Wednesday, March 28, 2007
God's Glory (Part two)
You know, it seems funny writting part two of a series where part one (the intro) was written over 6 months ago. (To find it check the September 2006 archive.) But the thought struck me in a theological conversation I had with Mr. Kelfer over a Guinness last night, so I thought I would continue. (My friend Tom just found five dollars. No, really, he did, I just saw him pick it up off of the floor.) And my engineering team is here. I'll finish this later.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
VQ
Ok, so dudes, VQ is only 5 days away. yeah. I don't know what to do with myself. Year #3 of early crew is coming, but I don't know if we will have a new guy to abuse like we did Kelfer last year and Harlen the year before that. Oh well, it's still super-cool.
I don't really have any expectations yet. Not cool. Ok, gotta work on that. My mind tells me that I'm going to be blown away by the power of the Spirit, but I don't believe it in my heart yet. Phew. Ok. God is awesome, and He has never failed to meet you powerfully at VQ.
I don't really have any expectations yet. Not cool. Ok, gotta work on that. My mind tells me that I'm going to be blown away by the power of the Spirit, but I don't believe it in my heart yet. Phew. Ok. God is awesome, and He has never failed to meet you powerfully at VQ.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Finding the Will of God by Bruce Waltke 1
Ok, so I was recommened to read this book, and bought it from the CCK book store last Sunday. I flew through the book. It wasn't a very difficult read. But, for the first time ever really, I have serious reservations about a book carried in CCK's book store. (I have disagreed at points with almost every book I have read, but this one was a bit more serious.)
Also, if anyone here has read this book and wants to offer criticism of me, please do.
Ok, the book had two main goals. First, to show that finding the will of God, as if you are searching for some treasure hidden in the depths of the mind of God is not an action the church so do today, and secondly he attempted to set up the way that God actually does guide us today.
The action that Walkte is arguing against is a Christian trying to find God's wil for a situation. An example of this today would be someone praying for a sign or some indication for God as to whom we should marry, or what job offer we should accept. Waltke believes that this action of seeking God's will in this way is more of a pagan notion than a Christian one.
The main (only) point that he has for why the church should not seek God's will like this is that there are no commands or examples of this after Pentecost in the NT. However, there were many examples of seeking God's will in scripture before Pentecost.
My first gripe with the book is that it assumes that the lack of examples of seeking God's will after Pentecost means that this isn't supposed to happen at all now. And now acts (like casting lots) which we have biblical examples (Acts 1) and Biblical statements concerning its use (Proverbs 16:33) are now pagan notions, and as such are not fit for the church. The only evidence he has for this transition is silence. I don't think that this suffices.
More on this will come later....
Also, if anyone here has read this book and wants to offer criticism of me, please do.
Ok, the book had two main goals. First, to show that finding the will of God, as if you are searching for some treasure hidden in the depths of the mind of God is not an action the church so do today, and secondly he attempted to set up the way that God actually does guide us today.
The action that Walkte is arguing against is a Christian trying to find God's wil for a situation. An example of this today would be someone praying for a sign or some indication for God as to whom we should marry, or what job offer we should accept. Waltke believes that this action of seeking God's will in this way is more of a pagan notion than a Christian one.
The main (only) point that he has for why the church should not seek God's will like this is that there are no commands or examples of this after Pentecost in the NT. However, there were many examples of seeking God's will in scripture before Pentecost.
My first gripe with the book is that it assumes that the lack of examples of seeking God's will after Pentecost means that this isn't supposed to happen at all now. And now acts (like casting lots) which we have biblical examples (Acts 1) and Biblical statements concerning its use (Proverbs 16:33) are now pagan notions, and as such are not fit for the church. The only evidence he has for this transition is silence. I don't think that this suffices.
More on this will come later....
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Invite a married to dinner
I ran across a link to Carolyn McCulley's blog where she encourages singles to exercise hospitality towards their married friends. You can read her post by following this link.
http://solofemininity.blogs.com/posts/2005/06/invited_a_marri.html
But one thing I do want to emphasize is that this goes for college kids as well. Even college guys. Yes that's right, a guy (or guys) who is in college is capable of inviting and hosting for married friends. They also don't have to be around your age. Plop and I had Jim and Anna Shastid over for dinner a while back, and it was great. So what if they are in a completely different phase of life than we are? Plop cooked up some duck with some sort of corn beef hash or something like that (it was quite good) and we had a good time. We ended up playing a little rook, with Anna and I totally destroying Jim and Mr. Poulopoulos. It was wonderful. Yes, that's right, college guys had older married guests over for dinner and cooked for them and nobody died. We enjoyed doing it so much that we did it again inviting John and Janet Japp over, eating a lamb roast that I cooked up. Again, nobody died, and we had great fellowship.
