Monday, November 28, 2011
Presbyterian type thoughts
This weeks sermon was on the Samaritan woman at the well. When the "you have had 5 husbands and the man you live with now is not your husband" part came up, we got an interesting take. I dare say that most of us assumed that the woman was promiscuous, or loose, or that she was the problem. However, the suggestion was made that this might not be the case. What if she had been abandoned by these 5 men, and the guy she was living with was her only means of support? True, there is really no textural support either way, but it certainly gives a new perspective on her reaction.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Apology
I'd like to do something that doesn't happen very often here in blog world, and that is apologize.
For reasons that really aren't relevant, nor something for public consumption, I have been less pleasant that I normally try to be.
Unfortunately Dan has been the target of much of my less than civil responses.
So Dan, I'd like to apologize for my tone of late.
We disagree, but I've been more disagreeable than necessary.
I'm sorry.
For reasons that really aren't relevant, nor something for public consumption, I have been less pleasant that I normally try to be.
Unfortunately Dan has been the target of much of my less than civil responses.
So Dan, I'd like to apologize for my tone of late.
We disagree, but I've been more disagreeable than necessary.
I'm sorry.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Lutheran type thoughts.
Yesterday was one of my Lutheran Sundays, and as such they were celebrating Christ the King Sunday.
The text the pastor preached on was Matthe25:31-46, the sheep and the goats. While I was listening I had a couple of thoughts.
The first is a result of a bunch of research I did on that chapter a few years ago. Simply put these parables are primarily about judgment. To boil it down, at some point Christ is going to judge us all and some are going to spend eternity with Him, and the rest are going to spend eternity in a decidedly less comfortable place.
The second is so simple I think most of us just look past it. Many will use the sheep and goats to justify what is called the "social gospel". Essentially, if you feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc, you'll get into heaven. Now, before the lynch mob comes out let me say that not only are these things good things that we are called to do, but I actually participate in them myself. Back to yesterday. As the pastor was preaching I was struck by a really simple thought. The judgment had already taken place. The sheep were separated from the goats first thing. The sheep weren't saved because the did certain things, the did certain things because they were saved. The first words Jesus says to the sheep are;
"34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."
Clearly these folks were "in" long before they actually did anything.
It doesn't seem like it should be this simple, and maybe it's not. But the more I thought about it the more it makes sense. Whatever we do is in response to God's grace in choosing the sheep, not as a means to get chosen.
Anyway, just some post sermon thoughts.
The text the pastor preached on was Matthe25:31-46, the sheep and the goats. While I was listening I had a couple of thoughts.
The first is a result of a bunch of research I did on that chapter a few years ago. Simply put these parables are primarily about judgment. To boil it down, at some point Christ is going to judge us all and some are going to spend eternity with Him, and the rest are going to spend eternity in a decidedly less comfortable place.
The second is so simple I think most of us just look past it. Many will use the sheep and goats to justify what is called the "social gospel". Essentially, if you feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc, you'll get into heaven. Now, before the lynch mob comes out let me say that not only are these things good things that we are called to do, but I actually participate in them myself. Back to yesterday. As the pastor was preaching I was struck by a really simple thought. The judgment had already taken place. The sheep were separated from the goats first thing. The sheep weren't saved because the did certain things, the did certain things because they were saved. The first words Jesus says to the sheep are;
"34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."
Clearly these folks were "in" long before they actually did anything.
It doesn't seem like it should be this simple, and maybe it's not. But the more I thought about it the more it makes sense. Whatever we do is in response to God's grace in choosing the sheep, not as a means to get chosen.
Anyway, just some post sermon thoughts.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
No Need for a Title
"I engage in these conversations in an effort by God's grace through the leadership of the Holy Spirit to learn how and improve on doing this study the correct way and to learn from my mistakes to move away from doing it the incorrect way."
“Each time that someone suggests "well, I (hoity toity, wonderful ME) rely upon the Holy Spirit, NOT my reason, while YOU merely rely upon your flawed reason..." each time someone suggests that sort of verbal vomit, they are exposing their arrogance and hypocrisy and all-around plain goofiness, not to mention a bit of diabolical divisiveness. Stop it.”
“…you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason. That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians.”
“Each time that someone suggests "well, I (hoity toity, wonderful ME) rely upon the Holy Spirit, NOT my reason, while YOU merely rely upon your flawed reason..." each time someone suggests that sort of verbal vomit, they are exposing their arrogance and hypocrisy and all-around plain goofiness, not to mention a bit of diabolical divisiveness. Stop it.”
