thanks.
Regarding faith, I greatly appreciate what Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology has to say:
“The essence of true faith is taking God at His word and relying on Him to do as He has promised.” P. 195
“Faith is the one human attitude that is the opposite of depending on oneself, for it involves trust in or dependence upon another. Thus, it is devoid of self-reliance or attempts to gain righteousness by human effort. If God’s favor is to come to us apart from our own merit, then it must come when we depend not on our own merit but on the merits of another, and that is precisely when we have faith.” P. 201
Lornzo, what is all this about swimming kangaroos? I didn't know they could swim.
Faith is believeing in something for which there is no evidence. It's only another word for delusion. People had faith that the world is flat once.
P.S. I absolutely do not believe that the human race started with Adam an Eve. That is just a fairy story.
Estelle,
I'll pass your message on to Adam that you don't believe he ever existed when I meet him in Heaven. I'm sure it will give him a chuckle.
Triston
Estelle,
A characteristic of true faith is “confidence based on reliable evidence.” Faith in the existence of God shares this characteristic. There is excellent evidence of God’s existence in nature:
“The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.” (Psalm 19:1-3).
To look upward into the sky by day or by night is to see sun, moon, and stars, sky and clouds, all continually declaring by their existence and beauty and greatness that a powerful and wise Creator has made them and sustains them in their order.
In one sense everything that exists gives evidence of God’s existence. For those who have eyes to see and evaluate the evidence correctly, every leaf on every tree, every blade of grass, every star in the sky, and every other part of creation all cry out continuously, “God made me! God made me! God made me!” If our hearts and minds were not so blinded by sin, it would be impossible for us to look closely at a leaf from any tree and say, “No one created this: it just happened.” The beauty of a snowflake, the majestic power of a thunderstorm, the skill of a honeybee, the refreshing taste of cold water, the incredible abilities of the human hand—all these and thousands of other aspects of creation simply could not have come into existence apart from the activity of an all-powerful and all-wise Creator.
Thus, for those who are correctly evaluating the evidence, everything in Scripture and everything in nature proves clearly that God exists and that he is the powerful and wise Creator that Scripture describes him to be. Therefore, when we believe that God exists, we are basing our belief not on some blind hope apart from any evidence, but on an overwhelming amount of reliable evidence from God’s words and God’s works. Christian faith is based on reliable evidence.
Litl-luther, you are crazy! As we say in French "merde des torreaux"! We had an excellent biology teacher in Montpelier and she gave gave us absolute proof that mankind couldn't have come from just two people. Any more than the world was made in 7 days! LOL!
I believe in Jesus (at least I think I still do) but not most of the fairy stories in the bible!
"The Heavens are Telling the Glory of God" ... that's the most wonderful and beautiful piece from Handel's Creation.
Donsands. Of course I believe in the resurection of Christ. I'm a Catholic! I just get very confused that's all. The brainy part of me thinks that it cannot possibly be true, but then the emotional, spiritual side of me keeps on taking me to Mass, and acting 'as if'. That's all I can do.
Andrew seems to have been granted faith and I wasn't being facetious when I said he was lucky. I would love to have faith; real, proper faith like you all have. But I also believe that faith is a gift and some have it (maybe Estelle's predestined) and some struggle and some don't want and don't care.
By the way Estelle. The swimming Kangaroos. Maalie reckons that kangaroos couldn't swim across the Indian Ocean, hop across India, bounce over the Himalayas, then hop all the way to the Middle East to be rescued by the Ark. He reckons that by the time they got there, if indeed they ever did, the flood would have subsided so they would have done better to tread water and hang around Australia. I must say I have the same problems with Polar Bears and Dinasaurs getting to the Ark. My dear friend Sister Ann says the Ark was a Cruise Ark, like a liner and floated around picking up stray and drowning animals.
Anyway, I digress.
Estelle, you also say that faith is believing in something there is no evidence for. Exactly. That's what faith is. Whether or not it is a delusion cannot be answered. I think that is the whole point of faith.
Donsands asked what the resurection meant to me. Being a Catholic I don't have any problems in believing in miracles because from childhood you are taught these things, although Maalie would say, I think, that it is superstitian and I also think that has a good part of it too.
The crucifiction haunts me. I have had nightmares about it and I suppose it is wicket and ungrateful to say that I didn't want anyone to suffer such pain on my behalf. I still don't understand how all that redemption works and I have given up trying to understand. I try to take it on trust.
All I know is that when I was a little girl I couldn't sleep sometimes, worrying myself until I was physically sick. I thought that if I died in the night with just one tiny sin on my soul I would go to Hell and burn for ever. What a thing to tell little children. I think it almost amounts to child abuse. If my mother knew what the nuns were telling us I think she would have banned us from the convent. Thankfully nuns are not like that now. Father Ann is one of the most runcible females I know!
I realized I have rambled on a bit here. I didn't mean to and I certainly didn't mean to expose myself like I have done, but as I was typing it, it just 'felt' right.
In the Bible it said that Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Who did they marry?
some Say Elvis is still alive....
I wonder what they will write about him in 100years..
christians ALWAYS use the bible as the lynch pin of their arguement.
eg " Oh I KNOW the world was created in Seven days because it sayeth in the scriptures.
" and on the Seventh day he rested" (etc)...
but thats the problem- as I have said before- it gets down to how you see the book.
For me I would be happy to quote from Lord of the rings...
Bible is a great book full of fantasy, mixed with fact and history mixed with dreaming. put together ages after christ walked the earth..
and what about the chapters that were omitted?
Personlly I could not think of anything worse that a "heaven" concept...
"I realized I have rambled on a bit here. I didn't mean to and I certainly didn't mean to expose myself like I have done, but as I was typing it, it just 'felt' right." Llama
I'm glad you shared your thoughts.
Jesus Christ is risen indeed Llama. And so His testimony is something we need to take very serious.
Keep on reading, studying, and meditating on the Scriptures, which tell us about Christ, and what He asks of us, and charges us.
I remember years ago I yelled, and yelled at God to show Himself. A few years later I was sitting in a detention center with a DUI. And this time I simply cried out for Jesus. And over the next few months He changed my life around. He changed the way I talked, lived, and thought.
He's real. I actually love Him, and I've never seen Him. The reason I love Him? Because He first loved me, and gave Himself for me.
What a savior!
Have a good night.
Hi Lorenzo,
I really appreciate your openness and willingness to share your heart.
Two things:
1. After Cain and Able, Eve had several more children. The Bible says: "And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, ‘For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.’” (Genesis 4:25) The Bible also says: "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters." (Genesis 5:4)
So presumably, Cain, Seth and their brothers married their sisters. The Bible is silent on the matter but not silent on the fact that Eve had a lot of sons and daughters.
2. You are right; faith is a gift, but it is a gift God is willing to give. Just ask Him for it! In my teenage years I lived like a monster. I was spitting in the face of Jesus by the way I lived. Yet, the day came when I fell on my knees and cried out to Him for forgiveness, and in less time then it takes to snap your fingers, he was there to forgive me completely, to enter my life to bless me with His presence and to give me faith in Him. He is so merciful and willing to forgive, and Jesus loves when people put their trust in Him. To beg God for forgiveness and to give you faith will please Him, and I believe He will give it to you. If Jesus was willing to suffer death for you, surely He is willing to give you things that please Him, such as faith in Him.
Jesus said, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” (Matt. 7:7-8)
In the original language it literally means “Keep on asking; keep on seeking; keep on knocking.” Keep asking and begging Him for forgiveness and faith and you will receive both. If you ask Him for a Mercedes, don’t expect to get it, but if you ask Him for things that truly please Him, such as forgiveness and faith, you can expect He will give both to you if you don’t give up but continually and genuinely seek Him for these things.
Amen, Don. Jesus does make a difference, really all the difference in the world in our lives.
Amen to Lit'l Luther on creation. The older I get the more I appreciate it, I think, and marvel over it. Deb and I were looking at oak leaves today on stately oak trees on a chair on our nearby public library grounds. Well said, Triston!
And the Bible is the word of God and it's true! Otherwise it isn't what it claims to be from cover to cover. We should take it literally, unless it indicates otherwise, or is clearly metaphorical in expressing literal truth: such as Jesus is the door/gate. Through him and his sacrifice we enter into eternal, abundant life, beginning now. But, of course, he's not a door. Bible written by humans but it's essentially the word of God. Proclaiming the truth of the gospel/good news, in Jesus.
Good to hear, Lorenzo that it seems like you're really trying to seriously grapple with all of this.
Simon,
Believe it or not, I'm not opposed to the idea that seven days for God could be many millions of years. God is not limited by time; He is the Creator of time. And the fact that the writer of Hebrews tells us that eternal life is entering into “God's rest” (i.e. His 7th day of Creation Sabbath of Rest), that makes me think of the 7th day of Creation in the Genesis account, the day God rested, as "a day which continues on eternally.” If that one day, the 7th, can continue on eternally, perhaps the first six days of Creation were quite long as well.
BTW: This is an idea I haven't read elsewhere but considered on my own (which can be quite dangerous sometimes!), so I could be wrong. But I'm not wrong that the Scriptures teach we Christians enter into His eternal “rest”. In fact, this AND God’s rest on the 7th day of Creation are spoken about together in Hebrews 4:1-5, 9-10, put these two ideas together (as the Hebrews writer definitely appears to do in vs. 9 & 10) and God’s seven days of creation might well be as long a time as you and Maalie believe it took for the world and universe to come about.
Oopps - sorry Andrew - I should have said "ruggedly handsome". Apparently, as Andrew has informed us, cute is for kittens, not real MEN!!
Also, I am delighted to have Andrew as a part of our discussion here as well as at the dinner table. I'm in hopes that he'll be able to join both more often in the future!
Here is another ABC's (not on predestination this time).
This is the ABC's of becoming a Christian"
Admit you need God's forgiveness and that your sin has separated you from God.