Why don't college men exercise hospitality more often? Why did I wait until the second semester of my senior year to have a married dinner guest who I wasn't related to? After having done it a couple of times, I wonder what took me so long to realize that it's really fun and quite cool. To the single guy: you can cook. Find a reciepe and do what it says. All cooking is, is following instructions. Well, I think that's all. Two posts in one day after a month of silence. Weird huh? Can you tell that there was nothing for me to do at work?
http://solofemininity.blogs.com/posts/2005/06/invited_a_marri.html
But one thing I do want to emphasize is that this goes for college kids as well. Even college guys. Yes that's right, a guy (or guys) who is in college is capable of inviting and hosting for married friends. They also don't have to be around your age. Plop and I had Jim and Anna Shastid over for dinner a while back, and it was great. So what if they are in a completely different phase of life than we are? Plop cooked up some duck with some sort of corn beef hash or something like that (it was quite good) and we had a good time. We ended up playing a little rook, with Anna and I totally destroying Jim and Mr. Poulopoulos. It was wonderful. Yes, that's right, college guys had older married guests over for dinner and cooked for them and nobody died. We enjoyed doing it so much that we did it again inviting John and Janet Japp over, eating a lamb roast that I cooked up. Again, nobody died, and we had great fellowship.
Why don't college men exercise hospitality more often? Why did I wait until the second semester of my senior year to have a married dinner guest who I wasn't related to? After having done it a couple of times, I wonder what took me so long to realize that it's really fun and quite cool. To the single guy: you can cook. Find a reciepe and do what it says. All cooking is, is following instructions. Well, I think that's all. Two posts in one day after a month of silence. Weird huh? Can you tell that there was nothing for me to do at work?
Guilty without the law? "homegrown" theology part two
In case you guys were wondering where part one of this post is, I have to confess that it doesn't exist. My post entitled Heresy? Is what I consider to be part one. In that post I gave my reconciliation of sovereignty and free will, a subject I may revisit to expand soon. But this morning I engaged in my second piece of what I consider "homegrown" theology, that is, that I have developed an idea independent of reading other men to establish a significant theological concept. Of note, this is probably wrong, and likely heretical, as is my reconcilation of sovereignty and responsibility. However, I'm going to keep theologicizing. (A homegrown word? I think so!)
A few weeks ago I read a verse that sent me into a theological tizzy. This is a very scary, albeit not too rare occurance. Well here is what got my started. (All verses are NKJV.)
John 9:41 "41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains."
And I thought, what in the world does it mean to have no sin. I connected this (or actually it may have been Dash that connected it, I don't remember) to Romans 5:13-14
"13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."
These verses illustrate the same concept, that those who do not have access to the law (spiritual blindness) do not have sin imputed to them.
But Romans 3 states clearly that all men are sinners.
So what am I to do?
That night, at VFC two weeks ago, talking to Plew, the best explanation we could come up with is that John 9:41 must be constrained to the context of verse 39, which says:
"39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”
So the talk of the blind in verse 41 is refferring not to people without sin but that could be without sin, because of why Christ had come. This did not explain Romans 5, and it was suggested that perhaps Paul is quoting an opposing argument. I wasn't too sure about this part, but the interpretation of John 9 seemed good.
Ok, moving forward. This morning I was in John 15 in my Qtime and I hit verses 22-24.
22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father.
This caused me to wonder. The explanation for the same statement in John 9 doesn't seem to hold here. They would have had no sin had Jesus not come and taught them. I then thought of a specific passage in Romans 3, namely verses 19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Notice, the knowledge of sin is from the law, and the law says things only to those who are under the law. However, all the world is guilty. What makes them guilty?
This issue is talked about in two other places in Romans. First Romans 2:12-13
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified
And again Romans 7:7-12 (only partially quoted here)
8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
Ok, so I have quoted a whole bunch of scripture. Here are two things we can say.
1. Sin is not imputed, or counted outside of the law. This is what those two passages in John say, this is Romans 5, and it is clear in Romans 2, 3 & 7 that sin is of a different nature without the law.