“…you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason. That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians.”
Thursday, October 20, 2011
What Beliefs Identify a Christian? #2
I earlier posted about a fellow blogger who believes that there are certain beliefs that are common to all who claim to be Christian, and that those beliefs are so common that we can assume them to be true in all cases. I previously offered evidence that would tend to dispute that claim, now I offer more. These quotes are from a pastor of a mainline protestant Christian denomination, so I guess we could assume he is a Christian.
"Did Jesus Die for the Sins of Humanity, or Not? Not."
"Adam and Eve supposedly sinned in the garden and as punishment all their descendents are infused with a shot of original sin. Since God the Father needs to have his honor restored (talk about patriarchal nonsense) he kills his Son (who in the weird Trinitarian formula is really the same guy, sort of) so that everyone on planet Earth doesn't spend eternity in hell. If anyone takes twenty minutes thinking this through they can see that the whole structure is absurd. Beginning with the fact that Adam and Eve never existed."
"The great Christian doctrines such as Trinity, Creation, Sin, Christology, Atonement, and Eschatology, are no longer great. They are shadows. They don't speak of reality on a grand scale like they once purported to do. They may fill an emotional or psychological niche here and there. For more and more people they hold little interest or suasion. The world has passed these doctrines by in the way that science has left alchemy."
To be clear, my point is not that I deny or question whether this gentleman is or is not a Christian. Nor is it a desire to define, limit, exclude, or include anyone from anything. It is simply to point out that as we look at what is called Christianity these days that there is less and less that one can take for granted in terms of commonly held beliefs.
"Did Jesus Die for the Sins of Humanity, or Not? Not."
"Adam and Eve supposedly sinned in the garden and as punishment all their descendents are infused with a shot of original sin. Since God the Father needs to have his honor restored (talk about patriarchal nonsense) he kills his Son (who in the weird Trinitarian formula is really the same guy, sort of) so that everyone on planet Earth doesn't spend eternity in hell. If anyone takes twenty minutes thinking this through they can see that the whole structure is absurd. Beginning with the fact that Adam and Eve never existed."
"The great Christian doctrines such as Trinity, Creation, Sin, Christology, Atonement, and Eschatology, are no longer great. They are shadows. They don't speak of reality on a grand scale like they once purported to do. They may fill an emotional or psychological niche here and there. For more and more people they hold little interest or suasion. The world has passed these doctrines by in the way that science has left alchemy."
To be clear, my point is not that I deny or question whether this gentleman is or is not a Christian. Nor is it a desire to define, limit, exclude, or include anyone from anything. It is simply to point out that as we look at what is called Christianity these days that there is less and less that one can take for granted in terms of commonly held beliefs.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
What did the Pharisees know, and when did they know it?
John 5 45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”
There has been a lot of talk about the historicity of the OT recently. We’ve got the historical camp, the epic camp, the mythical camp (which overlaps with the epic folks) and the “it’s all a bunch of hooey” folks.
So how did Jesus treat the OT? If we look at John 5 Jesus is giving a dissertation to the religious leaders who are ticked because He healed on the Sabbath. Jesus response is essentially that He is doing His fathers business and that if His father says heal on the Sabbath, then folks get healed on the Sabbath. But He goes further, actually pretty clearly equating Himself with YHWH. Obviously this is scandalous, but what is interesting is who Jesus appeals to as witnesses. (Remember Jewish law required 2 witnesses for testimony to be accepted in a court of law). Who does Jesus appeal to, Moses. We see this same thinking in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
Luke 16:27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
So it would appear that there is enough accurate information about Jesus for Him to suggest the following.
1. There is enough accurate information in the OT for people to repent and come to faith in Christ.
2. There is enough accurate information in the OT for Jesus to cite it as acceptable as a witness in a court of law.
It seems clear, that if folks aren’t going to believe the testimony of the OT, that they’ll have a hard time with accepting anything else.
There has been a lot of talk about the historicity of the OT recently. We’ve got the historical camp, the epic camp, the mythical camp (which overlaps with the epic folks) and the “it’s all a bunch of hooey” folks.
So how did Jesus treat the OT? If we look at John 5 Jesus is giving a dissertation to the religious leaders who are ticked because He healed on the Sabbath. Jesus response is essentially that He is doing His fathers business and that if His father says heal on the Sabbath, then folks get healed on the Sabbath. But He goes further, actually pretty clearly equating Himself with YHWH. Obviously this is scandalous, but what is interesting is who Jesus appeals to as witnesses. (Remember Jewish law required 2 witnesses for testimony to be accepted in a court of law). Who does Jesus appeal to, Moses. We see this same thinking in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
Luke 16:27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
So it would appear that there is enough accurate information about Jesus for Him to suggest the following.