Believe Jesus is the only way to God; that He died and rose from the dead, taking the punishment for your sin.
Commit your life to Jesus to obey and follow Him.
Mmmm .. there's rather too much to answer at the moment! But .. that you for your invitation Susan. I'll seriously think about it for next Spring. I would love to meet Mr and Mrs Craver but I think I would defend him against punches! Perhaps we could have a Krispy Cream too.
Donsands: what is DUI?
"Donsands: what is DUI?"
Driving Under the Influence, Or Drunk driving is the quick and easy way to say it.
Don, you can't get a DUI in Nepal as far as I know. It's legal here to drink and drive. Well, if you ran over someone, they'd probably take you to jail, but otherwise, the police just smile at drunk drivers and allow them to keep driving.
A great destination for Brits and Europeans. :-)
**sniff** 'Renzo, that was the nicest thing I've ever heard a llama say. Nobody has ever defended me before.
In exchange for your kindness, I will offer you a gift certificate which exempts you from enduring one of my harmless, but really, really bad jokes. Simply fetch the certificate from your purse before the punchline, and you will be free NOT to laugh. The expectation from all others will be a polite chuckle... at the very least!
If you ever make it out this way, I promise that I won't make you talk theology the whole time.
Since it was brought up, I'm a literal 6-day (young earth) creationist. Essentially, I believe God can do anything he wants, and that Genesis is an historical account of his work, to be interpreted according to the most common understanding of those words... I'm just patiently waiting for scientists and other people to catch up.
I think you have to be a bit drunk to drive in Katmandu in the first place! What with dodging the cows, cyclists, rickshaws etc. it's a wonder there aren't more accidents. It's probably because there is such heavy traffic they can't go fast.
Craver, I don't need a certificate. I will dutifully laugh at all your jokes.
I don't know Lorenzo - some of his jokes are really pretty bad! Although I heard this other one about a string in a bar right after he told his on Sunday and I do declare that I think it may have been worse than Craver's!
No ABC for me Luther....
:o)
Hey Lorenzo,
You're right. Being a bit tipsy does help one relax and make it more natural to swerve around all the potholes, cows and villagers who cross the road without looking.
By far, the best place to get a beer in this town is the British club. They have a number of great imports that aren’t available anywhere else. The club is usually only open from 10am till 4pm, and they won’t let you take the beer home. One must consume it at the club. That’s where I often have lunch and occasionally drink Boddington, John Smith and other imported beer, and then I have to drive my motorcycle home. It really isn’t a big deal here. It's one of the perks of living overseas I guess.
Also, you are right regarding the speed factor. The fact that we can rarely hit 40 km or higher on any road in Kathmandu is the only reason there aren’t more accidents.
PS: Did your son and his girlfriend enjoy their time in Nepal??
Hey, Litl-Luther, I can't help but agree with E-des-C! PhD indeed! I think you should not waste your talents but write something suitable for the REAL world!!
Lorenzo: That is an interesting analogy with the kangaroos. A very well-made point indeed.
"I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Oh Lord. No hope for me then.
Afraid not, Seattle Boy. That's where we all need to start, though.
Kudos to you Halfmom, for laughing at the string joke. It's harder to laugh at a bad joke than to deliver a good one. The string joke the other person told goes something like this:
A piece of string walks into a bar and the bartender refuses to serve him. Dejected, the string wanders outside, where he is immediately run over by an entire motorcycle gang. Twisted and mangled and fearing for his life, he rushes back into the bar, where the bartender scolds him saying, "I thought I told you that we don't serve strings here." Whereupon our string yells right back: 'Fraid not!!!
(frayed knot)
Speaking of string, this is quite a string of comments. I don't think I have EVER breached the hundred mark. Congratulations.
Craver, that's terrible and also very, very old.
By the way, do you all believe the book of Job to be fact?
And also if you are wondering why Maalie hasn't been active for a bit, he is still gallivanting over the outback of Europe looking for a Lesser Crested Black Gallinule. It was thought they became extinct some five thousand years ago in a flood, but one has been spotted on one of the higher peaks of Turkmenistan.
Seattle boy,
You would be absolutely right that it is a waste of time if Jesus were not alive. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ we [Christians] are of all men the most pitiable. But now Christ is risen from the dead." (1 Cor. 15:19-20)
Thankfully, Christ is alive, which makes living one's life for Him the greatest way to spend one's life.
The book of Job as fact? Yes, of course.
I hope Maalie's adventure rewards him with everything he could hope for.
Off the topic:
Have any of you all seen the movie "Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?"
The movie is dumb, but there is a hilarious scene in the beginning where Osama is break dancing to M. C. Hammer's "Can't Touch This!" It's so funny, I uploaded Osama dancing at my site.
I'm sure Susan doesn't care if we are on topic or not as long as we behave ourselves!
There is a childrens' book called 'Where's Willy?'. There are pictures of hundreds and hundreds of people and you have to find Willy hiding in them.
One bright publication run a series called 'Where's Ossy?' and you had to find Mr Bid Laden hiding.
I was taught that the book of Job was a poem. Do you really believe that God had a bet with the Devil and then inflicted genocide, infantacide and all sorts of nasties on Job?
Whether something is written as a poem does not necessarily make it fiction, does it? The last time I read through the book of Job, it told the story different from (and very much longer) than your description, 'Renzo.
Everything that is held together owes its existence to God. "In Him we live and move and have our being." Every person who has ever lived, has been held alive for all their days by the grace of God. Shall we say that because he allowed their final chapter, the completion of their days, that he is a mass murderer? No, of course not. Similarly, just because God did not intervene to save Job's family and servants, that is not the same as directly causing their demise.
Not only did he not intervene, he actually allowed the Devil to do all that stuff! Just to prove a point!
I know it's only just gone 10.00 but I'm off to bed. Llamas need their sleep, don't you know.
"Just to prove a point!"
More than that Llama.
God is good, holy, and gracious. He made all the stars, and that was nothing for Him to do. He is such an awesome Creator, and He owes us nothing.
He can kill, and He can make alive. he has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills.
So we say to him, "then who can thwart His will?"
But we are to instead bow to God, and fear Him.
When we come to God in fear, and really trust in Christ for forgiveness from the wrath of God, then we will no longer need to fear. Though we will surely fear our heavenly Father, as a loving Father, who shall discipline His children, because He loves us.
My earthly father disciplined me, and I hated it. But I look back now and thank him.
God allows Job to be disciplined, and in the end, Job loves and fears the Lord, even though Job lost his family.
Amazing grace was upon Job. And then God blessed him 7 times as great. And one day we shall see Job, either with Christ by our side, or on the other side, where Christ will say "Depart from Me, you who are lawless."
That's why we need to fear the LORD God.
Job feared Him, and was blessed.
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25)
Of course He will. Everything God does is righteous and right. And He is Lord of all, including Job, and all that He has made.
He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, “What have You done?” (Daniel 4:35)
He is God, and thus, it is right that He do whatever He wishes to do. Fortunately for us, He is a good God who does only what is right. How terrifying it would be if that were not true!
Darth-Luther
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25)
Of course He will. Everything God does is righteous and right. And He is Lord of all, including Job, and all that He has made.
He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, “What have You done?” (Daniel 4:35)
He is God, and thus, it is right that He do whatever He wishes to do. Fortunately for us, He is a good God who does only what is right. How terrifying it would be if that were not true!
Darth-Luther
Well my father certainly never disciplined me. He never once even gave me a little smack. And I think back on him with great love, affection and respect. You don't have to rule with a rod of iron to get results.
Oh yes, Job got seven times as many wives and kids as he once had, but that doesn't absolve genocide. The book of Job is an allegory, like the creation story and the flood.
I have read, and I can't remember where, and I'm pretty sure it it isn't Biblical, that while Moses, Miriam et al were celebrating the escape from the Red Sea, God was quietly crying for the loss of his Egyptian children. That's the God I love.
You bring up a good point Llama.
How can we know who the true God is?
You have a God who cries for Egyrtians. Is this true? Or is it what you want to be true?
So how do we determine who the true Christ is?
Of course I want it to be true!
We each see God in our own individual ways and none of us is right. I wonder if any of you have read the book 'The Cloud of Unknowing'? If you haven't, google it and see what it says. It is an amazing book and when I was going through my 'contemplative' stage, I loved it.
How can we be sure that when we reach heaven God will not tell us that most of what we had learned about him was wrong?
I believe the only way to be sure that most of what we know about God isn't wrong is to base everything we believe on Scripture—because the Scriptures are God's Words to us. And, in fact, it says to us that those who are unskilled in God's Word are neither able to properly discern good nor evil (Hebrew 5:12-14)
I know what some of you will say, "But you Christians disagree on many things!" Even so, my question above was: How can we be sure that "most" of the things we've believed about God will turn out to be true? The only way for that to happen is to study what God says about Himself. Read your Bible. It is so necessary if you want to know who God is.
People have both an inner sense that God exists and they see evidence for His existence in creations. And that's why there are hundreds of false religions in the world. They realize that God exists, but they don't know anything about Him beyond what they see in nature. It is true that all of us only see in part. But without the Bible, we see little to nothing—as though needles were pocking through our eyes. Some of you get annoyed by how often I quote Scripture, but the fact is truth comes from God. He defines it. I want to know what good is and what evil is. I want to know what God says about Himself. I want to know what He delights in and what He hates because I want to please God, and the only way to find out all these things is to constantly read His book and reflect upon what it says.
Lorenzo, you assume it was wrong for God to kill Job’s kids. Why is it wrong for the Maker of life to take away life? What are you basing “good” and “evil” upon? What about the flood (if it truly took place as I believe)? God killed every person on earth except for eight people!!!!! Was that wrong? Why? He is God! He created us. Why would it be wrong for the Creator to take back lives He has made? What is your basis of truth? As the text above indicates, if your basis of truth is not God’s Word, you will inevitably be guilty from time to time of not properly discerning good and evil—which is exactly what you are guilty of right now in the case of Job.
