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?
Saturday, September 24, 2011
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)