1. There is enough accurate information in the OT for people to repent and come to faith in Christ.
2. There is enough accurate information in the OT for Jesus to cite it as acceptable as a witness in a court of law.
It seems clear, that if folks aren’t going to believe the testimony of the OT, that they’ll have a hard time with accepting anything else.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
What Beliefs Identify a Christian?
A while back there was a bit of a fuss over someones contention that one must assume that a self identified Christian would look to the Holy Spirit for guidance.
A few years ago I would have agreed. But now...?
I was perusing the blog of an ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament, ordained by a mainline Christian denomination. This gentleman self identifies as a progressive christian as well as a minister of his denomination. He wrote excitedly about a book that his congregation was about to begin studying. This book was written by another christian who is also ordained in a leadership position in a different mainline denomination. Now one would assume that being ordained in christian denominations might suggest a certain level of acceptance of what one might call historic christian doctrine.
Yet we have this list of "12 theses for a new reformation".
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
If this is what we get from progressive Christians, can we assume that there is any shred of commonly held beliefs that identify a Christian?
It seems not.
A few years ago I would have agreed. But now...?
I was perusing the blog of an ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament, ordained by a mainline Christian denomination. This gentleman self identifies as a progressive christian as well as a minister of his denomination. He wrote excitedly about a book that his congregation was about to begin studying. This book was written by another christian who is also ordained in a leadership position in a different mainline denomination. Now one would assume that being ordained in christian denominations might suggest a certain level of acceptance of what one might call historic christian doctrine.
Yet we have this list of "12 theses for a new reformation".
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
If this is what we get from progressive Christians, can we assume that there is any shred of commonly held beliefs that identify a Christian?
It seems not.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Christian Rebuke (updated)
In a comment on another thread I was rebuked for honestly answering a question. The rebuker said the following when I questioned the tone of his responses.
"“I was rebuking you in the name of Christ our Lord because of how wrong that answer appeared to be.”
I'll throw out his words and let folks decide if this is actually a biblical rebuke in the "name of Christ our Lord".
I'll be blunt with you here: it's this sort of verbal vomit that makes folk sickened by your sort of Christian. This repeated arrogant and sanctimonious excrement that you spew from your mouth sometimes is not becoming an adult Christian or adult human.
"Well, I'm relying upon God while YOU are relying on your own pitiful reason," is just bullshit of the most rotten and diabolical sort.
“…, but that sort of arrogance will turn the conversation right off. It is not worthy of those called by God. It isn't even worthy of just a normal adult.”
“Trying to suggest otherwise is a sign of mental diarrhea and you are better than that,…”
“This is more of the arrogant mouth shit that some less mature (or just vainly arrogant) Christians spew instead of actual responses. Just to reiterate: I'm not at all interested in dealing this sort of spiritual and mental diarrhea-of-the-mouth-and-mind,…”
“Would you like to answer the real question or do you prefer your vomitous crud approach?”
” As it is, I'm beginning to wonder if it's just beyond your skill set.“
“Each time that someone suggests "well, I (hoity toity, wonderful ME) rely upon the Holy Spirit, NOT my reason, while YOU merely rely upon your flawed reason..." each time someone suggests that sort of verbal vomit, they are exposing their arrogance and hypocrisy and all-around plain goofiness, not to mention a bit of diabolical divisiveness. Stop it.”
“…you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason. That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians.”
“I'll continue in Christian conversation respectfully IF that is the level on which you wish to correspond. But I must insist no more of this brain rot.”
“"Or is the case that each time you have a yearning, you assume that it's the Holy Spirit leading you and you really rely upon emotions and whims to help make those decisions?"
“As well as the notion that you have the ability to explain to me what you mean.”
“I DO think it is an important question/point to make, although I've begun to doubt that you have the discerning powers to see why.”
Here was one of my responses to these rebukes "in the name of Christ our Lord"
“Please don't take offense, but I have absolutely no idea what role the Holy Spirit plays for you in these kinds of things. Therefore I can only speak for myself in how I approach things. If you think that humble reliance on the Holy Spirit is arrogant, then I can only apologize. I have no other answer to give you, and I won't be bullied or insulted into saying so. If you want respectful Christian conversation, perhaps bullying insulting attacks are a poor way to go about it. You can disagree with my approach to letting the Holy Spirit guide me, but to assault me for honestly and humbly sharing such is neither Christian, adult, or conducive to respectful conversation. Your choice, I'll close with this.”
