My daughter's wedding to Andrew is now 5 days away - while there's much left to be done, it's amazing how much has already been prepared and especially wonderful to have so many friends who have come alongside to pick up the slack that short time and surgery have caused. Thank you, each and everyone! Our family - through Christ's blood rather than by birth's blood - never ceases to amaze me! ("God sets the lonely in families" Ps 68:6) Even now, the Craver family sits on ready waiting for a task to be assigned where there is none yet because we have been so well cared for - and the Deichert's preparing to drive their little family across country to be "home" with us - how cool is that!
The surgery on my shoulder was more involved than the surgeon thought it would be. My primary care physician was not surprised, for such has been the course of my medical life - complicated. And yet, as I spoke of in the previous post, God has used the difficulties to teach me so many truths by application. I understand so much more clearly the passages dealing with the church as a body that needs to work well together, each part doing it's own separate job, but coordinated with the whole. Goodness does it ever hurt when the parts get out of whack and don't behave as they're supposed to!
The surgery on my shoulder was more involved than the surgeon thought it would be. My primary care physician was not surprised, for such has been the course of my medical life - complicated. And yet, as I spoke of in the previous post, God has used the difficulties to teach me so many truths by application. I understand so much more clearly the passages dealing with the church as a body that needs to work well together, each part doing it's own separate job, but coordinated with the whole. Goodness does it ever hurt when the parts get out of whack and don't behave as they're supposed to!
I am recovering, mostly at home, for the moment. However, some meetings and a lecture this week require my presence at the office, at least part time, beginning tomorrow. So - I nap and then I work, and then I nap some more. Physical therapy begins tomorrow and I am glad. My physical therapist is great - encouraging, caring but not the least bit slack in pushing me to do what I need to do, and being clear about what it is so I know if I'm trying to do too much. Another lesson in taking each day as it comes and dealing with what is there and no more! It is always hard work each day and painful as well, but so worthwhile in the long run! I am excited to do normal things like swing a golf club, cast a lure, dig in the dirt without paying for it later. And, as the "couple" talk about their future, they remind me to be good as I may have a baby to hold some years in the future.
Blog life continues to be interesting for those of you who weren't up to wading through the comments on the last post. I'm not sure even I remember the latest topic. Actually, through my pain medication haze (I do hate this stuff, and the necessity for it!!!!) I believe there to be two diverging lines at present - cherry picking and large fish. Since my presence may be limited for the time being, I'd like to say for the record, I have no trouble at all with the God of time and space manipulating it in any way and time He sees, or saw, fit so that a rather big fish swallowed a small, rebellious man only to spew him up, quite repentant, three days later. It is rather like God, don't you think, to do something gracious and totally out of the ordinary to get the attention of a single man so that he repents? Seems to be repetition on a theme to me, but then I have no trouble at all reconciling the scientific "data" with the story of creation. I'm quite comfortable in saying that I currently "see in a mirror dimly" and one day will see clearly and am comfortable waiting until that day to have my questions answered.
Blog life continues to be interesting for those of you who weren't up to wading through the comments on the last post. I'm not sure even I remember the latest topic. Actually, through my pain medication haze (I do hate this stuff, and the necessity for it!!!!) I believe there to be two diverging lines at present - cherry picking and large fish. Since my presence may be limited for the time being, I'd like to say for the record, I have no trouble at all with the God of time and space manipulating it in any way and time He sees, or saw, fit so that a rather big fish swallowed a small, rebellious man only to spew him up, quite repentant, three days later. It is rather like God, don't you think, to do something gracious and totally out of the ordinary to get the attention of a single man so that he repents? Seems to be repetition on a theme to me, but then I have no trouble at all reconciling the scientific "data" with the story of creation. I'm quite comfortable in saying that I currently "see in a mirror dimly" and one day will see clearly and am comfortable waiting until that day to have my questions answered.
I must say a particular thank you to Lutl-Luther for the nice explanation of the anti-cherry picking aspects of our faith - nicely done and thank you for representing my position so well! We must indeed take the scriptures as a whole and take a long and thoughtful look at how the New Testament fulfills the Old and where that leaves us for the instructions for everyday life. I taught as much last week to our senior high school students when we dealt with the topic of holiness. The topic was, "what is normal". The position I take is that the Old Testament command from God, "Be holy as I am holy" is not one that we may disregard because it is repeated so many times and in so many ways in the New Testament. We then talked about what it actually means to be holy and what this looks like in comparison with cultural norms. This week we moved on to more specifics and I team taught with two "young" men (well, compared with me) that I respect very much. Interestingly enough, the topic of fish came up again! However, this time it was in reference to bait - a good fisherman knows what he's after and always uses the most attractive bait to cover the hook. I'd say fish are pretty stupid but then I'd condemn myself as well for the load of bait I've swallowed in a lifetime, but that is a story for a different day. All I will say at this point is thank goodness for a God who is not only an expert at removing hooks, but also is gracious enough to be glad to do so!
So, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Thanks for continuing to read and discuss despite my frequent periods of quiet. I am here reading, just so you know; however, you all seem quite capable of carrying the conversation(s) without any need of my words.
236 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 236 of 236>Unfortunately, one element of belief is beyond our arguments. God has chosen to pour out his grace on some.
So you believe, Craver Vii, so you believe.
Must go, see you again!
>Your response is so humorous! I can just as easily point to you and I as proof that God exists:
No you can't Litl Luther, no you can't, not nearly so easily; we (sicence) has tangible evidence on our sode, not superstition.
NOW I AM GOING!!!! FINALLY! LOL!!!
"I'm not sure it is very easy to preach the gospel and not offend other religions."
I'm pretty sure I said that Triston. If you reread what I said, it's there.
And each situation calls for us to be doves and snakes.
Right. It is one thing when they find the message offensive, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will find the messenger to be offensive.
It is possible that I have shared the good news with someone who rejected it, and the conversation went amicably, but who knows? Maybe they had a legitimate complaint about me after I left. :-O
Craver, when I talk about offensiveness, I meant Luther'r rant about Mary. It's obvious that he doesn't think too much of her by that nasty little quip about not staying a virgin long, but I do think it is possible to talk about these things without resorting to childishness and offensiveness.
I have friends of many different faiths, and whilst I do go along with their beliefs, I would never rubbish that which they cherish.
Whoops, I meant to say 'don't go along with them'. My typing is getting as bad as Simons!
That raises a question, 'Renzo. What do you do when you are sure that someone believes rubbish, or maybe their conviction puts them in harm's way?
Sometimes I remain silent to avoid conflict. I especially go that route if I do not think we can make any real progress.
Lorenzo,
I have the highest regard for Mary the mother of Jesus. And the Bible is quite clear on the fact that Mary had several children after she gave birth to Jesus. My quip was just in trying to relate to poor Joseph. I imagine he was really looking forward to finally having sex with his wife, after nine long months of waiting for Jesus to be born! Besides, it would be sin for Mary to keep that from her husband indefinitely. Her body belonged to her husband Joseph, just as Joseph's body belonged to her. I’m sure they enjoyed a good bit of passionate lovemaking. All completely pure and sinless pleasure between husband and wife. No harm in that.
Craver, it depends who is talking the rubbish. Some people are up for having a discussion and other people aren't.
I think people have the right to think and believe what they want so long as it doesn't involve knocking skyscrapers over and harms no one.
It is amazing how offensive the people of God can often be when they are filled with the Holy Spirit:
“Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” –John the Baptist
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.” –Jesus
“Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God…you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death”. –Peter
“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers. –Stephen
“Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness”. –Paul
“Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep!” –James
"...so long as it doesn't involve knocking skyscrapers over... and harms no one."
Yes, I think that's what I'm trying to say. We have a moral obligation to put forth a reasonable effort to redirect someone who is hurting themselves or anyone else. Ideas have consequences.
Litl Luther, I have an observation. Each of the people you quoted was killed because of stuff they said. I'm certainly not suggesting that any one of them mis-spoke, but let martyrdom be God's sovereign will and not our own.
I find Paul's "offensive" remarks the most relevant to our discussion because Paul was trying to share the Gospel with seekers; however, Elymas withstood Paul and tried to turn the seekers away from faith in Christ. Therefore, filled with the Holy Sprit, Paul called Elymas a man of "all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness" and pronounced a curse upon him. Could it be possible that people such as Maalie and Dawkins are like an Elymas of modern times? I think a fair comparison can be made because of their shared opposition to the truth. If a Christian was trying to share the Gospel and one like Maalie or Dawkins came along to oppose the message, could it be that the Holy Sprit would speak equally offensive words out of the mouth of that Christian, directed at Maalie, Dawkins or someone like them who are trying to turn the seeker away from Christ? I would say "Quite possibly (even probably) Yes." This seems perfectly reasonable to me. God has not changed. He still, even offensively, opposes those who attempt to turn people away from His Son.
"'And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you [Elymas}, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.'
And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand. Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord."
God had a purpose for Paul to speak such. Paul didn't blind all men who came against him. Sorcerers were dealt with in such a case. And then again Paul was able to do the works of an Apostle 2 Cor. 12:12. As Peter was as well, when Peter proclaimed Ananias and Sapphira were lying to the Holy Spirit, and so to God as well, and God killed them. yet god did this for a purpose as well. God doesn't kill people all the time for holding back money that they said they would give.