If I remember correctly Luther it wasn't God who murdered Job's children but the Devil, because they had a bet that the Devil couldn't make Job curse God.
People say that God does not intervene in the outcome of our human deeds. Why then pray, because most prayers are intercessionary, i.e. asking. We do people pray that people they love will recover from sickness, will be safe from harm, etc. etc. The answer is always 'it is God's will'. Therefore we get back to Estelle's predestination!
If the Devil kills Job's children, then he takes responsibility. What I find hard to take is that God had a bet with him and the murder was the outcome of the bet.
I was also told that the God of the Old Testament changed after Jesus was crucified. He showed the human and compassionate side of Himself. Can you really see Jesus taking bets and then sitting by and watching little children being murdered? Anyone who harms one of these my little ones would better have a millstone round his neck.
Job must be allegory. It doesn't make sense otherwise.
Why "must" Job be allegory? Is it because in these writings, God does not act like you would expect Him to?
At the right time, Jesus was revealed to mankind as God's plan unfolded. But God is immutable--unchangeable. The triune God has always existed, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Psalmists often use the term we translate "lovingkindness" to refer to God's characteristics. And in the Day of the Lord, it is Jesus who comes to judge the earth... and it won't be gentle. My point is, that both God's tenderness and wrath can be seen in the Son as well as the Father.
> That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart
Funny that I should pop in and my eye fall on this. For years and years I thought the seventh commandment was: "Thou shalt not admit adultery". I imagined it was something to do with having compassion for the feelings of the injured partner. It would be such an easy commandment to keep.
I have also been guilty of coveting my neighbour's wife's ass. But that doesn't matter because I know I haven't been elected anyway. I don't believe that a pair of kangaroos swam from Australia to the Middle East and back in order to be saved from a flood that never happened.
Hello Maalie! Did you find your Lesser Crested Black Gallinule? If not, I hope you found other birds to keep you happy.
" But that doesn't matter because I know I haven't been elected anyway."
Ah, but you may be elected, you just may.
Good to see you're back. Though the comment is perhaps borderline on Susan's blog methinks. But it's her blog. And I know she loves your visits. As we all do.
Even though we could not be at any further at odds then we are.
Hi Maalie!
How are you?
Don- re Job let me put this to you another way... As a parent imagine this.....
A neighbour walks up to you and says " you think your son is such a good boy, but I bet if you let me do terrible things to him, he will break"
To which you say (as a "loving father") "go for it"
The neighbour abuses the son...( in everyway)
Now you tell me- if that sits well with you, then the arguement that god created good AND evil (therefore god itself is ying and yang)....that he/she allows famine, death pain, suffering, believers and non believers, that Judas was PRE destined to betray jesus, that despite best arguement, we really do not have a choice in the direction we head..
we jsut float down a river, and try to choose the left or right side, but ultimatley end up at rivers end,
Are you claiming salvation was pre-destined when you were in the womb, that the starving child in africa was also pre-destined in the same way....
you talk of a "loving god" I think the entire concept is utter rubbish.
We are genetically programmed to know what is right and wrong...
you want to "lust" ( and who is to claim "ownership" over someone else??) after your neighbours wife, what is wrong with that?
Wrong if you start flogginhg yourself over the issue, or creeping around in the dark etc etc or jumping the fence
Not wrong if 2 adults consent IMO.
If I use your aguement we should all be thashing ourselves with cat of nine tails...
get over it... be nice to one an other. Enjoy life whilst you have it here... cause we are not waiting as a bus stop to get to our destination called heaven...
Oh, I know there a christinas who say- "oh but you should have seen me before I was saved!! I was SO bad"....Nonsense!
Guilt, low self esteem, regret, self doubt, and some external factor will influence how your body feels (and we are just a bag of water, carbon and a few chemicals)
You do not need to wait for some external person/god/religion pastor/bopok.. to "save you" you can save yourself by shifting your own mindset...
BTW the old testament is just a sign post proving jesus geneology, the problem that christians have is that they take pieces of the old and pieces of the new and try to reconcile gods temperament ( old testament) to the "jesus" factor (new testament).
Oh , I know we can say " yes such are the mysteries of god" blah blah blah, but really a modern world with no religion, would be perfect....
My advice is- if you find your eyes wandering and looking at the great "ass" of your neigbours wife, acknowledge that it was fashioned for appeciation, and get on with the rest of life!
BTW didn't jesus come out of the womb- with a pre elected faith? are we not all to be like him?? did HE have a choice? When he was tempted in the desert, he coul not have possibly lost to the devil... cause he owns it all anyway ( therefore the temptation was irelevant)
Unless you think that the earth really does belong to the devil.... and just WHO gave it to him?
ahahahahah! popycock!
Be cool everyone....
Am I sinnign by lusting over the photos of the Blue mountains wishing I cold walk over them??? (giggle)
nope!
I messed up on my previous comment.
Lot of questions there Simon.
I'll try and tell a story in my crude way. So forgive me.
How about this. There is a Father who has a beloved Son, who is full of righteousness, truth, love, and compassion.
He lives a wonderful life of joy, kindness and genuineness.
The Father and the Son have such a love that it's beyond comprehension.
There are those who despise His Son, and even mock & scorn him.
These are sinners who in hating the Son also hate the Father.
But, the Father wants to forgive these rebels. The only way for their forgiveness is for the debt to paid somehow.
Gold and silver won't due. And even just saying I'm sorry falls way short.
The penalty for their sin has to be death, for this is justice.
This Father asks his Son, His most valued love, a perfect love, to lay down His life, and He allows these wicked people to slay Him.
He was a righteous and just person, with not an evil thought nor deed, but he was perfect.
The Father accepts this cruel death as payment for these wicked debtors.
Why would a God do this? Why wouldn't He protect His most beloved Son? I would never allow another person to harm my grandson Joshua. I would die fighting to keep him safe. And yet God gave His only begotten Son for sinners like us, for nice sinners, and for hateful rebels. Jesus died for sinners, and His Father gave Him.
There's much we cannot understand about God.
But John 3:16 is the greatest mystery to me.
ps... Don, I re-read my comments.. please don't assume a "tone".. I am trying to promote health debate.....they are not targeting you at all ... just the entire issue..
:o)
Lorenzo,
Yes. It was Satan who killed them because God said he could. God allowed him to touch everything of Job's except his life (side note: One funny thing about that to me is that Satan did not kill Job's wife, but left her alive to nag him. It's true). Any how, God gave the order, which is right to do because He’s God. As He says of Himself: “All the earth is mine.” That includes you, me and Job's kids. If (God forbid), today God decided to take my newborn son in a horrific accident, He can do it because it is up to Him to decide how many days we have on this earth. God can do that. And just like Job, it would be wrong for me to question God.
THAT is the point of the book of Job: Job couldn't believe God let all these bad things happen to him because Job really was more righteous than anyone else. But the story ends with Job (NOT GOD!) repenting for questioning God. Job repented twice for ever questioning that it was not right for God to do whatever He wishes.
Also, the God of the Old Testament and of the New Testament is the same. He has not changed. We find God being both a God of mercy, love and of wrath in the Old Testament and we find the very same in the New. We see His love greatly in the New. Yet, we also see Jesus coming back in the end with His robe "dipped in blood" of His enemies, with "a sharp sword" to "strike the nations". And it also proclaims Jesus will rule His enemies "with a rod of iron" and it says of Jesus: "He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." (Revelation 19:11-16).
Of course there are so many verses showing Jesus' love I don't need to prove that to you. My point with the above text is that God has not changed. He is still a God of love, AND He is still a God ready to display is wrath on all who reject Jesus. It's the truth.
PS: Maalie, it's great to have you back! We missed you here. I know I did.
Many good words here.
None of us can hide behind "election", because even if Lt'l Luther's and other's here are right on it, and they may be: Scripture still tells us, "Whoever will, may come." And "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord in faith for this salvation, shall be saved."
I agree on election with this statement from Ben Witherinton:
"The concept of election and destining here [he's in Ephesians 1] is corporate. If one is in Christ, one is elect and destined. Paul is not talking about the pre-temporal electing or choosing of individual humans outside of Christ to be in Christ, but rather of the election of Christ and what is destined to happen to those, whoever they may be, who are in Christ. The concept here is not radically different from the concept of the election of Israel. During the Old Testament era, if one was in Israel, one was a part of God's chosen people, and if one had no such connection, one was not elect. Individual persons within Israel could opt out by means of apostasy, and others could be grafted in (see the story of Ruth). These concepts of election were then applied to Christ, who as a divine person could incorporate into himself various others. Christ becomes the locus of election and salvation because in Paul's thinking the story of the people of God is whittled down to the story of Jesus the Anointed One and then built back up in the risen Christ thereafter. When Paul speaks of how a lost person gets 'into Christ' he speaks on the more mundane level of preaching, hearing, responding in faith, not of God's pre-choosing of our choices for us."
(The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians, by Ben Witherington III, pp. 234-235).
"Then John gave this testimony: 'I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen and I testify that this is God's Chosen One." (John 1)
And we shouldn't stumble over the sacrifice of the Son, since we see this over and over again in the Old Testament in all the sacrifices that were required for sin, pointing to the final sacrifice of Christ, once for all, to take away sin, the sin of the world. God the Father, and God the Son were one in this. They were of one heart, and it hurt the Father immensely to so see the Son suffer. But like Don said, John 3:16.
Listen to Don's good words here, the word of God, the gospel.
"I am trying to promote health debate." -Simon
I appreciate that Simon. I thought as much. Me too.
Yes, you're right Llama dear, you are all welcome to the discuss whatever is on your mind as long as you are polite.