Finally we got here.
“I'll add that one of my spiritual gifts is discernment, I guess you could stretch the definition of spiritual gift to try to force it to make your point. Having said that, I've answered this multiple times, I will not engage in any further discussion on this topic. I get it, you don't like my answer, so let it go.”
To which the rebuker answered at 9/16/11 9:15 AM
"“I've let it go, Craig.”
Yet at 9/23/11 7:55 PM, we get the following (after several earlier comments demonstrating that this was clearly not "let go"
“My question to you: When you are striving to interpret a passage SEEKING the HS leading, what else do you rely upon besides your reason to sort it out?
And, related, and still unanswered...
What does that look/feel like to you, being "guided by the HS?" How is that different than striving by God's grace to use your reason to sort things out/discern meaning?"
OK folks, you make the call
UPDATE
This gentleman took umbrage at the following.
"It IS my position because it IS the Biblical position."
He responded by saying that the commenter was "Conflating his hunch with God's Word."
Leaving aside the obvious that the commenter was not "Conflating his hunch with God's Word".
I then asked the following question.
"So it is a problem for you when someone identifies the Biblical position and conforms their position to the Bible." In fairness, had I used a question mark instead of a period my question might have been better received. Nonetheless, this is the response I got.
"again, I rebuke this verbal vomit in the Name of Jesus Christ the Lord. Get over yourself and quit uttering this bullshit out of your mouth. It only makes your breath stink."
This from someone who values "Grace, grace, grace..."
Update #2
Still more grace.
"I'm sorry if you truly are so unaware as to not realize what an ass you're sounding like. Embrace grace. Don't ask stupid questions. Are you saying that you truly don't know you're being a graceless ass?"
Does anyone else find "embrace grace" in this context to be at least a tiny bit ironic?
"“I was rebuking you in the name of Christ our Lord because of how wrong that answer appeared to be.”
I'll throw out his words and let folks decide if this is actually a biblical rebuke in the "name of Christ our Lord".
I'll be blunt with you here: it's this sort of verbal vomit that makes folk sickened by your sort of Christian. This repeated arrogant and sanctimonious excrement that you spew from your mouth sometimes is not becoming an adult Christian or adult human.
"Well, I'm relying upon God while YOU are relying on your own pitiful reason," is just bullshit of the most rotten and diabolical sort.
“…, but that sort of arrogance will turn the conversation right off. It is not worthy of those called by God. It isn't even worthy of just a normal adult.”
“Trying to suggest otherwise is a sign of mental diarrhea and you are better than that,…”
“This is more of the arrogant mouth shit that some less mature (or just vainly arrogant) Christians spew instead of actual responses. Just to reiterate: I'm not at all interested in dealing this sort of spiritual and mental diarrhea-of-the-mouth-and-mind,…”
“Would you like to answer the real question or do you prefer your vomitous crud approach?”
” As it is, I'm beginning to wonder if it's just beyond your skill set.“
“Each time that someone suggests "well, I (hoity toity, wonderful ME) rely upon the Holy Spirit, NOT my reason, while YOU merely rely upon your flawed reason..." each time someone suggests that sort of verbal vomit, they are exposing their arrogance and hypocrisy and all-around plain goofiness, not to mention a bit of diabolical divisiveness. Stop it.”
“…you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason. That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians.”
“I'll continue in Christian conversation respectfully IF that is the level on which you wish to correspond. But I must insist no more of this brain rot.”
“"Or is the case that each time you have a yearning, you assume that it's the Holy Spirit leading you and you really rely upon emotions and whims to help make those decisions?"
“As well as the notion that you have the ability to explain to me what you mean.”
“I DO think it is an important question/point to make, although I've begun to doubt that you have the discerning powers to see why.”
Here was one of my responses to these rebukes "in the name of Christ our Lord"
“Please don't take offense, but I have absolutely no idea what role the Holy Spirit plays for you in these kinds of things. Therefore I can only speak for myself in how I approach things. If you think that humble reliance on the Holy Spirit is arrogant, then I can only apologize. I have no other answer to give you, and I won't be bullied or insulted into saying so. If you want respectful Christian conversation, perhaps bullying insulting attacks are a poor way to go about it. You can disagree with my approach to letting the Holy Spirit guide me, but to assault me for honestly and humbly sharing such is neither Christian, adult, or conducive to respectful conversation. Your choice, I'll close with this.”