2. Those who don't have the law still die. Romans 5 makes this clear. It is also insinuated in the Romans 2 &3 passages.
3. Obedience to the law is required for salvation. Romans 2 says this, Romans 3 does, it is also elsewhere in scripture.
So now we have a question, what does it mean not to have sin imputed? They still die.
This prompts another question, "Is all condemnation equal?" This answer may be a surprise, but I believe the biblical answer is no. This is Luke 10:11-12
11 ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’ 12 But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.
If it can be more tolerable there must be a difference in condemnation. There are other passages that point to this, I even quoted some this morning, but I honestly can't remember. But, we are aware that God issues rewards in heaven. Should we then assume that hell is a flat scale?
Also, I am led to another conclusion. Righteousness must not consist merely in an abscense of sin, or these we are discussing would be saved. Rather it must be a positive odebience to the law. Perfectly obeying its commandments or following the manner described in Romans 2:15 for those not under the law. Both are impossible, and that is why we need the positive righteousness of Christ in addition to a mere cleansing of our sin.
I hope that makes sense. The other possible explanation I see for these verses is that they are presenting a hypothetical situation that is never true. I don't think that this is likely because it is mentioned too much. People who are not under the law or not under teaching having no guilt would not be continually referenced if they did not exist.
So, that's my take on it. Am I a heretic? This is homegrown theology, please judge this for yourselves. I am no authority, and am wrong quite often.
-Paul
A few weeks ago I read a verse that sent me into a theological tizzy. This is a very scary, albeit not too rare occurance. Well here is what got my started. (All verses are NKJV.)
John 9:41 "41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains."
And I thought, what in the world does it mean to have no sin. I connected this (or actually it may have been Dash that connected it, I don't remember) to Romans 5:13-14
"13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."
These verses illustrate the same concept, that those who do not have access to the law (spiritual blindness) do not have sin imputed to them.
But Romans 3 states clearly that all men are sinners.
So what am I to do?
That night, at VFC two weeks ago, talking to Plew, the best explanation we could come up with is that John 9:41 must be constrained to the context of verse 39, which says:
"39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”
So the talk of the blind in verse 41 is refferring not to people without sin but that could be without sin, because of why Christ had come. This did not explain Romans 5, and it was suggested that perhaps Paul is quoting an opposing argument. I wasn't too sure about this part, but the interpretation of John 9 seemed good.
Ok, moving forward. This morning I was in John 15 in my Qtime and I hit verses 22-24.
22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father.
This caused me to wonder. The explanation for the same statement in John 9 doesn't seem to hold here. They would have had no sin had Jesus not come and taught them. I then thought of a specific passage in Romans 3, namely verses 19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Notice, the knowledge of sin is from the law, and the law says things only to those who are under the law. However, all the world is guilty. What makes them guilty?
This issue is talked about in two other places in Romans. First Romans 2:12-13
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified
And again Romans 7:7-12 (only partially quoted here)
8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
Ok, so I have quoted a whole bunch of scripture. Here are two things we can say.
1. Sin is not imputed, or counted outside of the law. This is what those two passages in John say, this is Romans 5, and it is clear in Romans 2, 3 & 7 that sin is of a different nature without the law.
2. Those who don't have the law still die. Romans 5 makes this clear. It is also insinuated in the Romans 2 &3 passages.
3. Obedience to the law is required for salvation. Romans 2 says this, Romans 3 does, it is also elsewhere in scripture.
So now we have a question, what does it mean not to have sin imputed? They still die.
This prompts another question, "Is all condemnation equal?" This answer may be a surprise, but I believe the biblical answer is no. This is Luke 10:11-12
11 ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’ 12 But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.
If it can be more tolerable there must be a difference in condemnation. There are other passages that point to this, I even quoted some this morning, but I honestly can't remember. But, we are aware that God issues rewards in heaven. Should we then assume that hell is a flat scale?
Also, I am led to another conclusion. Righteousness must not consist merely in an abscense of sin, or these we are discussing would be saved. Rather it must be a positive odebience to the law. Perfectly obeying its commandments or following the manner described in Romans 2:15 for those not under the law. Both are impossible, and that is why we need the positive righteousness of Christ in addition to a mere cleansing of our sin.
I hope that makes sense. The other possible explanation I see for these verses is that they are presenting a hypothetical situation that is never true. I don't think that this is likely because it is mentioned too much. People who are not under the law or not under teaching having no guilt would not be continually referenced if they did not exist.
So, that's my take on it. Am I a heretic? This is homegrown theology, please judge this for yourselves. I am no authority, and am wrong quite often.
-Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)