Welcome back Maalie - I have missed you! But enough of swimming kangaroos - you (and they) just muddy the real water - the whosoever will water...
Humm - now the question is, what will the thread of discussion be when I make my next post - quite intriging you all are! Hummm indeed.
Simon has put into words so much better than I did, why the book of Job just cannot be true and is an allegory. There is some beautiful writing at the end of the book when 'God spoke'.
Donsands speaks of those who hate the son hate the father. That's not true. The Pharisees loved God. They didn't trust Jesus was who he said he was.
If poor Judas wasn't predestined to betray Jesus that the whole divine plan of redemption was on the rocks. What would have happened if Jesus wasn't betrayed and killed?
Oh, today's verification word is:
perkypoo
"the book of Job just cannot be true"
"The Word of the Lord came again to me, saying, ...Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it [Jerusalem], they should deliver only their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God"
"Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts for the coming of the Lord ... Take my brothers, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
Behold, we count them happy who endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very compassionate. and of tender mercy." James 5:8-11
In these Scripture verses it at least proves that Job was a real man. James the brother of Jesus actually expounds just a bit on what Job went through.
Job is real person.
"But that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.
He that hates me hates my Father also." John 15:25,23
Jesus also said to the religious leaders that their father was the devil, and that they were liars and murderers.
Strong words from the Lamb of God, who came into the world to bear witness to the truth.
Judas was predestined to betray Jesus (John 17:12; Acts 4:27-28)), and yet God did not force Judas to do anything that his own will desired to do. Judas freely and willfully, without God forcing it, betrayed Jesus. And yet it was all the plan of God.
Except for Nicodemus and perhaps a couple other exceptions, the Pharisees did not love God anymore than Satan does! For, according to Jesus, the devil is the father of the Pharisees, and their desires and the devil’s desires were one and the same (John 8:44).
Your and Simon’s opinion of the book of Job, while perhaps emotionally pleasing, does not line up with Scripture, and thus is rejected. After all, what should be our final standard for faith and life: Simon and Renzo? Or God’s Word? And as I say that, I want to point out that I’m not the final standard either! I make mistakes. Prove me wrong from Scripture and I’ll agree with you, but telling me what is right and wrong without a shred of evidence from God’s Word simply carries no weight.
"without a shred of evidence from God’s Word simply carries no weight"
And yet you ignore the tangible and verifiable evidence of the REAL world. And the real world was definitely not created in 7 days!
Hi Seattle boy,
I guess you must not have read my post (above) where I argue from Scripture that it is possible the 7 days of creation could have been millions of years….but I know I write too much as it is. It is easy to overlook some of my posts.
Litl-Luther, I apologise, I must have missed your comment. In my business I can't get on line every day.
However, there is not a shred of geological evidence that anything took place in seven units of time of any duration. It was one continuous process. So the geologists say, and I prefer to believe them as their evidence is tangible.
I won't be around a for a while now, I'm afraid.
For young earth evidence, you might check out Answers In Genesis.
Hey Craver,
I'm not against the young earth theory at all. In fact, Don was telling me by email recent that his position is also young earth, and I respect him greatly. It is the position of most Christians in fact. I'm open to both ideas. I haven't committed to the old earth theory yet but I very well may.
Mt. Saint Helen’s eruption is a good evidence for young earth. Scientists always showed the patterns in the earth (such as at the Grand Canyon) as “proof” of the age of the earth. But Mt. Saint Helen’s has squashed that theory, for the same patterns formed overnight after the volcano erupted. Science is always having to update its theories, but God’s Word remains true through it all, sometimes we Christians must rethink our beliefs, but God's Word never needs updating.
Thanks, Li'l Luther. I was responding mainly to Seattle Boy's phrase "there is not a shred of geological evidence..." It reminded me of what I used to believe, so I can't really hold it against him or anyone else who thinks that. But the evidence for a young earth is fascinating, and I hope y'all find it worth looking into. That first link was probably too general. Here is one that is more specific.
This time the link is for an article communicating some of these evidences in very broad strokes and easy for most folks to understand: Evidence for a Young World by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics.
Halfmom, I can fully appreciate why you would rather not talk about international swimming kangaroos (I shall respect your wish) because they do indeed "muddy the water" by threatening an "inconvenient truth" to the creationists. I have been asked elsewhere to stop also, because they have no answer and just descend into denial ("I would rather not discuss that thank you").
May we instead please turn to a group of animals nearer to your own home, namely the sloths? These South American animals live in trees and if they drop down and fall into a river they can just about splash their way to the edge if not too far out; but if they get caught up in a current, they drown.
Now, it was made quite clear to me by no less than a five-star gold-braided Calvinist on Bluecollar that the animals went to Noah (not vice versa). I am desperately seeking advice about how these arboreal creatures managed to swim across the South Atlantic (carrying food with them?), bumbled their way across Africa to be saved by the Ark, and then swam back to South America. As you will know, sloths are eponymously slothful.
Does it in fact matter that the New World (the Americas, Australia etc.) were unknown at the time of the concoction of biblical mythology by an untold number of disparate authors?
I have questions for Litl-Luther and Craver vii too, but I am a bit too busy right now.
Thank you.
Donsands: Yours of August 28, 2008 6:11 PM: Well if I am elected, then all well and good. If I'm elected I'm elected. If I'm not, I'm not. God knew the answer before I was born, I was told. Precious little I can do about it in this life.
I try to do good things and be kind to people but the Admiral on Bluecollar said that "works" don't count.
No wonder the church is in disarray.
"I try to do good things and be kind to people"
I can appreciate that.
What would be our standard for good?
If you are one of God's chosen, then you will know it, and all the complexity of your human makeup will experience sorrow like never before, and the heights of joy that are unspeakable, and a depth of love and compassion that is overwhelming.
Granted, this is all subjective, but it will happen.
If you like, there is information on the Web about sloths and kangaroos edited by Don Batten, Ph.D.
It's hard for me to tell whether these things muddy the "waters of whosoever will." When I was in sales, I learned that sometimes an objection was just a smokescreen, but sometimes it expressed a genuine concern that, if it was satisfactorily answered, could bring us closer to making a sale.
Of course nobody's making a "sale" here; God is the one who convicts people and causes change. The post-flood migration issue was never a stumbling block to me though. I never gave it much thought, and it didn't matter to me whether God did this naturally or miraculously. The bigger issue is that Jesus died for my sins, and I trust him to save me from the penalty I justly deserve.
Good works may have happened before conversion and should certainly manifest themselves afterwards. It's just that they are not offered in exchange for God's favor. We don't use good works as a method to purchase the salvation that God offers as a gift. The world bears testimony to the fact that Christendom is comprised of faulty people, but the good deeds of Christians is also known and widespread. Hospitals, schools, orphanages, art, human rights--including the abolition of slavery, etc... Those areas have all been greatly blessed by Christians, and their good works.
Craver vii: In that reference you cite it says: "God apparently caused the animals to come to Noah. The Bible does not state how this was done".
Well, I'm jolly well not surprised that it doesn't! These things (and like the "young earth" reference you cited above) are all tautological. They start with the premise that the bible is correct and then manipulate the facts in order to conform with it. The creationist literature is full of this quasi-scientific misinformation. The references cited are all (or mostly) from creationist sources and so the arguments are tautological. That's why you cannot have "faith" and be a true scientist, because the mind is not free and unprejudiced to interpret new evidence in an open-minded way. Creationists have already decided how things happened, they are deaf to other possible alternatives. It is not faith, it is "blind faith".
But I shall retire from discussion now, I really have no place here. I am off to Madagascar shortly to see first hand the primates whose evolution I have been studying and lecturing on all my career.
"Those areas have all been greatly blessed by Christians, and their good works."
That's true Craver. People like to pick on Christians, and rightly so at times.
Just like people like to bash America, but never see the good America has done with the bad. Great Britian is a good nation as well, but has done some bad things, like cause us Americans to revolt against the king way back when.
But the Brits came back and invaded us with the Beatles, and America will never be the same.
I tell you, it must have been a Cruise Ark. That's the only way it is possible.
It's funny Maalie that Bluecollar wouldn't answer your questions on how the kangaroos and sloths got to the Middle East. They wouldn't answer my question either on whether there were dinasaurs in the ark. Does anyone here know?
I wish you would stick around a little longer, Maalie. Maybe this comment thread is winding down, but it's been a nice discussion.
Is there no weight given in the scientific community to eyewitness accounts? Skeptics and religious people have ideas that may or may not accurately interpret today's evidence. If we could line up all the authors and ask them, "Were you there?" None could say yes, except God alone. He has given us his account, preserved and carefully handed down through the millennia. That is what I give credence to. Not to my pastor or my family's tradition or any popular theories. It is not blind; I have seen enough to know that the source is reliable.
Dinosaurs on the ark? Sure; why wouldn't there be? Not all dinosaurs were giants, and even if there were large breeds, they didn't necessarily have to be full grown adults.
Hey 'Renzo, when you coming back to the party at Martin's?
On my way there now Craver! Get the gin ready.
I only ask about dinasaurs because they died out rather a long time before the ark, and also they were a tad greedy and might have fancied a nice Ham sandwich.
Hi Maalie,
I haven't felt threatened by your kangaroo theory. It is "possible" that the flood was localized in the known world at that time and not worldwide, meaning every animal that entered were not necessarily every animal that was on earth at that time but whatever animals were in that part of the earth between Noah's home and Mount Ararat. So "perhaps" the kangaroos in Australia and the whole continent of Australia were unaffected by the flood. Again this is just a theory like my old earth ideas.
Dinosaurs, in case someone asks, were probably already extinct by the time of the flood. The book of Job mentions dinosaurs and it is believed to be the oldest book in the Bible--before Noah's time.
Lt'l Luther,
That's a very viable interpretation of the Flood, and more likely, from what I read both of the Bible text and from what mainstream science understands.