Finally we got here.
“I'll add that one of my spiritual gifts is discernment, I guess you could stretch the definition of spiritual gift to try to force it to make your point. Having said that, I've answered this multiple times, I will not engage in any further discussion on this topic. I get it, you don't like my answer, so let it go.”
To which the rebuker answered at 9/16/11 9:15 AM
"“I've let it go, Craig.”
Yet at 9/23/11 7:55 PM, we get the following (after several earlier comments demonstrating that this was clearly not "let go"
“My question to you: When you are striving to interpret a passage SEEKING the HS leading, what else do you rely upon besides your reason to sort it out?
And, related, and still unanswered...
What does that look/feel like to you, being "guided by the HS?" How is that different than striving by God's grace to use your reason to sort things out/discern meaning?"
OK folks, you make the call
UPDATE
This gentleman took umbrage at the following.
"It IS my position because it IS the Biblical position."
He responded by saying that the commenter was "Conflating his hunch with God's Word."
Leaving aside the obvious that the commenter was not "Conflating his hunch with God's Word".
I then asked the following question.
"So it is a problem for you when someone identifies the Biblical position and conforms their position to the Bible." In fairness, had I used a question mark instead of a period my question might have been better received. Nonetheless, this is the response I got.
"again, I rebuke this verbal vomit in the Name of Jesus Christ the Lord. Get over yourself and quit uttering this bullshit out of your mouth. It only makes your breath stink."
This from someone who values "Grace, grace, grace..."
Update #2
Still more grace.
"I'm sorry if you truly are so unaware as to not realize what an ass you're sounding like. Embrace grace. Don't ask stupid questions. Are you saying that you truly don't know you're being a graceless ass?"
Does anyone else find "embrace grace" in this context to be at least a tiny bit ironic?
Friday, September 9, 2011
Jonah
At Dan’s place he asked me the following.
“Tell me, Craig, do you really think whether or not Jonah was an actual person who was actually swallowed by a whale impacts on the incredible power of that story?”
My response was to ask him a couple of clarifying questions.
“What "truth(s)" do you take from the story of Jonah?”
Dan has said this.
“We read Jonah, for instance, and find this absolutely fascinating and painful story of a man who tried to run from God, of a God who loved everyone, even the worst people, even people who try to run from God, and of God's gracious, all-embracing mercy. Wow, what a GREAT story!”
My other question was.
“What parts (if any) of the story of Jonah do you consider factual?”
To that end I’ve put together a set of bullet points from the story that appear to be presented as facts. I am hoping that Dan will respond by indicating T or F for each one and I would hope for some reason why he answered that way.
I would also hope for some detail into how he reached his conclusion based on what facts he affirms.
If anyone else wants to chime in that would be great, but this is primarily for Dan
Short version of the story of Jonah.
1. Jonah is a guy from Joppa, the son of Amittai. T/F
2. God spoke to Jonah. T/F
3. God told Jonah to go to Nineveh T/F
4. God told Jonah to preach against Nineveh because it was extremely wicked T/F
5. Jonah went to Tarshish T/F
6. Jonah went on a ship T/F
7. The ship was hit by a storm T/F
8. The storm was caused by God T/F
9. Jonah slept through the storm T/F
10. The captain/crew prayed to their gods for safety T/F
11. The captain woke Jonah up and told him to pray too T/F
12. Jonah tells them he is running from the God who created the land and sea T/F
13. Jonah says throw me over the side T/F
14. The storm stops T/F
15. The Lord provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah T/F
16. Jonah prayed/submitted to Gods direction and the fish vomited him onto dry land T/F
17. Jonah walked through Nineveh for 3 days preaching that the Lord will destroy the city if they don’t repent T/F
18. The city repents T/F
19. Jonah got mad because God didn’t destroy Nineveh T/F
20. God sent a plant for shade T/F
21. The plant grew and died supernaturally quickly T/F
Matt 12:38-41
38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.
Does Jesus treat the story of Noah as a non-factual myth or epic?
Matt. 16:4
4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.
Does Jesus treat the story of Noah as a non-factual myth?
Questions from my response at your blog.
1. So what meaning do you pour into the story of Passover?
2. We can see how the Jewish people have treated Passover for thousands of years, we can see how Jesus/the early Church treated Passover. So how do you treat Passover?