Apostalic times, for me were different. We didn't have the New Testament yet, and God was sovereignly working the way He did then, and now.
That's not to say God can't work miracles now if He is pleased to. And we surely should boldly share the truth of the Gospel in all humility and love with gratitude for our own salvation.
Woah! its hot in here! Go Maalie!
Ted- yes I agree the toronto blessing did get out of hand.. interesting the last church I attended was called Vineyard...
thank you for your thoughts.
I should write a small book titled, The Extraordinary Sex Life of the Virgin Mary: Discover the passion which set her lovemaking apart
With such a provocative title, combined by the RC Church’s certain condemnation of the book (and thus media exposure), it could quickly become a bestseller!
The thesis of the book would be based on the certainty of two things:
1. That Mary and Joseph had several children after the birth of Jesus
And:
2. Mary and Joseph’s impeccable moral behavior.
Spouses who have eyes only for their partner, and do not lust after anyone else, certainly have much more satisfying sex lives.
Maalie,
Yes, outstanding credentials.
But no, the answer to everything through science? Is science going to be able to explain "love, beauty, morality, meaning, and purpose" (just lifted from a post from Jesus Creed yesterday, on a book, Back to Darwin, by a lady scientist professor, who herself as an evangelical Christian, holds to evolution)?
They'll maybe try to come up with explanations, and they are, but there's a wonder to life that is not meant to be analyzed, but lived. The kind of knowledge science can investigate but not really understand.
That point may be arguable for many, but for most it won't be at all. A love which gives one's all for another, in delight over them is like the love of the Trinity, in which the particants have always done the same, and mean to help others into that same fellowship in God through Christ by the Spirit.
Wow. I missed this new page entirely. You have to turn pages on Susan's blog! I have some catching up to do!
>but there's a wonder to life that is not meant to be analyzed, but lived
Ted, just a quick one, I'm so busy today.
I go a long way with that, and that is why I am a fee-paying card-carrying Unitarian. However, I'm not sure about "not meant to be analysed". Why not? People used to assert that the genetic code etc. "is not meant to be analysed" or "we are playing God" or some such.
Don't you think that when it is finally understood (and of course I can't be sure, but I expect it eventually will be understood) don't you think that makes it all the more wondrous? That nature should result in such phenomena?
"Love" is easily explained in terms of natural selection: quite simply we would become extinct without it (all explained very lucidly in Dawkins' Selfish Gene.
But that does not make love any less beautiful, as I can testify from my personal experience.
I'll look in when I can...
I'm interested to see that I am regarded as a son of the Devil. I will do a blog post about that in due course.
No Maalie, I did not call you a son of the devil or refer to you as such. You may eventually become a son of God for all I know. My only point was that perhaps, when someone is opposing the truth of Christ, offensive speech in certain instances might not only be appropriate but even come about because that Christian is filled with God's Sprit. But I did not call you any such thing. Sorry if I should have been more clear.
>a lady scientist professor, who herself as an evangelical Christian, holds to evolution
Ted, is it even possible for this lady to be evangelical? I don’t doubt she’s a genuine Christian, but isn’t the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture one prerequisite of being evangelical? I would think that holding to evolution and to the inerrancy of Scripture are mutually exclusive. Has the term “evangelical” really lost so much meaning?
>You may eventually become a son of God for all I know
According to Bluecollar, I either am or I am not. I am already elected, or I am not. And according to them, in his omniscience, God knew it from the b-of the bang (the Big Bang) and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. My fate is already sealed. Like a referee in football, no amount of pressure is going to make him change his mind. I shall have to take my chances.
Maalie, that's right... sort of. God already knows but you don't. There were two thieves crucified with Jesus. One was an enemy of God until moments before drawing his dying breath. I have only the best wishes for you, and if God has chosen you for Himself, He will bring it to pass in His own time, and for His own good pleasure.
The part about there being nothing you can do about it is a common misconception people make about Calvinism. It's not like we are simple robots who cannot make any choices, but only that the option to desire God is not available until the quickening of the Holy Spirit. And then, the redeemed can't help but respond affirmatively. God's grace is irresistible. You take a step of faith and walk through that "door" and after going through, you look back and see that it was God who actually brought you through.
Maalie - Bluecollar has it's own opinions and they are not generally reflected by the believers here. If you will remember, when they asked you to leave, they asked me to as well. As to perhaps becoming a "son of God" - stranger people than you have seen the truth of Jesus the Christ, so I have no intentions of giving up my prayers for you.
Triston - you're on the verge of getting comments deleted. You're being deliberately inflammatory and rude and you need to stop now. No more comments about Mary. And, by the way, the scientist that Ted mentions is not only an evangelical believer, she's a solid one - and an even better scientist than I am. Just because someone does not believe as you do about creation/evolution doesn't call their testimony into question here. The only requirement is that you believe with your heart and profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and you know that right well.