"world" can be translated "land", as I'm sure you know (now I'm going on my memory of the Hebrew I had, which is rusty- or more like, really, what I've read concerning that).
Yes, it's likely an old earth, I think. And there are good professors at Wheaton College, which is an evagelical bastion over here, who hold to macro-evolution. I know then you have to work through Genesis 1-3 as true myth, telling the story of early humankind's rebellion against God and God's command, the fall- sin spread to all humankind. The Bible is the word of God and all its words are true as to and about what God is conveying through it, but we don't have all the meaning down. To think that what Jesus and Paul say makes it necessary for Adam and Eve to be a man and a woman is not essential in what they said. Adam means "humankind" (or what Andrew Hall says, which is fine), and Eve means, as I recall, "the mother of the living", perhaps representative of females.
I'm not at all sold on that, but I can well understand looking at the story of the garden in mythic terms, telling what is absolutely true, and so important for us today, and worked out in places, even like Romans 7- likening sin as deceiving like the serpent (I'm reading on that, now, but have barely started).
God is saying for sure that he created all things, and made them very good. And he created male and female humans and from that the institution of marriage. That he gave humanity the important task of stewardship over the works of his hands, and the command (like the animals) to multiply, and that humankind disobeyed him and therefore the curse came and ravaged all earth, and affects us all.
So that our hope is now in the Seed of the woman- Jesus, who has crushed Satan's head (Genesis 3:15) at the cross, and will right all wrongs and make all things new, when he returns at The Second Coming, on the new heaven and new earth.
Let me add that this righting of all wrongs and making all things new, begins now, through faith in Jesus and what he has done for us on the cross. In his resurrection and by it, the new world has begun, and it begins in each of us who put our faith in Christ, acknowledging that we are wrong and sinners, and devoid of real life.
Then begins what isn't easy, us being conformed to the image of Jesus. God counts our faith as righteousness, Jesus being our righteousness at the heart of all that that means, and God makes us new, so that we now have new life through the Son of God. And we find ourselves at home only in God and with each other in Jesus. And we seek to bring that good news in Jesus to a broken world, to all.
Now I must take a walk. The sun is to rise in five minutes. Looks like another beautiful day over here, in a long weekend for us in the States.
I do honestly believe the flood was localized. Of course God has the power to do anything and could have covered the whole earth in a deluge. However, as you pointed out ‘the world’ in the Bible does not always mean the whole planet. Take for example Paul’s words in Colossians 1:5-6. He says that the Gospel has come “to all the world”. Yet, he was speaking of a rather small portion of the earth in reality, the known world at that time. I believe this makes better sense too with the flood story—as it appears that the people who drowned were those who actually heard the preaching of Noah. And then it makes perfect sense, the size of the ship. It could easily have carried all the animals in the known world. And certainly major catastrophes happen today too. We have many thousands of people in Nepal right this minute stranded from flooding from the heavy monsoon rains. Surely a huge catastrophe could have taken place which killed everyone in the known world to whom Noah preached.
I utterly reject the Adam and Eve theory you presented, however. I believe it to be dangerously undermining to the doctrine of Original Sin AND to the atonement of Christ. The way Paul speaks of Adam in Romans 5 and compares him to Christ—if Adam was a myth, then was Jesus? If the imputation of Adam’s guilt was a myth, then is the imputation of Jesus’ righteousness to us also a myth? Paul compares two real people and talks about a literal Fall. I’m not surprised that some Christians would hold that view. Sadly Christians have been guilty of believing all sorts of nonsense, but I believe it to be genuinely dangerous to make Adam and Genesis 3 a mythological story. THE WHOLE BIBLE IS COMMENTARY ON GENESIS 3. Without it, the atonement of Christ makes no sense. Remove Genesis 1-3, the historic Fall, and the work of Christ makes no sense. You’re on dangerous ground with that one bro. I would have pointed this out privately to you in email—but I believe it to be so important to get this one right; I feel compelled to mention it to everyone reading this blog.
Lit'l Luther,
I'm not saying I hold to this. But I'm not saying either, that it in and of itself necessarily rejects creation, fall and redemption, as you're suggesting here. There is no way we can lay aside original sin or anything like that. I would challenge you to do more reading on it. My own position is that while I understand how people can look at the story of Adam and Eve as true myth, and I would guess they must do something of the sort if they hold to macroevolution, that I hold to a man and woman and see it more literally for a number of reasons. I too share in your concern, because theologically, I'm afraid that there are some holes or problems which can come out of this.
Maybe I'm amiss to share that here, and while some science professors at Wheaton College, or at least one, holds to macroevolution or at least an old earth- and I think macroevolution- some here at Calvin College do as well- or have done so- and were/was judged by a committee as not being heretical, I'm not sure he (or, they) holds to Genesis 3 as true myth. I will say though that Dean Ohlman, who writes at RBC Ministries, who himself is quite conservative, has written a booklet, very good one, too, trying to help Christians accept others who hold to mainstream science yet hold to Scripture as the word of God.
I just think we can be putting an unnecessary stumbling block out there over which some can stumble who have honest intellectual issues. Sadly many young folks so stumble when attending universities. I doubt that creation science is based on very good science, and some say the whole word of God/Scripture stands or falls on that interpretation.
What got me thinking about this, along with this thread, and Maalie's remarks, is this post from an evangelical Christian, RJS, who teaches at a renowned university. She is a scientist and professor there, and this post (along with some of the thread I got to) made me think anew on it. And this short article from an evangelical and an evangelical group in the UK (Operation Mobilization has helped this group monetarily, as I recall in my reading on this site).
Again, I think people can put too much confidence in science as if they have everything down pat, but especially the post by RJS I find interesting. I remain unpersuaded from my position, and I believe all of Scripture from Genesis through Revelation is the word of God, extending to all the words and their true meaning, but I'm not convinced that you can't hold a view of true myth and macroevolution, and deny a high view of Scripture. B.B. Warfield himself, a champion of the faith as you know, he held to Darwinian evolution, at least as Darwin formulated it at the start, and he was a friend of Charles Darwin.
Thanks for the push back here, Triston. You're right in challenging it, and I needed to present this explanation, though it may satisfy few.
One more thing I'd add is that all truth is ultimately God's truth. We don't have to be threatened at all from true scientific work, which of course in its very nature is ongoing. We must believe and teach Scripture just as it is written. Not read a passage from Scripture and then teach something else. Our faith is ultimately in God and in his word for us in Jesus, and of course while Scripture is written with human words, it is essentially the word of God, and therefore subject finally to God.
Some scientists, of course, go beyond science into faith with their strict naturalism, and atheism, I believe.
for clarification, on one paragraph, I was saying what one would probably get the sense of:
I think it's probable that you can hold to mainstream science as in macroevolution, and from that, view the truth of Genesis 1-3 as true myth, and hold to inerrancy or a high view of Scripture. And we must remember that the way history was written in the past is not the way we write it as moderns now.
But at the same time, while much good is being said about the importance of narrative and story nowadays, we must also emphasize truth, which many times may not be sufficiently emphasized in such circles.
I also want to say that I'm willingly here thinking out loud, and am subject to correction and am/want to be open to such.
But I think we must put the distractions away from Jesus. He and the message of the gospel as we read in Romans, we must get back to. There is no doubt that creation points to a Creator, and that we're all sinners, and in need of the Savior. The rejection of the Creator is really a moral problem, and not a scientific one, though this rejection is certainly played out in the name of science.
May I point out, merely as a point of information, that biologists do not distinguish between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Evolution is evolution and, in the natural world takes place by natural selection. In the world of horticulture, agriculture, etc.it can be "forced" by artificial selection through selecting the characters (phenotype) that you want to procreate (e.g. high yield).
It seems to me that the term "micro-evolution" was coined by fundamentalists to overcome the inconvenient truth of evolution in the short term.
Hi Ted,
I never feel threatened by the ongoing, ever changing, scientific theories. If they find things that can be proven to contradict something we hold to, then, we need to go back to the Scriptures and see where we have erred in our interpretation. I haven't the remotest concern of them disproving God's Word however. As you also agree, it ever remains true and faithful.
To Paul, Adam was a real, literal person. Paul was wrong to write what he did in Romans 5 if Adam was a mythological person. Christians should not hold to that view. It heresy as far as I'm concerned, and I don't need Calvin College to tell me so. Since I believe it to be heresy, I'll happily lay that stumbling block in front of anyone. Let them stumble over it.
Triston,
I'm not sure that one has to read Romans 5 that way. Adam may be a literal man there, or he may be representative of humankind. The words there alone do not necessitate that, it seems to me.
But I'll keep reading on it. And I'll add again, that the words of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, the true meaning that comes from all of them is of God and is therefore true.
There is no excuse not to get back to the truth of God in Jesus we find in Romans and elsewhere in Scripture.
Maalie,
Yes, interesting.
Everyone, Deb and I are going out for awhile. Tis' beautiful weather here, not a cloud in the sky I think, and low humidity. And to be so until Tuesday!
The Scripture says:
Therefore, just as through ONE MAN sin entered the world, and death through sin….death reigned from ADAM to Moses….For if by THE ONE MAN'S OFFENSE many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many….And the gift is not like that which came THROUGH THE ONE WHO SINNED….For if by the ONE MAN'S OFFENSE death reigned THROUGH THE ONE, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ….Therefore, as THROUGH ONE MAN'S OFFENSE judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as BY ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (ALL the above are actual words from the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12-19)
What could be more clear than that Paul is talking above about two literal people: Adam and Jesus? It is absurd to read it any other way. There is no other legitimate interpretation. It is absolutely moronic to conclude that Paul isn’t talking about a literal Adam. How can the above text be understood any other way? I’m at a loss for words. It is as clear and as sure as 2 + 2 = 4.