3. What "truth(s)" do you take from the story of Jonah?
4. So while you have obviously come up with a hunch or series of hunches that satisfy your sense of logic and Reason, there is no reason for anyone else to accept your hunches on the matter. Does that not seem problematic to you?
“Tell me, Craig, do you really think whether or not Jonah was an actual person who was actually swallowed by a whale impacts on the incredible power of that story?”
My response was to ask him a couple of clarifying questions.
“What "truth(s)" do you take from the story of Jonah?”
Dan has said this.
“We read Jonah, for instance, and find this absolutely fascinating and painful story of a man who tried to run from God, of a God who loved everyone, even the worst people, even people who try to run from God, and of God's gracious, all-embracing mercy. Wow, what a GREAT story!”
My other question was.
“What parts (if any) of the story of Jonah do you consider factual?”
To that end I’ve put together a set of bullet points from the story that appear to be presented as facts. I am hoping that Dan will respond by indicating T or F for each one and I would hope for some reason why he answered that way.
I would also hope for some detail into how he reached his conclusion based on what facts he affirms.
If anyone else wants to chime in that would be great, but this is primarily for Dan
Short version of the story of Jonah.
1. Jonah is a guy from Joppa, the son of Amittai. T/F
2. God spoke to Jonah. T/F
3. God told Jonah to go to Nineveh T/F
4. God told Jonah to preach against Nineveh because it was extremely wicked T/F
5. Jonah went to Tarshish T/F
6. Jonah went on a ship T/F
7. The ship was hit by a storm T/F
8. The storm was caused by God T/F
9. Jonah slept through the storm T/F
10. The captain/crew prayed to their gods for safety T/F
11. The captain woke Jonah up and told him to pray too T/F
12. Jonah tells them he is running from the God who created the land and sea T/F
13. Jonah says throw me over the side T/F
14. The storm stops T/F
15. The Lord provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah T/F
16. Jonah prayed/submitted to Gods direction and the fish vomited him onto dry land T/F
17. Jonah walked through Nineveh for 3 days preaching that the Lord will destroy the city if they don’t repent T/F
18. The city repents T/F
19. Jonah got mad because God didn’t destroy Nineveh T/F
20. God sent a plant for shade T/F
21. The plant grew and died supernaturally quickly T/F
Matt 12:38-41
38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.
Does Jesus treat the story of Noah as a non-factual myth or epic?
Matt. 16:4
4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.
Does Jesus treat the story of Noah as a non-factual myth?
Questions from my response at your blog.
1. So what meaning do you pour into the story of Passover?
2. We can see how the Jewish people have treated Passover for thousands of years, we can see how Jesus/the early Church treated Passover. So how do you treat Passover?
3. What "truth(s)" do you take from the story of Jonah?
4. So while you have obviously come up with a hunch or series of hunches that satisfy your sense of logic and Reason, there is no reason for anyone else to accept your hunches on the matter. Does that not seem problematic to you?
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Some thoughts from Francis Chan #3
Continuing on, Chan says on page 136:
“My thoughts are not your thoughts.” It means we think differently! He hasn’t asked us to figure out why He does the things He does. We can’t. We are not capable. Our thinking is inferior to His. Let’s not think that spending a bit of time meditating on the mysteries of the universe places us on a level that allows us to call God into question. Our God is not a person who is slightly more intelligent: His thoughts are infinitely higher than ours. Knowing that the gap is so large, shouldn’t we put our energy toward submitting rather than analyzing? It is natural-no, it is expected that there will be times when you won’t figure Him out.”
From p. 135.
“the fact is Scripture is filled with divine actions that don’t fit our human standards of logic or morality. But they don’t need to, because we are the clay and He is the potter. We need to stop trying to domesticate God or confine Him to tidy categories and compartments that reflect our human sentiments rather than His inexplicable ways.”
From p. 136 again.
“It’s incredibly arrogant to pick and choose which incomprehensible truths we embrace. No one wants to ditch Gods plan of redemption, even though it doesn’t make sense to us. Neither should we erase God’s revealed plan of punishment because it doesn’t sit well with us. As soon as we do this, we are putting God’s actions in submission tour own reasoning, which is a ridiculous thing for clay to do.”
From p. 162, another prayer.
Forgive me , Lord, for wanting to erase all the things in scripture that don’t sit well with me. Forgive me for trying to hide some of your actions to make You more palatable to the world. Forgive me for trying to make you fit my standards of justice and goodness and love. You are God; You are good; I don’t always understand You, but I love You. Thank you for who You are.