Now I suppose I shall have to post something new to get you all off on another track - or at least a different page.
And although you may have had a rough go with Bluecollar, I'm sure they would rejoice to see you as their brother. No one has a vote on who God saves or doesn't save. Trust me that they would welcome you properly.
"Like a referee in football, no amount of pressure is going to make him change his mind."
Ah, but suppose the coach throws a red flag to call for a review, and the review shows the referee missed something.
I'm not sure I follow that, Sandman. The referee is God, right? Eh, I was never big on sports. (Except soccer... I coach my 10-yr old son's team.)
Susan,
Who called that lady scientist's testimony into question? Not me. I think you should reread my comment and you would see I did no such thing. My question is legitimate. In the common definition of an evangelical, one must believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Does she? Is it even possible to believe our origins are from primordial soup and still believe the first few chapters of Genesis are true? For the life of me I don't see how this can be reconciled. But maybe it can. Please explain. But as far the definition of an evangelical goes, one must believe in the inerrancy of Scripture to be an "evangelical" (unless we want to rid the word of its full meaning). Does she believe in the inerrancy of Scripture or not? If not, she's not an evangelical—and this has nothing to do with calling her testimony into question. It has to do with the meaning of the term.
Susan, definitions for your information:
WordWeb Dictionary
Evangelical: “Relating to or being a Christian church believing in personal conversion and the inerrancy of the Bible”
Dictionary.com
Evangelical: “Relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life.”
The term “evangelical” simply does not apply to people who deny the inerrancy of Scripture. And this is not calling their testimonies into question, as you accused. They just have no right to be called an evangelical if they deny this fundamental.
"I'm not sure I follow that, Sandman. The referee is God, right?"
Yeah, in His providence He uses the red flag of sovereign grace, it's within His contingency purposes.
As God said, "In 40 days I will destroy Nineveh."
They repented, and so the Lord stayed His judgment. Until 100 years later.
Also, God said to Adam, "Where are you Adam?"
The red flag fits within there somewhere, don't you think?
But then, what of His omniscience?
Lutl-Luther"I think you should reread my comment"
You are correct, I did misread your comment - sorry!!! I thought it said that you DID doubt that she was a Christian.
However, "I would think that holding to evolution and to the inerrantcy of Scripture are mutually exclusive."
No, I do not think that they are mutually exclusive. There are people like Sir Francis Collins who consider themselves to be Evangelical Christians and their interpretation of evolutionary theory not discordant with the descriptions of creation found in the Bible.
Triston,
There is much to say on what you said about evangelical and inerrancy. Inerrancy actually becomes errant, I believe, in the way its promulgated by evangelicals at times. Like when it is insisted that something is literal or speaks of scientific knowledge, when neither is the case in a passage. And there's significant disagreement as well as ambivalence about that term.
I believe the dictionaries would have been better off to say that many evangelicals hold to inerrancy, and they all hold to a high view of Scripture as the infallible word of God. "Inerrant" is a relatively new term, I think coming in the 1970's (I'm going on memory here).
I myself don't mind using the word inerrant as long as it is clear that I don't mean the Bible is trying to do something it really isn't trying to do. It routinely rounds off numbers and does other things that in our Modern mindset seem to be errant, but really is not.
As to RJS and her view of faith and science, and specifically creation and evolution, she in no way believes that her belief in evolution contradicts either Genesis or any other part of the Bible. Nor do I. RJS is careful to state her belief that Genesis is true. She does not believe it contains error at all. But like me, she believes it needs to be properly interpreted. Not explaining it away, but seeing it for what it is, and in context.
As far as whether or not anyone would want to consider the likes of us as evangelicals, I'm afraid there looks like a possible battle line to come, which I hope is avoided.
I'm thankful to be a part of a denomination which holds unwaveringly to the Bible as the word of God and the centrality of that, yet is open on how that is best worked out, number one with reference to Scripture itself, and number two, with reference to tradition, reason and experience, which do impact how any of us read and understand the word of God. While always and forever insisting on the primacy of the Book itself.
Thanks Ted. It sounds like RJS is evangelical then. I appreciate your answer to my question.
I do believe it is important to stick with the words meaning, otherwise, eventually, even Mormons will qualify as evangelical!
You golf and fish?
I did, and I would love to again!
Hi Maalie- yes I noticed the 40 comments... sorry I was out in the desert, looking at the wonderful earth and its riches... lots of bird species..blew the gearbox up in the Landcruiser negotiating some heavy floods..limped home.. did 2500km in 3 days...
In the time I spend in the bush and with mother earth ( spent time with my aboriginal brothers)
I see less of a "god" and more of random chance and natural selection.....
Post a Comment