Now some at this blog may think Paul is nuts. Some might believe Adam never existed. But anyone in their right mind reading the above text would have to conclude that Paul believed Adam was a literal person. You will only twist the Scriptures to say otherwise. If I didn’t believe this issue so important I wouldn’t bother even debating it because the above text speaks for itself!!!!! Notice also how many times Paul compares Adam and Christ. It could not be more clear that Paul believed Adam to be as literal a person as he believed Jesus to be, and those who can’t see it should open their eyes.
I'm done arguing about this because it is simply too clear to waste another breath on it.
Triston
Good thoughts on the Scriptures Triston. I agree completely.
Here's another verse that correlates well: "Now jesus Himself began about thirty years of age, being as was supposed son of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi,..... of David, of Jesse, .... of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
There are a lot of other names that i left out. But the point is that Adam was the son of God, and Seth was the son of Adam.
Adam was surely created by God, the first man. Seth was the son of Adam that led to the Christ.
BTW, Adam live to be over 900 years old. That's incredible in itself.
Do you really think Adam lived to be 900?
Incest is thoroughly disapproved on in the Bible, apart from moral reasons, the physical outcome of mating between brother and sister weakens the genetic system.
Can this really be right?
Yes, Adam live that long. Noah was 600 years old when he got on the Ark. And after the flood he lived another 350 years. In fact His son Shem lived to be 600 years old. So he was alive when Abraham was called by God. Abraham may have know Shem. The Bible doesn't tell us this, but it could have been so.
The way God started the human race is quite different than today.
I agree as I've stated above that Adam and Eve in Genesis, etc. are a literal man and woman. But I'm saying that one can view it as I stated above, something to that effect, and be Christians.
I believe in hearing out the views of others and seeking to understand where they're coming from. Then agreeing or disagreeing. In this case I remain a sceptic over evolution, and I know I'm not a scientist, nor even have a good mind for science, though I'm an admirer of science as part of God's good general revelation to us. And I remain settled on the garden of Eden being a place on the earth, literally, in which history happened with a man and a woman as stated there. I'll agree to disagree with others, but I won't call them nonChristian or their interpretation rubbish, unless I think it compromises God's truth in Christ, the gospel. And in this case I don't believe their interpretation calls into question one line of what Paul or Christ said about Adam. Even though I don't agree with them, myself.
Now you could be right about me bringing this up, but I believe even though sin affects us all, that people have honest intellectual difficulties due to their understanding of science. This is true of RJS over at "Jesus Creed" who takes conservative positions at times in the discussion there, and professes belief in Scripture as the word of God, and is part of what sounds like a typical evangelical church which would hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. Yet she struggled for a long time, because she perceived that Christians were insisting for an interpretation of Scripture which flouts what she believes is irrefutably good science.
In this case I think appearance becomes reality in many people's minds. If they SEE or BELIEVE that such and such science seems true beyond reasonable doubt, then any Christian claims which deny it are seen as suspect. Appearance then becomes reality and they end up seeing Christianity or the faith as suspect.
I also would like to add to this, let us pick our fights well. But I'm sure on this we won't agree. And I acknowledge I could be wrong here. But I just don't see where this necessarily undermines the truth in Jesus or the gospel. Adam sinned and brought death; Christ obeyed and brought life. That is absolute, undeniable truth.
Ted,
People can make the Bible say anything they want it to say “if” they twist the Scriptures. They can use the Word of God to try and make God out to be evil (as Lorenzo and Simon attempted to do). People can twist the Scriptures to say God loves homosexual sex. "He loves sin. He just wants you to be happy." You can twist the Scriptures to make it say anything you want. For example: I could be counseling someone depressed and, and if I wanted to twist the Scriptures, I could put these two verses together:
Judas went out and hanged himself….Jesus said…”Go and do likewise.” (Matt. 27:5; Luke 10:37)
People who desire to twist the Scriptures can make it say anything they want. But if you let the Bible speak for itself, then Adam was a literal person, and to say anything other than that is to sinfully twist the Scriptures as bad as putting Matt. 27:5 and Luke 10:37 together as I’ve done above. Actually it is much worse, because if I did that and the counselee killed himself, only one person would be dead, but the evil doctrine you keep presenting could destroy the souls and faith of millions. So go ahead and have dialogue with the fools you keep speaking of who desire to twist the Scriptures and make Adam, who, as Don pointed out, Jesus physically descended from, and who Paul compares Jesus to, out to be a myth. Do what you like. But I’ll continue to call every 'Christian' you present a heretic who twists the Scriptures and holds the myth position.
Triston,
Myth can be good and true. For example, cultures talked about a god who became human and died. The myth is different and takes on different faces in different cultures. But isn't it possible that it pointed to the truth of God fulfilled in sending his Son, Jesus Christ to so die for the sins of the entire human race? And if so, that it has within it something of the truth from God?
If you want to call C.S. Lewis who himself believed in evolution and others heretical, than that's up to you. I'm sure you wouldn't do that, however, but I don't see how one can escape seeing Genesis 1-3 as true myth, if one adopts that position. And honestly, I don't see the creation accounts myself as like a scientific textbook myself. Genesis 1 and 2 present variant accounts but only so from our perspective because they come from variant angles.
I surely shouldn't have treaded into this here, and one of my true faults is getting into issues I don't know enough about. And I do believe we can KNOW by faith, I don't go along with the postmo mumble jumble that we just really can't be certain about anything which some Christians mistakenly fall into, even though they say we can know Jesus by faith and profess faith themselves.
So I can't speak for RJS, or the Wheaton College professor(s), and have caught only some wind about this. I would call anyone heretical who denies that God created humankind male and female in his image, that man sinned against the command of God (Romans 7 is Adam- when the command came he/I died, single command, ha! I had to add that! but even though I don't think I'm wrong, I well may be on that! Tis' the nature of things that we all think we're right on most things!) and that God punished man and woman, humankind, bringing a curse on them and on all creation. And that the Serpent which is the devil had deceived them. And that God promised Christ in the Seed of the woman to come whose heel would be bruised at the cross, but by that would bruise/crush the Serpent's head. Such denial of any such truth is heresy.
Are you going to call evangelicals who believe the story of Jonah is likely a myth about Israel, heretics? I won't go there, because though I don't buy that myself or care to go there, one needs to read what such are really saying. One might think it's a dangerous position, but I am careful who I call a heretic. And I think you are, as well. Though we just don't agree on this one. I speak only for myself. But my wife who is beside me right here, right now, approves this message/comment! :)
by the way, the death of the god in the myths was for the good of the human race.
Let me add that I prefer to call any teaching heretical, rather than call professing Christians heretical. I'll let God do that, though I will try to honor the words of Scripture which speak to that issue -for example with reference to the absolute necessity of holding to the Incarnation, that God became flesh in the coming of his Son.
Let me add this this morning to avoid misunderstanding: When I defend myth as just above on the most recent statements, I'm in no way saying that God's truth is only in Genesis 1-3. Genesis 1-3 is the word of God, and therefore the truth of God. And it conveys what happened in history. Every word is the truth of God because it is the word of God and God used humans with human words to give to us his very word. So that each word and all of them together from Genesis through Revelation, are and is the word of God, that is, God-breathed and unique in giving us truth and pointing us to the Truth, and telling us of the Story of God in Jesus.
In Jesus, or in Christ is where I live or want to live, really. And any of us here need to acknowledge that we are sinners, guilty and condemned. We do that on the basis of God's word, which tells us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that all are sinners, and under the sentence of death or final separation from God. This is why no matter what you do, there is something missing. Something lacking. We were created for a relationship with God, but like Adam and Eve we are now strangers with God, afraid, fearful because our nakedness exposes us for what we are, guilty because we know we've sinned, and driven out from the Presence of God. Now instead of working with God's complete blessing, we are working both with blessing, but under God's curse imposed on us in Adam, and on the entire earth. In fact all creation, and we along with it, are groaning, even we who have come back to God through Jesus.
So Jesus invites us to come to him, to lay our burdens on him, and that he will give us rest. And he will give us a new life of following him in service to God and others. Jesus tells us that no one can condemn us because he took our condemnation for us on the cross. So that we're to leave our lives of sin, and follow him. Jesus calls us to awaken from the sleep of death, and live a new life in him, by his death and resurrection. And then share this new life with others, as well as do the works of God to which he calls us in this world, which will have lasting impact in the new heaven and new earth to come. When heaven and earth become one. When the God who created all things, makes those all things new- in his work of judgment and grace- in the New Jerusalem, so that we have both a garden again, and a city. But all of this is to begin in this life now, in Jesus. God calls us to a life which finds its true meaning, or is living towards that, now. A life that is centered in God and sees God in Jesus at the center. So that we learn to relate our lives to God and his will, and learn to reject that it's about relating everything to us and our will which is idolatry and brings death, even now true in our lives apart from God in Christ.
So come. Come back to God through Jesus. Believe in God's gift to us in Jesus. That God the Son became one of us as a complete human, and took our sins and our very selves with him to the cross, so that we can be forgiven and find a new life in him. We must repent of our sins, and believe in God's provision for sin in Jesus. Then God promises us eternal life, which begins in this life, a life of beginning to know God.
Don't delay. Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation. Simply accept by faith God's word of condemnation and forgiveness in the Lord Jesus. Look to Jesus, and live!
Luther! How very dare you!! I have never tried to make God out to be evil. That's why I don't believe the book of Job is fact.
What do you think about the Apocrapha?
Perish the thought, Lorenzo, that Job didn't exist, or the book of Job is not fact! You can't just pick and choose what is true in the Bible. It's either all true or it's not true at all!
:)
Lorenzo,
You talk about the evils of “infanticide”, “Child abuse”, “incest” and so on. Perhaps in your heart you are trying to protect God's honor, but in reality, you are accusing him of all these things since all those stories (Job, who Adam’s kids married etc., are all true). You think you are protecting God by judging these stores on the basis of what your heart tells you must be true. But you cannot trust your own heart:
““The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
You, me, everyone needs to let God’s Word, and not our own feelings, dictate what is right and what is wrong.