Finally (for now) this from p. 162.
“First, God is love, but He also defines what love is. We don’t have the license to define love according to our own standards and sensibilities.”
I’ll add more as I have time, but mostly go read the whole book.
“My thoughts are not your thoughts.” It means we think differently! He hasn’t asked us to figure out why He does the things He does. We can’t. We are not capable. Our thinking is inferior to His. Let’s not think that spending a bit of time meditating on the mysteries of the universe places us on a level that allows us to call God into question. Our God is not a person who is slightly more intelligent: His thoughts are infinitely higher than ours. Knowing that the gap is so large, shouldn’t we put our energy toward submitting rather than analyzing? It is natural-no, it is expected that there will be times when you won’t figure Him out.”
From p. 135.
“the fact is Scripture is filled with divine actions that don’t fit our human standards of logic or morality. But they don’t need to, because we are the clay and He is the potter. We need to stop trying to domesticate God or confine Him to tidy categories and compartments that reflect our human sentiments rather than His inexplicable ways.”
From p. 136 again.
“It’s incredibly arrogant to pick and choose which incomprehensible truths we embrace. No one wants to ditch Gods plan of redemption, even though it doesn’t make sense to us. Neither should we erase God’s revealed plan of punishment because it doesn’t sit well with us. As soon as we do this, we are putting God’s actions in submission tour own reasoning, which is a ridiculous thing for clay to do.”
From p. 162, another prayer.
Forgive me , Lord, for wanting to erase all the things in scripture that don’t sit well with me. Forgive me for trying to hide some of your actions to make You more palatable to the world. Forgive me for trying to make you fit my standards of justice and goodness and love. You are God; You are good; I don’t always understand You, but I love You. Thank you for who You are.
Finally (for now) this from p. 162.
“First, God is love, but He also defines what love is. We don’t have the license to define love according to our own standards and sensibilities.”
I’ll add more as I have time, but mostly go read the whole book.
Some thoughts from Francis Chan #2
Since I didn’t decide to write these posts until I was pretty far into the book, I’m going to start with what I highlighted on the first read through and then go back and pick up the earlier chapters later. One reason why I am doing this is the later chapters deal with passages beyond the scope of hell and these are what so often generate controversy.
P. 130 Chan comments on Romans 9
“What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory? Rom. 9-22-23
Chan Writes.
“What if? What if God decided to do this? What if God, as the sovereign creator of the universe, decided to create “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”? And what if He did so in order to “show His wrath” and “make known His power”? And what if it’s His way of showing those He saves just how great His glory and mercy is? What would you do if He chose to do this? Refuse to believe in Him? Refuse to be a “vessel of mercy’? Does that make any sense? Would you refuse to follow Him? Really? Is that wise?
“What if is a probing question that forces us to face our inflated view of our own logic? It’s another way of asking just how high is my view of God.”
“In other words, God may want to display His wrath and power by punishing sinners, or He may have some other purpose in mind. Either way, we must come to a place where we can let God be God. We need to surrender our perceived right to determine what is just and humbly recognize that God alone gets to decide how He is going to deal with people.”
P. 130 Chan comments on Romans 9
“What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory? Rom. 9-22-23
Chan Writes.
“What if? What if God decided to do this? What if God, as the sovereign creator of the universe, decided to create “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”? And what if He did so in order to “show His wrath” and “make known His power”? And what if it’s His way of showing those He saves just how great His glory and mercy is? What would you do if He chose to do this? Refuse to believe in Him? Refuse to be a “vessel of mercy’? Does that make any sense? Would you refuse to follow Him? Really? Is that wise?
“What if is a probing question that forces us to face our inflated view of our own logic? It’s another way of asking just how high is my view of God.”
“In other words, God may want to display His wrath and power by punishing sinners, or He may have some other purpose in mind. Either way, we must come to a place where we can let God be God. We need to surrender our perceived right to determine what is just and humbly recognize that God alone gets to decide how He is going to deal with people.”
Some Thoughts from Francis Chan #1
It’s been a while since I’ve written here, mainly because I just haven’t been moved enough to take the time from other things. Now I’ve got some time and I thought I’d throw out some quotes from a great book.
Erasing Hell was inspired by the flap over the Love Wins by Rob Bell. According to Chan the book inspired him to do his own research about what the Bible taught about hell, and write about it. I think that there is much to be learned from this book and that it goes beyond the doctrine of hell. Ultimately as context is important I am offering some quotes in the hope that you will pick up the book and see things in context.
He starts by saying this in the preface.
“However, no matter how many human filters we solicited to purify the words of this book, it’s still fallible. Because of this we have included many direct quotes from Scripture. Read the Scriptures we’ve quoted as truth directly from the mouth of God. Pause and meditate deeply on these verses whenever they arise. Those words are ultimately what God wants you to cherish and embrace.
From the introduction.
“So I decided to write a book about hell. And honestly-I’m scared to death; I’m scared because there is so much at stake. Think about it. If I say there is no hell and it turns out that there is a hell, I may lead people into the very place I convinced them did not exist! If I say there is a hell and I’m wrong, I may persuade people to frantically spend their lives warning loved ones about a terrifying place that isn’t real. When it comes to hell we can’t afford to be wrong.” . “Let’s be eager to leave what is familiar for what is true. Nothing outside of God and His truth should be sacred to us.”
“But this book is actually much more than a book on hell. It’s a book about embracing a God who isn’t always easy to understand and whose ways are far beyond us; a God whose thoughts are much higher than our thoughts: a God who, as the sovereign creator and sustainer of all things, has every right to do , as the psalmist says, “whatever he pleases” Ps115:3.”
“God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases. If I’ve learned one thing from studying hell, it’s the last line. And whether or not you end up agreeing with everything I’ve said about hell, you must agree with Ps. 115:3. Because at the end of the day our feelings and wants and heartaches and desires are not ultimate-only God is ultimate. God tells us plainly that His ways are infinitely higher than ours (Isa. 55:9). Expect then, that scripture will say things that don’t agree with your natural way of thinking.”
He closes the introduction with a prayer that we should all spend more time praying.
“God, I want to know what is true. I know I have cravings that sway and distort my ability to reason. You promise that Your Holy Spirit will guide me into all truth. I pray that He will now. I don’t want to be wrong. I don’t want to be deceived by others or myself. You alone possess all truth, and I want to be on Your side. Give me eyes to see and ears to hear. Give me the courage to live and speak what is right no matter what the cost. I don’t want to believe anything about you that is not true. Amen.
Erasing Hell was inspired by the flap over the Love Wins by Rob Bell. According to Chan the book inspired him to do his own research about what the Bible taught about hell, and write about it. I think that there is much to be learned from this book and that it goes beyond the doctrine of hell. Ultimately as context is important I am offering some quotes in the hope that you will pick up the book and see things in context.
He starts by saying this in the preface.
“However, no matter how many human filters we solicited to purify the words of this book, it’s still fallible. Because of this we have included many direct quotes from Scripture. Read the Scriptures we’ve quoted as truth directly from the mouth of God. Pause and meditate deeply on these verses whenever they arise. Those words are ultimately what God wants you to cherish and embrace.
From the introduction.
“So I decided to write a book about hell. And honestly-I’m scared to death; I’m scared because there is so much at stake. Think about it. If I say there is no hell and it turns out that there is a hell, I may lead people into the very place I convinced them did not exist! If I say there is a hell and I’m wrong, I may persuade people to frantically spend their lives warning loved ones about a terrifying place that isn’t real. When it comes to hell we can’t afford to be wrong.” . “Let’s be eager to leave what is familiar for what is true. Nothing outside of God and His truth should be sacred to us.”
“But this book is actually much more than a book on hell. It’s a book about embracing a God who isn’t always easy to understand and whose ways are far beyond us; a God whose thoughts are much higher than our thoughts: a God who, as the sovereign creator and sustainer of all things, has every right to do , as the psalmist says, “whatever he pleases” Ps115:3.”
“God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases. If I’ve learned one thing from studying hell, it’s the last line. And whether or not you end up agreeing with everything I’ve said about hell, you must agree with Ps. 115:3. Because at the end of the day our feelings and wants and heartaches and desires are not ultimate-only God is ultimate. God tells us plainly that His ways are infinitely higher than ours (Isa. 55:9). Expect then, that scripture will say things that don’t agree with your natural way of thinking.”
He closes the introduction with a prayer that we should all spend more time praying.
“God, I want to know what is true. I know I have cravings that sway and distort my ability to reason. You promise that Your Holy Spirit will guide me into all truth. I pray that He will now. I don’t want to be wrong. I don’t want to be deceived by others or myself. You alone possess all truth, and I want to be on Your side. Give me eyes to see and ears to hear. Give me the courage to live and speak what is right no matter what the cost. I don’t want to believe anything about you that is not true. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)