"To think that what Jesus and Paul say makes it necessary for Adam and Eve to be a man and a woman is not essential in what they said. Adam means 'humankind' (or what Andrew Hall says, which is fine), and Eve means, as I recall, 'the mother of the living', perhaps representative of females." (Ted)
Ted, I'm not sure what I said or say regarding Adam, but he himself doesn't just mean "humankind." I think, along with Litl Luther, that Romans 5 overthrows any possibility of Adam being allegorical. Romans 5 shows that Adam was the first "head" over creation and mankind's *representative* before God. Thus all humans can be said to have sinned and died in Adam. He was cursed as a covenant breaker (cf. Hosea 6:7), so all of mankind was cursed "in Adam." In the same fashion, Jesus is in the New Testament the "New Adam" or "Second Adam" (Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15). He is the representative head of the new humanity, and his obedience becomes that of all who trust in him as the crucified and resurrected Lord. This way of Christ standing in our place before God, "subtitutionary identification" if you will, gives his death and his life its full meaning, and it is the heartbeat of the apostle Paul's theology. Faith joins us to Christ and brings us participation in his death to sin (which becomes our death, too), as well as into participation with his resurrection to eternal life (cf. Romans 4:25).
In the Old Testament, "Adam" does mean "man" (e.g., Hosea 6:7), but it doesn't just mean "all mankind" or "humanity."
Genesis itself is really much more a story-like history rather than a history-like story.
Andrew,
I was only defending the possibility that there are true Christians who like RJS read Genesis differently and see Adam and Eve and the Garden as true myth. I am not comfortable with that position myself. But there is no doubt that those who put their faith in Christ receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life, even when they are wrong on something like that. I'm sure you'll agree there, and Lt'l Luther sees such a reading of Genesis as heretical and maybe that's true. I used to think Adam per Paul and Jesus had to mean a single human being. I believe it does mean a human being. But after more reading, I'm not sure that this has to be the case.
This just means for me I need to read more on this before I open my mouth again and insert my foot and the rest of my body in it.
But I know there are genuine Christians who hold to evolution, and probably entertain something of seeing Genesis 3 in terms of true myth or mythical truth regarding a historical event in the history of humankind. I'm not sure to hold to evolution means you would have to read Scripture that way. I don't know, and for me, I couldn't care less. But for others this can be life and death. For example, when young people go off to university and are shakened in their faith in creation science by what appears to them as nearly irrefutable, they can end up losing their faith since they had believed that their faith did stand or fall on that understanding of Genesis. As we see from Triston (Lt'l Luther) above, he has a much better view of Genesis than they, from his stand on the flood, with which I agree.
The other day I read the post on "Jesus Creed" from RJS, as I described in a comment, above. A scientist and professor at a leading university who thinks the evidence for evolution is practically foolproof from what I understand that she said (and has said on that blog, I believe). Add to that an evangelical site I found from the UK on the very subject which I also linked on the above comment, and this didn't make me think in terms of my own theological understanding. But it made me think about where others are at. This made me think of Maalie and others like him who, in the case of some of them, anyhow, may have honest intellectual issues. The fact that Scot McKnight has written many good evangelical scholarly books clearly written that have helped me, means I tend to put alot of trust in him and his blog. But we have to be careful about putting our trust in any man, whether McKnight, Witherington, Calvin, etc., of course. They're only human and all of us have error. At the same time, Scot is not buying necessarily at all into what RJS or others are saying. That blog is a free for all dialogue on some very hard issues. There is strong disagreement on it, though as a teacher, which he is, Scot keeps it tempered down quite a bit, encouraging such discussion.
I certainly concur with your words that "Genesis itself is really much more a story-like history rather than a history-like story." I don't think what I was trying to say in explaining the view of Genesis 3 as true myth is to convey that it's simply a story that is like history. Somehow it has to be a story that conveys what happened historically. Of course the term itself, true myth, could/would be construed as such.
Again, I have a number of reasons why (whether evolution is true or not) I believe Adam and Eve and the Garden is literal history, telling us in a theological way what happened, just as the gospel writers do with the story of Jesus.
A weakness perhaps you can say, and I do think sometimes it is- in me, is that I really try to understand why people believe or think the way they do. But we have to draw the line when what they think is clearly antithetical to the gospel and God's revelation in Christ, and what is not true to Scripture itself.
(more coming, because I haven't answered all your comment)
I agree with Estelle's biology teacher (see comment August 24, 2008 11:17 AM).
It is absolutely impossible for the diversification of humankind as we see it today to have arisen from one man and one woman. It is simply outrageous to even suggest this. We know that upright man was walking this earth some three million years ago. We know about his cultures and his migrations. To believe factually in Mr Adam and Ms Eve as the founders of humankind is patently absurd.
I must go for now, Deb and I are going to watch a movie. I'm sure my comments were inadequate though I gave it the best I had with the time and few resources I glanced at.
I'm truly sorry for having upset anyone. (and I do think your link of covenant and Adam has truth, Andrew). My motives were sincere I believe, and I want to dig further on this.
Will check back later.
"It is absolutely impossible for the diversification of humankind as we see it today to have arisen from one man and one woman."
That's amazing. I find it absolutely possible for the diversity of humans to have evolved from fish, or worms.
I believe Darwin never concluded that a particular species could evolve outside of that species. Isn't that true Maalie? You would know better than I.
Donsands, you said:
> I find it absolutely possible for the diversity of humans to have evolved from fish, or worms.
Then I am afraid you mis-understand the process of natural selection if you believe that humans evolved from fish or worms. They did not. However, fish, birds, reptiles, amphibia and mammals evolved from an extinct common ancestor which which was none of those things.
It would take me a whole semester to teach this stuff properly, but you may like to start here and follow some of the links. Much of it is written by your own elite scientists.
I would add that disbelieving something because you don't understand it is called "argument from personal incredulity" and does not count as evidence.
I respectfully suggest that you should put down the bible for a few weeks and study some basic biology, as Estelle appears to have done. I compliment her for that.
Maalie,
Are there many gaps (I mean in the fossil record) in the evolutionary hypothesis?
I want to add here, that one thing I and all of us must do, is to let the text of Scripture speak as it does, and let the chips fall where they may. I'm committed to that. At the same time, I think we have to be careful to read Scripture on its own terms and not as modern or postmodern people. And that's not always easy for us who are influenced by modernism and postmodernism. But we must be committed to that. Of course I'm speaking to a group of believers here which clearly is committed to reading the text of Scripture, God's word, as it stands.
Andrew,
Your post (Aug. 31st 2:03 p.m.) is brilliant. Thanks for what you wrote.
Susan,
Have you ever had one of your Posts hit 200 comments? It appears quite likely that this one will!
Maalie,
It does seem odd to me as well that you can buy into the idea of the mutation of species from one to another and yet not leave any possibility that mankind could have come from one original source--especially if Adam and Eve existed millions of years ago.
Don't you believe everything in creation began from single cell organisms to the amazing variety we have today, and yet you don't believe there could be any possibility that all the varieties of humans could have "evolved" from an original pair of humans? Seems like your bias is exposed.
Hi Ted,
I will agree with you that Christians can be wrong on serious issues and yet still be genuine Christians. In fact, in my experience, it is often the most gifted scholars that can go down this path. Two Christian men whom I respect more than almost anyone on this planet, who are both more intelligent and know the Scriptures much better than me have both stumbled into what I believe to be heresy (nevertheless they are both great and genuine Christians). One has bought into “Preterism” the other into “Openness”. I believe both of these doctrines to be classical heresy simply because they both go against the historical beliefs of Christians throughout all ages. So, all that is to say: Sure, Christians can believe in evolution and still be Christian. In fact, they might believe in evolution and yet still believe Adam and Eve were literal people and not a myth (even though these two ideas seem completely incompatiable). Many Christians do not think through all the logical implications of their beliefs. For instance, most Christians believe that faith comes before regeneration. I'm convinced that it is the othe rway around: regeneration precedes faith. And I also believe the "logical" implications of faith before regeneration leads to the impossible conclusion that those who have faith would have something to boast about before God—which of course is unbiblical. I don't think you can look at this particular issue and not come to that logical conclusion. Nevertheless, most Christians continue to confess that faith comes before being born again and at the same time confess that all glory belongs to God and we have nothing of which we can boast about in His sight. It is inconsistent logically but it is what a majority of Christians believe, in most cases, because they simply have not thought through the logical implications of their beliefs.
Ted:
>Are there many gaps (I mean in the fossil record) in the evolutionary hypothesis?
Yes, of course there are gaps. A 'gap' does not prove that a fossil does not exist, it suggests that the fossil has not been found (good fossils are rare finds, they may be millions of years old). More and more fossils are discovered as time goes on. Before geologists started looking for fossils, there was 100% gap. The gaps are now sufficiently small for us to be able to "join the dots" and work out a complete lineage. That is the essence of science, the explanations are modified (improved) as new evidence comes to light.
Litl luther: Science has absolutely nothing to do with "belief" or "faith". It is to do with accepting, for the time being, the most parsimonious hypothesis to explain the evidence. If more, or contradictory, evidence comes to light, the explanation is updated accordingly. It is all done by the peer-review process of scientific publication so that the evidence presented may be verified independently.
Again, may I suggest you look on-line or to your library for your further enlightenment. It easy for you to dismiss scientific evidence with a verse from a discredited book written some 2000 years ago when mankind understood practically nothing. It would take me a semester to teach the science properly.
True, Lt'l Luther,
But the theology of the Reformation is not foolproof either and there were some serious and not so serious disagreements among the Reformers themselves. Yet theologically they were much better than most Christians and churches seem to be today. I love Timothy George's book, "Theology of the Reformers", himself a Southern Baptist and Calvinist, and was at the January Series here at Calvin College last time, and that was the one I wanted to get to but didn't, but one can download (you can find the link on my blog), but that book is outstanding in giving you a good view of the Reformers: Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Menno Simons (in chronological order, I believe). And he ends with the importance of the reformation for today. I ought to reread it.
In the area of science, I think I'm unqualified to ask questions or think through much on it, I've read so little and understand so little on it. I agree that there is definitely a way to read Genesis 3 as literal history and still believe in evolution. But one staple for me in looking at science is that I can't put my full weight in what science is saying today, because by nature it's an ongoing enterprise based on hypotheses that are ever being tested as more and more is learned. I also see human's finiteness as a major factor (and sin can be which is played out in some scientism which gets into faith in its atheism) in not putting too much weight on science, while at the same time appreciating it for what it is.
But after reading some from RJS (and others), a strong evangelical Christian it seems, who is a scientist and believes in evolution, then reading other fine Christians, among them scientists, then reading critiques of both, philosophically and theologically by Christian scholars- I'm left with my head swimming and wanting to go back to Psalm 131. I wish I could just find a niche and settle there. I like to read some challenging things, but access to the libraries around here makes me grab whatever comes to mind right away, and I don't have time or energy to do justice to much of anything. I'm blessed to have friends like you, and a wife who prays for me and understands. Right now have been working through depression which is a life-long issue for me, but really rising to the fore. Susan has recommended to me an outstanding book written by Edward Welch on depression, who teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary -and after reading Witherington on Peter Enns, who was blogged about over at "Jesus Creed" as they seriously considered myth over there- a one day post with alot of comments), I have to say sadly that there are some serious issues on truth in that book by Enns. He does say some good and important things, as well, but seems to want to go in a postmodern direction to the point of being certain that we can't be certain, and yet have some kind of knowing (now am I getting this mixed up with something else I've read lately? It could be, but I don't think so!). Witherington takes him to task pretty hard, along with seeing what is good in his work. So I'm afraid I can understand why WTS let him go. And Witherington, by the way, gets after N.T. Wright, a good friend of his, over not sufficiently emphasizing truth in his work on Scripture, in which Wright's big emphasis is authority.
I agree with your example, though not sure how preterism is a heresy. The orthodox faith is much more flexible than that. What would be heresy is to deny the Second Coming of Christ, but in the matter of interpretation with reference to apocalyptic writings, I'm not so sure we can say that's heresy. Fortunately advocates of Open Theism, at least in one case I recall, and I think it's true overall, are making some important changes in response to critiques of them. We definitely need critique and to work through theological issues together.
Thanks, Lt'l Luther, and I'll end, finally, here.
> It does seem odd to me
Once again Litl-Luther, I'm sorry that I have to shout personal incredulity rather than a study and understanding of the evidence and the processes.
May I respectfully suggest that you abandon your plans for writing a Phd on predestination and start your enquires somewhere like this
>In the area of science, I think I'm unqualified to ask questions or think through much on it, I've read so little and understand so little on it
Ted, I respect your openness here. And that is of course the problem for most people who have not been privileged to have a background in science. The mythology of the bible is so simple, and when indoctrinated from birth, becomes compelling compared with the discipline involved in proper learning in science (and the same withy other non-christian scriptures, of course). I'm sorry I keep coming back to this, but it is simply true: Personal incredulity seems to be the mainstay of the creationists' arguments (and they are not really arguments at all).
And that is why it is so futile for me to contribute here, you have already made up your minds on by the irrational credence of an outdated and outmoded book.
Maalie,
Thanks. I ran into a large book at a store on Saturday that was putting the fossil findings into (and this is my memory here- 100's of millions) and saying that little in the way of finding gaps has occurred. I know there are scientists all over the board and who talk like they really know on an issue, while the vast majority of scientists go along, or are committed to, or see things in the way of mainstream science. I'm sure only a number of scientists really work on this, as there are all kinds of scientists.
About the Bible being a discredited book, You can look at it that way if you insist on reading it as a postmodern or modern person. You must read it on its own terms, what it purports to be. It is not a scientific text, though it touches on matters of science in passing. It is not a modern day history book, though it is concerned from start to finish with history. And actually it has much to commend with reference to verifications, both the Old and New Testaments.
The manuscripts of the New Testament are old and not far at all from the time they were written, a few decades at the most- and the work on comparing them by scholars has led such to conclude that we have in them, essentially the original writings in our Bibles today. And to read the gospels has in it the ring of truth, along with all of Scripture. We see over and over again that Scripture flatters no one, showing the good and bad. It is not a hagiography on the saints!
Jesus remains a fascinating figure to many, but the essence of what we know about him is found in the eyewitness accounts written in the gospel in their ways of telling the story, as those who lived with him, and saw his death in shock, and yet witnessed his resurrection, and then the early church arising from that, not from a discredited lie, but from the proclamation of what they had witnessed for themselves: "He is risen. And he is Lord over all."
Maalie,
"Personal incredulity seems to be the mainstay of the creationists' arguments (and they are not really arguments at all)"
First I want to say that some of the greatest minds in history have worked on the meaning of Scripture and have contributed alot. Faith itself seems an inherent part of being human, I would argue.
But to your statement: Over at RBC Ministries where I work, home of "Our Daily Bread", some hold fervently to Creation Science, and I know some intelligent people who do, though they're getting it second hand. But back to where I work: we've recently published a booklet by a friend of mine, who is an amateur naturalist, in which he tries to calm the storm between evangelical Christians who hold to an old earth (I can't recall that he mentions evolution) and those who don't. From what I've read I'm skeptical that Creation Science is really good science. But again, my opinion means nothing on such a subject.
But I want to repeat what I do believe: what we see and experience points to something more than science can possibly tell us. Science might be able to give us alot of the inner workings on things, to help us in WHAT we're seeing. But it can't tell us the WHY behind it. If there is a god, only that god can tell us the why. Couldn't all the "gods" and religions on earth for all their differences, errors and wrongs, point to a Reality? And couldn't that Reality be found ultimately and finally in Jesus? Of course I believe that with all my heart and mind and life- weak as I am, that there is a true north found in Jesus.
> what we see and experience points to something more than science can possibly tell us.
Ted, fair point, but only to the point about what science can tell us NOW (i.e. so far). Otherwise you falling back on personal incredulity. Fifty years ago we did not understand the genetic code; a hundred years ago we did not understand electronics. Science will continue to increase our understanding of the universe until our sun explodes and Earth evaporates into cosmic gas. In terms of the history of time, that is but a blink of an eyelid. Scary thought, I consider. We came, and we go. No meaning, no purpose, just an arbitrary, indifferent process.
Ted wrote:
"I agree with your example, though not sure how preterism is a heresy. The orthodox faith is much more flexible than that. What would be heresy is to deny the Second Coming of Christ".
EXACTLY! Full Preterists deny the Second Coming of Christ in the fact that they believe His second coming already took place in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem. You could probably count on your two hands how many Full-Presterists there are in each US State—a very small number. Nonetheless, one of my closest friends has become one (actually I consider him my best friend). I purposely chose that topic for a research paper I had to write in a Systematic Theology course I took in January. It's 21 pages, but if you're interested in really looking into Preterism, my paper would definitely help in that regard.
I have no problem with the partial preterist position. Even R.C. Sproul is a partial preterist. That is completely consistent with orthodoxy, but full preterism IS heresy because the Church of all ages has confessed belief in the future Second Coming of Christ. Full Preterist say Jesus already came and are not looking for another coming. They're a very small number, but are growing. My paper is rather sympathetic to the position--more than I probably would have been normally if a dear friend wasn't sold on it--but I still refute full-preterism convincingly (at least I believe I do!).
BTW: Don, did you ever read my paper? Just curious. If Don read it, I imagine he probably thought I gave too much credibility to full-preterism.
Hey! It looks like I'm lucky 200! Susan, what do I win?
Triston
Thanks Maalie,
I'll check out the documentary on human origins. It is interesting to me that people are so sure of the science that they believe they can document the last 4 million years.
BTW: Writing on Predestination would be fascinating, but actually I would like to write on the three imputations in Scripture: Adam's guilt imputed to mankind; Humankind's sin imputed to Christ and Christ's righteousness imputed to those who believe in Him.
>It is interesting to me that people are so sure of the science that they believe they can document the last 4 million years.
That is of course again simply personal incredulity (for the implication is that you do not believe or understand it). I strongly urge you to begin a course in basic science in order that you can at least speak with a little credibility on the subject :-)
Well, folks, we are on the second page of comments now. But I will have to withdraw soon as I am laving for Paris. I need a short break before my intensive trip to Madagascar, you see.
I'm meeting up with Simon in Paris, where I expect the conversation will inevitably turn to this website over a bottle (or three) of Côtes du Rhône. LOL!
>I strongly urge you to begin a course in basic science in order that you can at least speak with a little credibility on the subject.
That is fair Maalie. I would genuinely like to take some science courses. I hope the opportunity presents itself.
Maalie: You and Simon should take a trip to Nepal sometime. I'm sure there are birds here found nowhere else. I know we have perhaps the largest variety of butterflies in the world. It would be fun hooking up with you guys in person.
Have a good time!
Triston
Triston,
Name me one preterist that holds that Jesus is not coming back. N.T. Wright for a long time was misunderstood into teaching that Jesus' second coming is not included in his interpretation of Matthew 24, which he corrects with a smile in his recent book on the resurrection. But I've never heard of a preterist position that denies the Second Coming, which of course would be heretical.
Triston,
I'm just curious on that one, why I asked, as it's new to me.
Though I'm slow to slap the label of heresy on teachings I don't agree with. I'd want to know what such thought concerning the "hope" in Scripture in Jesus Christ, and how that plays out in what is to come. I can readily call many things erroneous, without calling them heresy, or even necessarily heretical.
Post a Comment